British Government legalizes maggots for peasants

[Kyran]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/23/offbe...reut/index.html

This amazing story is brought to you by the media, government health care, and the general welfare.

The article reads, "British doctors will be able to prescribe maggots to patients with infected wounds, a hospital official said. He said the state National Health Service had realized that maggots were a cheaper and more beneficial way of treating wounds than using conventional medicine."

Boy, I can't wait for government health care here in America. Aren't you guys excited? It's a good thing the GOVERNMENT came up with this idea, because nowhere in America would "Big Joe's Maggot Clinic" succeed.

I wonder if poor uninsured CHILDREN over there would be prescribed MAGGOTS; since it's SO "cost-effective." Where's those socialist advocates of National Everything now?

The point I'm trying to make here is this. The private sector got us out of the dark ages (including medicine) and Big Brother is dragging people BACK to it. There is nothing progressive about Government Health Care, but rather Regressive and Regrettable. The factor of monetary interest in technological pursuits is mandatory to innovation. If one cannot "capitalize" on inventions, then one will NEVER invent.

Government does not seek profit like the entrepeneur. This maggot "treatment" did not come back from the 1500s by competing in a free market but rather by Government Decision. Let it be an example.

I hope that this article and commentary influence your opinion on capitalism. The alternative is just plain disgusting. Of course, anyone who wants to disagree with me is welcome to argue.

[SVMc]

Hmm, well they're really not that bad, they don't cause irriation and they do clear the infection quickly. They're an especially good alternative to people who have developed high tolerance or have allergies to antibiotics. I wonder if this fear of bugs and nature is really an American preoccupation or faith in technology. Americans seem to be so detached from their natural environment that they have become disgusted by it.

Btw, in case you are wondering I have had this treatment while I was in Zimbabwe and not close to a hospital, it probably saved me at the very least a major infection and at best my right leg.

[tusaki]

Like SVMc said, the 'maggot' treatment is a well known alternative to more toxic treatments. I wouldn't exactly call this an 'example' of why a more 'capitalistic' approach would be better. It is a good thing alternative treatments are supported.

And anyways, I believe universal health care is something we should support, it shouldn't be just for the rich.

But back to the maggots... if you want to know more about this treatment, have a look here [google.com].

[Leopard]

maggots are fine

only problem is with government either forcing or restricting their use - people with maggot-phobia like Kryan should be allowed to opt of different methods where as pro-maggot people like myself (does sound a bit gross ewww) should be allowed to choose the 'maggot way'.

Maggot-mania!

Eat a maggot, Save an Antibiotic!

Maggots, not just for Breakfast anymore!

Got Maggots?



tongue-in-the-cheek,
michael

[Kyran]

SVMc, if you want maggot-treatment then you can HAVE it. No problem buddy! I'm all for you! But I'm not afraid of bugs. I just find the medical concept completely nasty, demeaning, and a horrible way for government to treat it's own citizens. That's my opinion.

Tusaki, a "chainsaw treatment" is a "better" alternative than maggots. That doesn't prove jack. If you think people really want this kind of "treatment", then go open up a clinic and make your fortune. Put MAGGOTS WILL EAT YOUR SKIN CHEAP on your sign. I wish you the best of luck.

Why isn't this an example of capitalism? You've stuck your nose into the conversation, now back it up. Show me Joe's Maggot clinic and I will agree with you. The TRUTH is the practice became extinct under the Free Market. People, given the choice, have supported modern medicine. This is exactly how Survival of the Fittest works.

In parody:

One day Bob came home and told me he went to the doctor. He was unnerved because he had gotten injured at work...and was told he had to undergo maggot treatment. He's not allergic to modern medicine, but the government only allows him to take treatments which are most affordable to Medicare.


If you want health care, food, or a place to fuck your girlfriend then go get it yourself. Lots of people have medical coverage, a nice house, and lots of money. Why does the government have to take from them and give to you? Show me the line in the constitution that entitles you to something you did not earn. Because the moment you do, I am claiming poverty and demanding every thing you own. I'm not a rich fella, you probably have more than me. Why shouldn't I demand you pay for my basic needs? After all, altruism dictates that one's only purpose in life is to serve others. Know your role.

