h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

SoDR

>>ALL access to medical treatment should primarily be based on medical need, shouldn't it? That seems only moral.

Possibly. But I think we need to acknowledge two grey areas in that statement.

First of all,,,there is the word 'Need'. If you had a medical condition that prevented you from...seeing...or walking...or managing your blood sugar levels...or renaming dry without the need for incontinence pads...or going kite surfing...etc...then what is the level of your need? And what, therefore your entitlement?

Secondly...you gave used a word that is, philosophically speaking, very:'Should'. This word denotes personal opinions on what are desirable outcomes. Should we do X or Y? I'm afraid we cannot easily answer Should questions by wholly logical means. We can objectively assess whether we're contributing towards our *desired* outcome - but we can't work out if its's the *right* outcome.*

Where does that take us? Hand on heart, I don't think we can make authoritative moral statements in this area. Medical ethics ain't like that.









* Basically, Goedel's incompleteness theorem, innit?

Have we thought...Rights are not passed down. They are properties of people, not legal systems. They are asserted bottom up. It is a victory what they are encoded in constitutions and statutes. But even when they are nit adhered to...they exist. Chinese dissidents have rights.


End with a song...


Relevant, actually. On the place of the various types of human discourse within democracy.

From the homicidal bitchin' that goes down in every Kitchen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyPv8mmvIfM

(Leonard Cohen 'Democracy')