NRO: Keep Medicine Medical

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/keep-medicine-medical/

The piece begins, “The limited resources of medicine are increasingly being diverted to alter healthy bodies to boost one’s inner satisfaction, or for non-medical purposes such as cosmetic (as opposed to reconstructive) purposes.”

My first reaction is to recoil: Obviously, the scarce resources of medicine should be used to help the sick before they are used to serve the questionable interests of the well. But what seems obvious at first is not really so.

Should scarcity motivate our thinking in such matters? For example, does a woman in Idaho who gets a facelift cause a child in Viet Nam to forego treatment for coronavirus? It is easy to imagine how things might work out that way, but we can just as easily imagine unrelated processes that obscure or override any practical connection between such distant events. The best we can say for certain is: Maybe so, maybe not.

To establish moral certainty we might propose a rule: Medical resources shall only be used to heal the sick. But then, too, problems arise. How would such a rule be enforced? Who would enforce it? When disputes over enforcement arise, how would they be resolved?

Finally, experience teaches us there will always be doctors who specialize in diseases of the rich. How should we suppress the tendency; is it even possible to suppress it?

In light of these considerations I’m at a loss to say what the best response to the use of medical resources for non-medical purposes might be.

But more important than all of that, the puzzle at hand represents a type of problem that is increasingly common in our age: a problem for which there is simply is not enough information to make understanding possible. We stumble upon problems of this type every day.

5 thoughts on “NRO: Keep Medicine Medical

  1. Doctors are not “medical resources” they are people who are free to make their way in the marketplace like anyone else.

    Aside form which, the doctors who travel the world providing reconstructive surgery in third world countries can afford to do so because of the living they make doing boob jobs on trophy wives.

    Like

    1. RE: “Doctors are not ‘medical resources’ they are people who are free to make their way in the marketplace like anyone else.”

      Agreed. I considered the conclusion that markets are the best way to allocate medical goods and services, but that led me to realize that the NRO story doesn’t tell us enough to conclude that markets aren’t working as they should.

      Like

  2. I know I am going to get blasted by those who disagree, but…

    The point made by the author concerning “transable people” was telling. The idea of gender reassignment goes against his ideal that medical procedures should only serve true medical issues. It appears he does not feel that people who identify as other than the gender on their birth certificates should not be entitled for reassignment, even if the clinical diagnosis for the individual recommends it. …”it opens the door to other harming interventions, such as intentionally disabling “transable” people because of their inner obsessions.”

    He apparently doesn’t have an inkling on mental health situations, nor the best way to treat them.

    Like

  3. The commentary is ridiculous. The handful of celebs and rich folks getting cosmetic surgery around the world are not keeping healthcare out of reach for the masses and particularly the poor.

    Money, politics and contempt are doing a fine job on their own.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s