I am a very non-violent person and fear one thing: Government Force. I find it horrific that the government would force me to use the doctor IT chooses; to put maggots on MY skin and not give me a say-so in it. My life belongs to me, and I am the best person to decide how my life gets treated.

Those of you who are FOR "universal" health care are the ones who need to take me seriously. It should bother you that government will make these decisions about YOUR LIFE for you. There's no chance to change your mind once this is a Department. You will be stuck with it.

Oh wait a minute. I forgot. You're not paying for what you're getting. My bad. How could I talk you out of voting yourself money?

[Impenitent]

maggots? what?!? the rich get LEECHES!!!!

unfair! strike now!! demand equal leech rights today!!!

[SVMc]

Well I'm in Canada and we already have universal health care. If you would like to view a rather developed thread on the argument where Jack Sneeby (sorry Jack if I spelt that wrong) is advocating Kyran's side visit the Canadian thread.

Btw, why are maggots so weird when Botox is not?

Also I think it would be a long way down the slippery slope before government mandated alternative treatments beyond traditional practice.

[Impenitent]

accupuncture is traditional practice...

is that mandated in china?

[tusaki]

Kyran, the Health Care system works like this: you go to a doctor, you decide on a treatment, and depending on wheter the government has sanctioned one treatment or another, you get a large part of the costs back. The government doesn't force you to do anything. The government only gives money back for treatments which are researched, not exorbitant and found to be working. By all means, if you want treatment X, but treatment X is not in the official list, just pay for it. You won't get any money back from the government however. You might get it back from your insurance. This system ensures a treatment is available for people who could otherwise not afford it and it still allows people to get any treatment they want.

[Kyran]

Tusaki,

You said "The government only gives money back for treatments which are researched, not exorbitant and found to be working." Therefore, maggot treatment is on the way. Government at ANY TIME can change what people are allowed to do. This is why you shouldn't trust it with such decisions.

Don't sell me the health care system. I'm not buying it and you're not selling it. Go "educate" someone who wants others to come in and administer their lives. I am an individual.

[Leopard]

Kyran,
Even though we are on the same page as far as individual choice and no government intervention, please don't confuse your personal bias in rationalizing why maggot treatment is 'primitive or barbaric'. Our health care system is far from being 'free market' and so to use the market forces as an expalnation for the discontinued use of maggots for medicinal purposes 100 years ago is not a valid argument. There are a variety of reason for practices to come in and out of favor with the guild-like medical establishment we currently have. You are incorrect in assuming that maggot treatment doesn't work or that there are automatically 'better, new' methods since maggots fell out of favor some years ago.
Your implication in your statement, "That doesn't prove jack. If you think people really want this kind of "treatment", then go open up a clinic and make your fortune. Put MAGGOTS WILL EAT YOUR SKIN CHEAP on your sign. I wish you the best of luck." is that since TODAY, this wouldn't be a viable business endeavor and thusly for all time is flawed. Fact is, maggots do have beneficial uses, and, if this uses are also cost effective then it is very realistic to assume that at some point in the future (next year, 5 years?) a 'maggot clinic' would be a profitable enterprise...

on all else we agree - less government so individuals can dictate their own lives and be responsible for all their actions, instead of shifting the costs on those most productive in society...

michael

[Kyran]

Leopard, I'm not being biased. I could give two whits about what species is used by modern medicine to treat wounds.

The point, for the third and last time...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Those of you who are FOR "universal" health care are the ones who need to take me seriously. It should bother you that government will make these decisions about YOUR LIFE for you. There's no chance to change your mind once this is a Department. You will be stuck with it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

...is that government should not be able to make decisions for individuals; that drags us back to the dark ages and it shows. This health care issue is a drop in the bucket. The maggot being forced on someone's skin isn't half as bad as the maggot giving the orders.

I never said maggots don't have their uses. That isn't what this thread is about. I did not assume there are "better" treatments. I just said there are other options which some people would rather pay for than this one.

Try not to miss the meat of the issue for the bun.

[Comrade]

I do not want the application of maggots to a wound of mine.
And if the government, of all things, told me that I had to, just because maggots are cheaper...

