Another danger of socialized medicine -- loss of choice.


Fiannan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay, I know I have discussed things dealing with science and reporduction in the past but this is something that perfectly illustrates the dangers of socialized medicine and more government control over choices.

I was recently talking with a man involved in reproductive technologies in a country that controls artificial insemination and egg transfer to the point that people can only get such treatments from government hospitals, not individual clinics.

I have a strong interest in these issues so I asked about the psychological evaluations that people have to go through both to give genetic material as well as receive it. Now while he did not state official policy I asked about how strict these evaluations are. I then pointed out that that I had two friends who have a eugenic mindset and if they could donate under curent laws in his country.

One friend feels she would like to marry someone who would match her exceptional genetic and mental capabilities. The other feels that society should dictate who does and doesn't fit certain genetic qualifications for reproduction. And before someone dismisses them as being Nazies, they aren't (one is far from being white).

So I asked if someone came in to donate and said they were doing it to make sure there were more babies born with great genes like theirs would they be accepted. He was unsure but he even questioned if they would be given IVF treatment if the interviewer found they had these ideas. Again, he was not the evaluator but the mere fact he was unsure indicated something kinda scary to me.

So what if someone has exceptional health and intellect and feels they would like to donate egg or sperm so there would be more babies out there with such traits? And then, what if someone might tell their views (let's say their husband is sterile and they want a certain type of male donater) and the interviewer might question whether they should even get treatment to become a parent? That illustrates why centralized planning in medical issues is a bad idea.

Currently in the USA people have choice as to who gives them their baby if they seek IVF or egg donation. If you want an Iranian Muslim with dark hair and green eyes who is good at soccer and mathematics then you'll probably find someone who fits that -- just as you will probably find a red headed or blonde graduate of BYU who served a mission and who is into track and field -- and majored in biology. Also, since many fertility clinics brag about the health and education of doners there is obviously a eugenic component to the business. My personal opinion? Let the market decide -- if someone wants to choose a certain person, or if a man or woman wants to donate for eugenic reasons, so be it.

Centralized medicine is dangerous whether you seek fertility treatment, alternative medicine or even want to use vitamine suppliments. Better to examine teh costs to choice prior to being lulled into giving up choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite possible that the current system for paying for health care, using insurance companies and HMOs, actually restricts consumer choice more than a system with government oversight would (depending on how it's run). The only way to have complete control over one's health care is both to pay for it oneself and to have no regulation of the health care industry (such as no FDA, etc.). For the first to happen, we'd all have to be rich, and the second part would be downright dangerous.

HEP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite possible that the current system for paying for health care, using insurance companies and HMOs, actually restricts consumer choice more than a system with government oversight would (depending on how it's run). The only way to have complete control over one's health care is both to pay for it oneself and to have no regulation of the health care industry (such as no FDA, etc.). For the first to happen, we'd all have to be rich, and the second part would be downright dangerous.

HEP

The power of socialized medicine is far greater -- especially in the example I used. At least in the US you can have choices and the mindset in a capitalistic system will lend to more freedom at the individual level. In some European nations you are restricted by law as to what kind of person gets fertility treatment (some ban single women but not lesbian couples for instance). Of course, wealthy women can always travel to the USA or to some other nation that doesn't have such strict policies but they have to pay for the ability to choose.

Many British couples travel to Spain and the clinics there advertise in the Polish and Russian immigrant communities for doners for these British couples. This is caused by government policies that hurt people in the longrun in the name of helping them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would have to agree with the loss of choice issue. I have the closets thing to socialized heath care that is possible in the US. Government health care. The money is take from our check, we are assigned a provider based on the needs of the system and not on ours. We can't "shop around. I would also add that even with "free" health care the ERs are full, not because they can't afford to see a Dr (it is "free" after all) but because they don't want to wait for an appointment .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a story about an LDS businessman in Australia who was encouraging men to donate more. His wife had had a fertility problem but later they had a large family -- he didn't feel it was right for others to have to go without the blessing of children.

The "official" stand is that it is discouraged (I suppose watching football on Sunday falls into that sort of thing) but no disciplinary action would be taken against a man or woman donating or a woman receieving IVF treatment or eggs from another woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if someone has exceptional health and intellect and feels they would like to donate egg or sperm so there would be more babies out there with such traits? And then, what if someone might tell their views (let's say their husband is sterile and they want a certain type of male donater) and the interviewer might question whether they should even get treatment to become a parent? That illustrates why centralized planning in medical issues is a bad idea.

Would this by any chance be an irresistibly fit specimen of a middle aged manhood, for whom it was only natural that younger females be attracted to him as opposed to less fit younger males?

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share