The Healthcare Debate

I've been following with great interest the current debate over healthcare in the United States. I don't claim to have read the bill (1000+ pages of legislation is daunting to say the least), but I'm going to comment on the situation anyway.

What I've read (from mainstream and fringe media, right, left and center) suggests that the system Obama is proposing is very, very similar to the current Canadian model. And that scares me. Americans deserve much, much better. I'm not even going to comment on the concerns that the proposed plan will fund abortions (as already happens in Canada) or that it will lead to rationing of healthcare (it does in Canada) or that it will lead to a utilitarian system where the disabled and elderly are not cared for because its too expensive (also a problem in Canada) because I think you all know where I stand on that issue.

Instead, I want to comment on this notion that free government healthcare is a good idea. I live the Canadian experience, and all I can say is thank God I'm healthy. The whole time I was going to university, I didn't have a doctor- I wasn't sick and didn't think I needed one. Now that I've settled into my career, I thought I'd find a doctor (my family and friends think that yearly physicals are a good idea, and apparently going 10 years without one is too long). So, I called every clinic in the area I'm now living in, and not one of them is accepting new patients.

Huh. I thought that under our universal medical care system, I could recieve medical care anywhere in the country. Apparently not. When I asked the clinics what I should do, they suggested I go to the ER for any problems.

Yeah, right.

I'm going to go to the ER for a physical.

And even if I did, and they would do it (which I'm sure they won't) what a waste of a) taxpayer money and b) ER resources. If the ER is busy dealing with people who should be seeing their GP, how can they help those who really need ER care? Our ER has essentially turned into a glorified walk- in clinic. Its a little ridiculous.

I also came across this story the other day. Apparently, this hospital has closed its maternity ward because there are no doctors to deliver babies in the city. Instead, expectant mothers are being told to go an hour away to deliver. This was supposed to be a temporary measure, but its been 6 months! Two women have already delivered en route to the hospital in the ambulance.

I don't know what the best solution is- the city can't seem to attract any doctors, but the patients are suffering. What happens when a women has a difficult or dangerous pregnancy/labour? Does a mother or child have to die before this situation is remedied? (I don't even want to think about the liability issues in this situation).

Anyway, my point is that the Canadian system is far from perfect. It is not something that other countries should try to emulate. Improve upon? Learn from? Sure- that's great, but this is not the route Americans want to take. Trust me.

The only "good" thing about Canadian healthcare is that its equal- rich or poor if you want treatment under the universal healthcare system, you will have wait equal lengths of time.

All I can say is, thank God for my health.

Pray for our neighbors to the south.

The “Pill”

According to a report published in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper) earlier this week, the pill is rendering men infertile.

Since the introduction of the "pill" millions of women around the world have begun to take artificial hormones to prevent pregnancy (estimated at 100 million women). As a result, Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, President of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations says the pill releases tones of hormones into nature through the urine of women taking the pill. The result is environmental pollution leading to male infertility. (See the story here.) Immediately after the story was released, several organizations (including contraceptive research groups) denied it stating that once metabolized, the hormones lose their female characteristics.

But this isn't the first time that the pill has been accused of having detrimental effects on men. The Aberdeen Fertility Center (not Catholic) found female hormones lowered sperm count in British men, and another study showed that men have developed mammary breast tissue usually found only in women. (See story here.) There are also studies showing that hormones released in female urine from the pill are adversely affecting aquatic life in Canadian rivers and lakes. Other studies show that the pill causes early onset puberty in girls.

While I titled this post rather facetiously, I want to ask a serious question. If, as our society claims, we want to do thing naturally so we don't harm planet earth, why are we telling women they need to get on the pill? If these levels of estrogen are seriously harming aquatic life (to the extent that some rivers have trans-gendered fish) what are they doing to the women who are directly ingesting the pill? The list of potential side effects of the pill are absolutely horrifying. We don't accept some of the side effects in life saving medications, and yet the pill- which has no medical benefit whatsoever- is handed out to women like candy. Very few women are made aware of the potentially dangerous side effects of the pill; sure they are told they might gain weight and that their acne might clear up, but few are told they could be rendered infertile, or even die as a result of blood clots from the pill.

Even fewer women are told that the pill is actually an abortifacent- it causes chemical abortions. Watch the video at the top of this post- it explains how the pill works, and how it causes abortions. Fortunately for the medical community, they don't need to tell women it causes abortions because according to their definition of pregnancy, a woman is not pregnant until the embryo implants in the womb. (Conveniently they changed the definition of pregnancy in the 1980's from conception to implantation to allow the pill to be approved- seriously, check out a medical textbook from the 1960's and today and compare the definitions of pregnancy).

Make no mistake- the pill is a form of abortion. A child that is conceived will be prevented from implanting in the womb, and as a result, it will be expelled in the menstrual process and die, with the mother never aware that she was pregnant.

But with this new report, it's clear that we aren't just aborting children and hurting women with the pill; we are also harming men, children and the environment. Why is such a dangerous pill allowed? Oh right, because it frees women. I forgot. All is forgiven then. As long as men and women can fornicate freely with no thought to the consequences, who cares what harm is caused? Silly me.

In all seriousness though, please send you friends and family the link to this video, and check out the science behind it. There are a lot of women who are on the pill who would be horrified to know that they could be aborting their own children. This is not an easy topic to broach with people (they tend to get defensive) but when raised in charity with no hint of judgment (after all many women are so misinformed by their doctors they don't know what they are doing) lives can be saved- and that is what's really important.

Do no harm

With the success of I-1000 on the Washington state ballot, two states have now legalized assisted suicide, but both of those states recognize doctor assisted suicide. In these systems a doctor either prescribes a lethal dose of medication, or helps to administer the medication. This fact chills me almost more than the whole concept of euthanasia and assisted suicide in general, because I believe it irreparably damages the doctor's relationship with their patients.

The Hippocratic Oath, which pre-dates the birth of Christ, tells doctors and physicians to "do no harm." The oath says "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." So, any doctor who prescribes assisted suicide is violating that oath, or, as is more common, they are simply not taking the oath in the first place. But this worries me, because it seems we are taking a step back to the dark ages; the pre-Hippocrates times. Hippocrates created the oath in recognition of the fact that going to a doctor was dangerous business- you had to hope you paid the doctor more to heal you than you enemy paid him to kill you. Hippocrates didn't like this- he thought people should be free to seek treatment and know that the physician ministering to them would do everything he could to help them. Thus, the Hippocratic Oath- an oath taken by doctors for over 2000 years was born. It was created so people could feel safe visiting a doctor.

Physician assisted suicide threatens this, because you don't know that your doctor will actually work in your best interest. You don't know that he or she won't give you a deadly drug, or make subtle and not so subtle suggestions that you take it. You don't know that your doctor won't have spoken to your children or caregivers and have been convinced by them that you are "better off dead." If doctors continue to administer lethal prescriptions, patients cannot trust their doctors.

For this reason, it is so important that everyone talk with their doctors; just like you would a lawyer. Find out where they stand on palliative care and assisted suicide, or other medical ethical questions, and make sure they know you position as well. Communication is key, and if your doctor doesn't have the same pro-life values as you do, it is time to find another doctor. Another thing you should ask is if they took the Hippocratic Oath; increasingly medical schools are not requiring grads to take the Oath.

It's a scary world when we can't trust the people who are supposed to heal us to actually do no harm.