Suppose you have Patient A and Patient B.
Patient A is diabetic because he/she has a high risk that runs in the gene pool and Patient A exercised all health recommendations and could not avoid treatment.
Patient B was born with a low risk of diabetes, but is a complete idiot. He/she eats 36 butter tarts per day and chugs down 60 ounches of coke every morning. Friends warned Patient B to eat healthier, but the person always said “I like buttertarts and I’m a coke-a-holic, what can I say?” And he/she said “THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY, I HAVE A RIGHT TO CONSUME WHAT I PLEASE.”
Now Patient A needs treatment in the next 3 weeks or may otherwise die, but the sooner the better.
Patient B, the idiot, needs treatment in less than a week or may die.
Who should be treated first? Is there a just solution to this question?
There’s a continuum where one extreme is having a Food Nazi Gestapo, and the other end of the spectrum is people have no drive to preserve the medical care system for the people who need it the most.
well lets make it PAtient B needs treatment in 2.25 weeks time, Patient A in 3 weeks.
And I think I’ve come up with the best solution of all.
1) We can’t dictate the choices people make in a democracy, but we can have “health/nutrition education” in primary and secondary schools! That should be part of the curriculum.
2) Canada can require Canadians citizens to take a 3-hour health seminar as a requirement to renew your Driver’s License. Since driving is a privilege and not a RIGHT, this would not be a violation of a person’s rights.
I NEVER eat McDonalds either.
But perhaps there should be a fruits and vegetable health restaurant that has a drive-thru and fast pre-made health foods.
I NEVER eat McDonalds either.
But perhaps there should be a fruits and vegetable health restaurant that has a drive-thru and fast pre-made health foods.
