|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:41 pm
My Conscience ReiDuck My Conscience On a side note: Benefits of smoking and eating fast food? Other than masking true disorders or problems? Hmm... Hey, if I am wrong, call me on it. Smoking is relaxing and fast food is both convenient and tasty. Is the end a justification for the means? It depends. Each person has to look inside themselves to find out what's truly important to him or her. For me...yeah, that was enough to keep me smoking for several years, and quitting sucks major nuts. For the general American populace, fast food seems to be expedient enough. But for you...that, I'm afraid I can't say.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:23 pm
My Conscience ReiDuck My Conscience Remember, devils advocate here. I don't really have an opinion. I'm just bringing up reasons that people who support the non-allowance in certain circumstances and allow in others. I am just waiting for you all to give a more definite opinion on the matter. I know this is a prominently not talked about subject. That is why I made the topic. So the entire point of your thread is "You people should pay attention to THIS"? The entire point was for a unique discussion. How! How dare I! Just because I don't have a direct opinion on the subject matter DOESN'T mean that others don't. This thread is a way for those people who do have a stronger opinion than me to debate it. So in other words, yes. My Conscience Quote: My Conscience On a side note: Benefits of smoking and eating fast food? Other than masking true disorders or problems? Hmm... Hey, if I am wrong, call me on it. Smoking is relaxing and fast food is both convenient and tasty. Is the end a justification for the means? Since when does that matter? You asked if there were genuine benefits, and I pointed some out. For the record, I passionately love nicotine and sometimes a nice In 'n' Out burger really hits the spot, but I can virtually guarentee I will not develop heart disease, lung cancer, or obesity. It's called "moderation." In any event, do you have any response to my actual point, which is that the entire notion you're proposing is absurd?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:30 am
ReiDuck My Conscience ReiDuck My Conscience Remember, devils advocate here. I don't really have an opinion. I'm just bringing up reasons that people who support the non-allowance in certain circumstances and allow in others. I am just waiting for you all to give a more definite opinion on the matter. I know this is a prominently not talked about subject. That is why I made the topic. So the entire point of your thread is "You people should pay attention to THIS"? The entire point was for a unique discussion. How! How dare I! Just because I don't have a direct opinion on the subject matter DOESN'T mean that others don't. This thread is a way for those people who do have a stronger opinion than me to debate it. So in other words, yes. I am a bad guy for wanting to facilitate feelings for a unique discussion? That is highly conceited. My Conscience Quote: My Conscience On a side note: Benefits of smoking and eating fast food? Other than masking true disorders or problems? Hmm... Hey, if I am wrong, call me on it. Smoking is relaxing and fast food is both convenient and tasty. Is the end a justification for the means? Since when does that matter? You asked if there were genuine benefits, and I pointed some out. For the record, I passionately love nicotine and sometimes a nice In 'n' Out burger really hits the spot, but I can virtually guarentee I will not develop heart disease, lung cancer, or obesity. It's called "moderation." In any event, do you have any response to my actual point, which is that the entire notion you're proposing is absurd? Notice I simply passively concurred to the benefits you mentioned. I moved onto a side note; i.e. do the ends justify the means? I would like to mention that moderation is not allows a solution. Just like with smoking. Just because you take one puff every day or every other day, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t going to damage your lungs to a measure that which is not reversible. After time, this moderation could result in the very disease that occurred in someone at a younger age. Some people are also more susceptible to lung cancer due to genetics. So in the end, this moderation is just as harmful to them as it is to someone who goes an excessive amount. Also, what notion did I propose? If you are referring to the mention about alcoholics and others don't receive treatment because of the nature of the reason they got the disease; that is a fact not a opinion by me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:17 am
My Conscience ReiDuck My Conscience ReiDuck My Conscience Remember, devils advocate here. I don't really have an opinion. I'm just bringing up reasons that people who support the non-allowance in certain circumstances and allow in others. I am just waiting for you all to give a more definite opinion on the matter. I know this is a prominently not talked about subject. That is why I made the topic. So the entire point of your thread is "You people should pay attention to THIS"? The entire point was for a unique discussion. How! How dare I! Just because I don't have a direct opinion on the subject matter DOESN'T mean that others don't. This thread is a way for those people who do have a stronger opinion than me to debate it. So in other words, yes. I am a bad guy for wanting to facilitate feelings for a unique discussion? That is highly conceited. Not a bad guy, but definitely a politician. I've already gotten my say in this, but I would like to say this has gotten drastically off-topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:36 am
My Conscience I'm kind of tossed on this debate. People smoke all their life, they get lung cancer and they get treated for it. People eat highly unhealthy food, get clogged arteries, and they want treatment for it. And there are many more circumstances for where people ruin their lifes and expect treatment. Then you have the other group that are not treated. They don't give treatment to non-compliant diabetics. They don't give drug addicts dialysis. They don't give alcoholics liver transplants. Why is it okay for some circumstances for people to knowingly or unknowingly ruin their life’s and still get treatment and for others it is not? The thing we can't really say that because that like saying, you smoked it so now you deserve to die from lung cancer. I think they deserve treatment and that they deserve getting a little scare to get them out of their stupidity. It is also disappointing that there are people who do need treatment who do not practice bad life habits. *frowns* Sadly it always seems as if people who choose to make the worse of their lives seem to get the best of treatment. However, this is from my own personal experiences so taike it none too seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:55 am
