Re: painkiller identity..
- From: "Paul T. Holland" <pholland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:03:02 GMT
we see this simplistic approach every so often - they frame an issue in bullets
as black and white - hoping that no one will examine what is posited and ask for
explanation of the actual circumstances. perhaps in addition to the chemistry, a
few courses in economic theory, philosophy, and the humanities would have
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:28:35 GMT, "Paul T. Holland"
> <pholland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >well trypt - while it may be 'logic', it is hardly as simple as you profess.
> >in actual fact you have chosen to ignore many elements of the scenario that
> >impact her, you, and society in general. addressing a few:
> >Trypt wrote:
> >> hypothetically
> >> Cancer patient grandma get a prescription for 50 units of 20mg Oxy per
> >> week.
> >so, in consultation with her doc, a script is issued for what is deemed a
> >necessary medication.
> >now: who pays for that script to be filled? since you appear to post from
> >canada, is she under their national health system?
> >and if so, who pays for the medication that the canadian gov't has
> >negotiated a cheaper price for? does the enrollee pay any? is there a
> >monthly premium cost to be enrolled? or, is this part of the national tax
> >based system?
> >in the lower 48, she would be paying a monthly premium for insurance, or, be
> >on medicaid tax paid insurance, or be paying out of pocket.
> >> She is in pain, however she decides to sell the pills to a young
> >> friend of hers who spends hours per week in conversation with her about
> >> various subject, including her past and general philosophy.
> >by way of example of the moral choices folks make with their meds:
> >a) i have a pain med script, but am not using all of it, person b has a
> >one-time, short term need and cannot afford to go and get some. i divert a
> >small portion - this one time - and person b's immediate need is served
> >b) i have script and don't use any of it. person b - on limited means - uses
> >the same med. i give it to them so that they can save the co-pay cost
> >[expand this scenario x times for separate conclusion of effect]
> >c) i have my script 'changed' in mid course to a diff. drug - i give the
> >unused portion to person b since they use the same one.
> >d) i lie to my doc about my med use, take the script and have it filled only
> >to then sell it to another person who does need it medically, but has no
> >access financially
> >e) i lie to my doc about my med use, fill the script, and sell it to someone
> >that is a recreational user.
> >shades of grey...and imo, not at all hard to see where the moral line is
> Yeah I guess various shades of gray and while all are illegal I
> personally don't have a problem until we hit option e which I just
> cannot support or justify.
> >there is both a financial cost to others, and an issue of appropriate and
> >knowable impact upon the health of another, that the rest of society will
> >bear at a later date.
> >> She refuses
> >> to take the pills because they "knock her out" and she doesn't want to
> >> live that way.
> >yet she allows others to pay for the cost of those drugs, and knowingly
> >hides information from her doctor who is then 'mistreating' her
> >condition...[side note about how the legal entities might unfairly treat
> >the doctor - who is being lied to - for not properly following her case.]
> And said Doc "could" end up getting his ass in a sling for doing so.
> When and if he does he will then swing in the opposite direction and
> become a lot less liberal in his prescribing practices which will
> ultimately affect all of the patients under his care both now and in
> the future.
> >> She uses the money to add to her grandchild's account in
> >> her name, to be released to the child at age 21.
> >money that is really someone's else's...the taxpayers, insurance premium
> >payers, poss. charity org's running free clinics - someone - but not
> >her...in what way is she not scamming society? how is she not
> >misrepresenting her true medical condition? taking money that is not
> >rightfully hers?
> Yeah I had a real problem wrapping any type of justification around
> that one as well. I'd also like to know where the lucky Granddaughter
> of this generosity is when it comes to talking to Granny and providing
> her with some attention.
> >> She lives with moderate pain (not quite severe, but she gets the huge
> >> script due to the nature of the illness, simpathy and all),
> >so - she exaggerates and that's ok?
> More to the point she accepts something she does need or use. Why?
> More then likely because it is free and she knows her good friend will
> slip her a couple of bucks for them. All in all just another form of
> a welfare cheat which raises the cost of health care for us all.
> >> she is
> >> extremely happy that she is able to provide for her grandchild,
> >she takes other people's money - money clearly and explicitly intended to
> >assist her by paying for 'needed' medication - and diverts it to
> >another...thats called stealing.
> Apparently only in our dictionaries.
> >> her
> >> young friend is happy that he can "get off" for a while.
> >co-conspirator and enabler
> You forgot to through in manipulator, junkie & excuse maker.
> >> Hmm, nobody gets hurt,
> >unless you can address the above and show how she has originally paid for
> >the drugs herself - but then she wouldn't need to sell the drugs, she just
> >wouldn't have script filled - then the unspent money could be put aside
> >afaikt, under your scenario, she is taking other people's money...what
> >gives anyone the right to do that?
> Aww she's old & lonely and the Granddaughter is paying her any
> attention so she needs to get it from a junkie who really doesn't care
> all that much about her. Just wait until the day he is Jonesing
> really bad and she refuses to cut lose with the stash and gets knocked
> over the head and he ransacks her house looking for it.
> >> everyone is happy.
> >except all the other people whose costs, in several different areas,
> >continue to rise as a result of your combined activities..
> >according to what you have written, society is paying for at least some of
> >the cost of your recreational activities, and just flat out 'giving' her
> >money...why should it?
> Because he provides her with false companionship something the
> Granddaughter who is benefiting from her generosity won't do.
> >> TO HELL WITH ALL OF THEM!
> >and just how does that square with your 'libertarian' beliefs? on the basis
> >of that, i suppose it's ok for others to do it to you?
> >> Some logic there guys..
> >exactly...going back to the set of hypothetical examples i listed, and
> >leaving any pro/con issue of legality out of it, there is a distinct moral
> >flavor here...
> Never met a moral junkie. I guess one or two might exist but they
> would be a paradox.
> Si vis Pacem, Para bellum
- Re: painkiller identity..
- From: Trypt
- Re: painkiller identity..