[Edge]

I do find it interesting that the association has finally (in 2004) accepted a procedure for the treatment of infections that was abandoned (but is still legal to my non-medial knowledge) by the US in the mid 1960's.

It kind of makes you wonder when they are going to approve x-ray's, mri's....

[tusaki]

Kyran, I'm not saying it is good or bad, neither am I advocating a large government, but you got it wrong. The UK government doesn't force anyone to take any treatment, they will just return part of the costs to people who take 'normal', 'proven' treatments. It includes several alternatives and from now on it includes 'maggot' treatment as well. The reason I like universal healthcare is because I think everyone has the right to have a good healthcare. The alternative, as in the current system in the US, leaves a part of the population struggling to get good healthcare. Perhaps I'm being altruistic, but I don't think anyone should be in a situation where they cannot, or barely, 'pay' for a cure.

[Kyran]

Tusaki, I never said the UK forces anyone to take treatment. I'm saying government, once involved in health care, is capable of making decisions that you and I don't agree with about our own bodies.

You don't think anyone should be in a situation where they can't afford health care? Me either, but who's fault is that? There's charities everywhere. If this was hell then I might agree with you. But the fact of the matter is people have to take care of themselves. You can't Daddy them. If they don't have health care then that's their choice. You should respect that even if you disagree with it. Why not become an insurance agent instead? Take matters into your hands.

Nobody advocates Big Government explicitly. Think. If all of life's necessities (food, water, electricity, shelter, medical) were just handed to us like on Star Trek...what would life be about anyway? The easier life gets, the less inclined we are to achieve anything. Once survival is a given, "no one" has to work except the people that produce.

Don't look at peoples' problems and think of government solutions. Society continues to grow despite "lack of health care." Today everybody owns televisions, cable, cell-phones, and many have computers. Just be patient and let the standard of living climb a few more levels on it's own.

[SVMc]

Kyran,

There are two points people are trying to make to you:

1) Universal Health Care does not mean you are forced to accept a treatment you do not want. You still need to sign a consent form for any treatment unless you are not physically, mentally or legally capable of doing so.

The law of consent to treatment in Ontario / Brian F. Hoffman.

2) Just because a treatment was used long ago, went out and is now back does not mean that it is not beneficial. For example look at the benefits that have been brought by (re)teaching pregnant women lamoze a breathing technique that has been around for a millenia before modern medicine stepped in.

[Leopard]

SVMc,
Ah! you highlight the problem that is rampant with statist people. In your statement:

1) Universal Health Care does not mean you are forced to accept a treatment you do not want. You still need to sign a consent form for any treatment unless you are not physically, mentally or legally capable of doing so.

you fail to understand that universal health care is NOT free. Someone pays for it. Who? The taxpayer (you). So what? Well, that means you are spending some of your finite wealth on a system of healthcare you may not want to use, which means you have LESS for the type that you do want - This translates into Universal Healthcare 'forcing', through taxation, you to use that system because after paying the taxes for it, you do not have enough for the treatment you might have chosen to begin with.

If I take all your money away (or a portion of it) and then say, "You now have access to my definition of healthcare, BUT you are free to purchase another type - is that any sort of 'freedom?"

This wouldn't be a necessarily bad thing IF two conditions existed in the world:
(1) The absolute truth was known and those in power always choose the 'best' action for others to take
(2) Those in power were not people (what I mean is that just by the fact that politicians are people, they have their own personal beliefs, agenda, drives, goals, etc) - to be human is to have all of these things, good and bad - which means when they exercise power over the choices in YOUR life they can easily make the 'wrong' decision' and might be more prone to do so because they are 'different' from you (drives/needs/priorities/etc)...

michael

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Perhaps I'm being altruistic, but I don't think anyone should be in a situation where they cannot, or barely, 'pay' for a cure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Why should people deserve the right to be cured of sickness?

After all, doctors spend centuries just trying to invent new ways to cure us. Shouldnt we pay them back, at least, by giving them a few coins?

[Impenitent]

of course not, doctors must be slaves to the society... doctors do it because they love to be everyones slave...