Master_SL My Conscience I'm kind of tossed on this debate. People smoke all their life, they get lung cancer and they get treated for it. People eat highly unhealthy food, get clogged arteries, and they want treatment for it. And there are many more circumstances for where people ruin their lifes and expect treatment. Then you have the other group that are not treated. They don't give treatment to non-compliant diabetics. They don't give drug addicts dialysis. They don't give alcoholics liver transplants. Why is it okay for some circumstances for people to knowingly or unknowingly ruin their life’s and still get treatment and for others it is not? The thing we can't really say that because that like saying, you smoked it so now you deserve to die from lung cancer. I think they deserve treatment and that they deserve getting a little scare to get them out of their stupidity. It is also disappointing that there are people who do need treatment who do not practice bad life habits. *frowns* Sadly it always seems as if people who choose to make the worse of their lives seem to get the best of treatment. However, this is from my own personal experiences so taike it none too seriously. (Apparently I need to state this due to several false accusations: This is devils advocate speaking) Do people who smoke themselves into cancer disserve the short supply of lungs rather than someone who inherited a lung deteriorating disease. So basically let the smoker live or the inherited disease person live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:57 am
Many people here seem to be persistent on allowing smokers to receive lung transplants. I respect your beliefs. For those who do believe smokers disserve the short supply of transplants as much as anyone else, do non-compliant diabetics disserve treatment, or do drug addicts disserve dialysis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:19 am
My Conscience linaloki Actually, there was a major scandalous thingy where either Young, Crosby, Stills, or Nash got a liver transplant because his deteriorated due to heavy drinking. And then he went back to drinking. Hippocratic Oath says doctors must treat all for any reason and cause no harm. However, cause no harm in today's society has evolved into, cause less harm than good. People may be denied transplants if they are suicidal, alcoholic, drug abusers, etcetera. That causes harm to them, but good to someone else on the list that won't misuse their replaced organ. And really, all medical problems are brought on by things we do. We could all choose to live in clean rooms and have sterilized robots bring us food, but that'd be boring as hell. It has been brought up several times that all medical problems are brought on by things we do. What about inherited diseases that require transplants? Autoimmune Hepatitis, hemochromatosis, alpha1-antitrysin deficiency, sickle cell, and many others? All those, if not caught, not treated, or are a worst case scenario, need a transplant. They didn't do anything to bring on the disease. Doctors hafta treat all patients. It's what they've sworn to do. If they have extenuating circumstances, however, that would cause them to abuse and destroy an organ that is transplanted, however, they won't (Or aren't supposed to) do it. Hospitals have a transplant comittee that the doctors must submit their patient's needs to. The comittee then decides if the patient should be put on the transplant list, as well as where. Or you could hold the ER hostage until your loved one gets a transplant. (Bonus points to those who can name THAT movie! ^_^ Or the show where I get all my doctor info from.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:38 am
linaloki My Conscience linaloki Actually, there was a major scandalous thingy where either Young, Crosby, Stills, or Nash got a liver transplant because his deteriorated due to heavy drinking. And then he went back to drinking. Hippocratic Oath says doctors must treat all for any reason and cause no harm. However, cause no harm in today's society has evolved into, cause less harm than good. People may be denied transplants if they are suicidal, alcoholic, drug abusers, etcetera. That causes harm to them, but good to someone else on the list that won't misuse their replaced organ. And really, all medical problems are brought on by things we do. We could all choose to live in clean rooms and have sterilized robots bring us food, but that'd be boring as hell. It has been brought up several times that all medical problems are brought on by things we do. What about inherited diseases that require transplants? Autoimmune Hepatitis, hemochromatosis, alpha1-antitrysin deficiency, sickle cell, and many others? All those, if not caught, not treated, or are a worst case scenario, need a transplant. They didn't do anything to bring on the disease. Doctors hafta treat all patients. It's what they've sworn to do. If they have extenuating circumstances, however, that would cause them to abuse and destroy an organ that is transplanted, however, they won't (Or aren't supposed to) do it. Hospitals have a transplant comittee that the doctors must submit their patient's needs to. The comittee then decides if the patient should be put on the transplant list, as well as where. Or you could hold the ER hostage until your loved one gets a transplant. (Bonus points to those who can name THAT movie! ^_^ Or the show where I get all my doctor info from.) Actually, doctors ask the patient if they drink or smoke. They then decide if they are chronic or not. If I am wrong, please tell me. John Q is the movie. I'm guessing... Grays Anatomy for medical information? I get a lot of my medical information from House M.D.. House M.D. is actually where I got this debate. Two of the doctors were talking about it while treating an obese patient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
