As some of you may have figured out, I am interested in health issues, especially natural health. But, something has been bugging me lately and maybe it is just semantics. I see billboards, hear ads on radio and watch them on tv about "prevention" or "preventative health care." Normally, I would say, "Damn right!" But, these ads are for things like mamograms, blood tests, heart disease checkups, prostate exams, etc. Maybe it is just me, but that is not prevention. That falls under the category of early detection, but not prevention. I even heard one today that said, "Prevent loss of vision with regular check-ups." Of course, this was brought to us by the Opthamalogical Association of America. Preventing loss of vision? I guess you can correct it with glasses or laser surgery if you can afford it, but you can't prevent its loss. I can almost handle "prevent tooth decay" by seeing a dentist to get your teeth cleaned, although, most of us can do that by not eating as much sugar or drinking as much caffeine. I just don't see how taking a stress test on your heart can prevent heart disease or how a prostate exam can prevent cancer. It can't. You can learn about it sooner and hopefully do something about it, but you can't stop it from happening if your only way of stopping it is by having regular check-ups. To me, this is irresponsible. If you want to prevent these illnesses, you should take your health seriously and eat well, exercise and learn to have a healthy life overall (relax, have fun, etc.). I certainly would never advocate not getting checked if you feel it is necessary, but I wonder how many people have thought, "Hell, I don't need to exercise. I'll just get my yearly heart disease prevention check up and that outta do it." ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I understand what your saying Jeff, but in most cases, if you find an ailment in its earlier stages, you can prevent it from getting as bad as it could be. But regular checkups should only be of part prevention. ------------------ I am so exasperated that I could expectorate. [This message has been edited by CriscoKidd (edited September 19, 2000).]
There are more hypocondriacs(sp?) than ever because of this crap. Health care is turning into a big buisness, and the sad part is, the people that need it the most aren't getting it. ------------------ In order to be a success in life, you need 2 things: 1. Don't tell everything you know.
Jeff, I agree. You must agree with me then, that diseases like AIDS, who are 99% totally dependent on lifestyle, should receive ZERO federal funding. I mean, if you don't want to wear a rubber and engage in promiscuous sex, or like to shoot drugs into your veins with dirty needles, why should the taxpayers foot the bill? Those activities don't fall under my definition of "a healthy life" either. Glad to see Jeff and I finally agree!
TheFreak: Excuse my ignorance, but how is AIDS 99% attributable to 'lifestyle'. Jeff, I totally have missed your point. Symantics aside, there is no valid argument to make against a checkup/exam. I doubt that anyone thinks "I'm getting a checkup, so I don't have to take care of myself". When I was a child, my dentist was mean, flat out evil. I flossed (alot better then than now) merely to not feel his wrath. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Achebe, TheFreak explained what he meant by that in the very next sentence. I don't know if I agree with his number (99%), but I agree with his point.... sorta. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
Achebe: I never said I didn't think check ups aren't a good idea, just that they aren't "prevention" but rather "detection." Freak: Nice try. Many types of cancer and most heart and lung diseases are directly attributable to lifestyle - eating habits, smoking, etc. There are many diseases that are perfectly preventable that we treat every day. Just because you have some disjointed belief about AIDS doesn't make it humane to ignore the suffering of your fellow citizens. I believe in universal healthcare. As a person who believes in compassion first and money second, I believe that the refusal to treat or research a disease that kills our fellow humans is simply inhumane. If someone tried to commit suicide by cutting their wrists, I wouldn't let them bleed to death. If someone was drowning because they couldn't swim, I wouldn't let them die. If someone was in a car accident because they were driving too fast, I wouldn't just leave the scene and say, "They deserve what they get." That attitude is as serious a disease as any illness we face. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Achebe -- the other one percent would be the Arthur Ashe-type cases. Jeff, I never said we shouldn't treat people with AIDS, just that research on it and other purely lifestyle-controlled diseases should be last in line for federal funds. This doesn't mean ignoring people with the disease, just researching diseases that we have no control over first. I don't see that it has anything to do with universal health-care. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure diseases like AIDS get a lot more money for research from private sources than they do from the government anyway, so the funds will more than likely still be there. This isn't really something I lose sleep over, just something that came to mind when you brought up the topic of prevention.
Freak: The problem with that theory is that heart disease (for example) is more heavily researched than any other illness and yet researchers have said that 50% of deaths from a disease that is the number 1 killer of Americans can be prevented through lifestyle changes - better eating habits, exercise and, most importantly, giving up smoking. So, while you may have an issue with research for certain "lifestyle-controlled" diseases, you'd have to stop research on many, MANY fronts, not just AIDS. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff, what can I say...I just see a difference between a disease that is possiby 50% lifestyle-controlled and one that is close to 100%. I also see a difference between the 'vices' of poor eating habits, refusal to exercise, and smoking, and those of shooting drugs into your veins with dirty needles and having irresponsible sex (and I'm not saying that heart disease being the most researched disease is necessarily a good thing, either). The number of people who contracted a disease through no fault of their own would be the deciding factor for me in how much money should go towards finding a cure for it. That's pretty much the bottom line. I don't think the number is as high for AIDS compared to other diseases/conditions that probably receive less funding. Again, I still think everyone should be treated though.
DREAMer, I understood that theFreak had listed possible reasons for AIDS, I merely disagreed w/ that count. People that have a substance abuse, well... I'm not so sure what to do with those people. I'd rather they not have to suffer, but I also wish that everyone put on their seatbelts; as TheFreak is alluding, people have to recognize the outcome of their actions. Our parents (if you're my mom's age, sorry) had the sexual revolution and created a world of fear. Whatever introduced the AIDS virus in humanity... beit a starving human eating an infected Chimpanzee, or whatever... it was brought across in a benign manner. Humanity does a couple of things well: we sleep, we eat, we f@$$, and we s@#$. That is the meaning of life. I'm not so sure that we should all die just because we're living our lives like good little humans. Hell, many children are infected merely by being born to an infected mother. It's just living that is killing many people. Nowadays we actually know to behave differently. Hell, who here can say that they didn't know differently when they had pre-marital sex? Should a 16 year old die merely because they're 16? I don't think so. Besides, this is a huge virus. Short of a few Nigerians that may have an antivirus, this disease could wipeout most of the earth's population. I'd like to control it now, when I can count on my waiter or bread baker or banker or stewardess or whomever (I'm not debating pathigens right now, thank you) not killing me. Regardless, I'll never be able to look in the eyes of a friend and concede they die because of some standard. That's just me. ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
Freak: I get what you are saying but it doesn't make much sense to not research but just to treat. How exactly do you accomplish that? If you have a disease that effects millions, you have no choice but to research it. Additionally, AIDS may be lifstyle-based NOW, but we have no idea what the implications of an AIDS virus that mutates itself into something that can be transmitted in other ways. It is unwise to ignore the potential health risks associated with allowing it to go unchecked. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Achebe and Jeff -- good points, and let me reiterate that I'm not saying not to fund the disease. I'm pretty sure the private funding for AIDS is through the roof. Just prioritize the federal funding to where diseases that are more out of our control receive the most is the main thing I was trying to say. If there is a significant risk of the disease someday being able to be passed on in other ways, like you say, then that of course is another variable that I have not considered.
