Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Author posts

Group 1 - In regard to medical tourism, the group thinks that governments should not establish regulations. Also, patients should be able to access treatment as long as they are willing to take responsibility and risks.
When it comes to medical tourists, should government regulate medical tourism?

Group 2 -With regards to the relationship between doctors and patients, where does the primary responsibility lie in maintaining health? Who is more responsible for providing a solution to health problems (the doctor or patient)?

Who is primarily responsible for educating the general population on what constitutes a healthy lifestyle? Should the general population educate itself, or does such education require the input of healthcare professionals (such as medical doctors or potentially other mid-level practitioners)?
Author: James Hayes
Group 3 - What implications could plastic surgery supply to personal medicalization? Are we slowly forming a new form of biological evolution? Such as with cosmetic surgery, are people changing themselves for psychological reasons over medical ones?
Author Cassandra Taylor

When it comes to medical tourists, how far is too far? Is it acceptable to seek a doctor who will agree to a personal diagnosis over the diagnosis of a practitioner?


  1. Everyone, remember to post comments, questions (FQs for the daily quiz, DQs for discussion), and links here.

  2. Group 1: I agree with you all. Government regulations doesn't really solve anything. It may make some people happy but not everybody, for example: The pro choice vs. Pro life debate. That's been going on for the longest and when the law established a decision that pro life people would like in the state of Tennessee, only some people were happy. Others were not. Medical tourism seems solely based on the beliefs of the "majority" in a democracy and in other countries based on the views of the person in charge. Overall, I believe government shouldn't regulate medical tourism.

    For my group, Group 2: Its a very hard argument, but I think both groups, doctors and patients should be responsible for what they do know. A doctor is held accountable for explaining to patients what they don't know and ask them if they understand. As for terms of a healthy life style, I believe people should try to educate themselves in a way if they are motivated and interested in being healthy. Doctors could just tell them what they don't know.

    Group 3: As for cosmetic surgery, I think there is an evolution based on the social trends in appearance and what's classified as beautiful. Some people will go to such extreme lengths just to fit the trends. If plastic surgery involved the mutation of genes as a consequence, maybe it can cause a biological evolution. I don't really know much about plastic surgery, but it would also make sense that plastic surgery heals the needs of people who has a problem with his or her appearance

  3. With medical tourism I think it's important to separate it into incoming and departing tourism. For people coming to the US for healthcare, I see no reason to regulate it. For people departing the US for healthcare, however, while we may not need to regulate it, it's definitely a sign of a problem: either a lack of adequate care here or a dramatically different pricing. I'm curious about what aspects of medical tourism specifically you had in mind. The ethics of allowing people to get cheap plastic surgery at greater risks, or maybe shopping abroad for identical pharmaceuticals at a cheaper price? This could be looked at from a few different angles, especially if we move outside the US perspective as well.

  4. I am in group 3, but I will address group 2 first:

    I think that both should have to take responsibility for the welfare of the patient, but more so on the side of the patient than the doctor. Patients must have the desire to ask questions and determine the right medication for them, as doctors can only focus on individuals so much during their busy day. Also, patients can simply ignore the best doctor’s advice and shop around until they finds a doctor that will prescribe them any medication they want. This, coupled with the incentives for a doctor not to stand with his fellow doctors in the fight against overmedication, leads to an abundance of drugs overall. If all doctors stood together and said, “We will prescribe only the drugs necessary for the patient and no more,” one doctor could look at this and say, “What does it hurt if I take some extra money on the side and give out one more prescription per year?” Pretty soon, we are back to the overmedication problem, as enough doctors will over-prescribe that the problem will not change. The same thing happened with OPEC, the oil coalition in the Middle East. They agreed to higher oil prices so that they could all make more money, but the incentive to overproduce and make and sell a little more oil in each country was too great, so that the coalition’s efforts generally failed to have much of an impact on the overall price (countries have cheated 96% of the time since 1982).

    As for my group (G3), the only impacts plastic surgery will have on people is that many bodies will be damaged irreparably. If plastic surgery becomes rampant enough to consume society, then possibly “attractive” people will inadvertently hook up with “less attractive” people, as in people that they would have avoided before plastic surgery, and this will somehow influence the gene pool and have an effect on evolution. The only problem with this theory is that people will already hook up with those that they find unattractive, given enough money or alcohol. Therefore, I think that plastic surgery will have little effect on human evolution as a whole.

    As for the second chapter of Bioethics: the Basics:
    FQ: (BB 20) Utilitarianism, a theory from Jeremy Bentham, states that the correct decision is the one that results in the least amount of pain; this is also known as the _________ __________ Principle
    A: Greatest Happiness
    FQ: (BB 32) What ethical theory can trace its roots to ancient Greeks and Christians and offers contrast to Kant’s emphasis on rationality alone?
    A: Virtue Ethics
    DQ: When does beneficence overcome autonomy? Should someone intercede on behalf of the town drunk who sleeps in the streets, for instance?

  5. Group 2: I think doctors are responsible for helping to provide solutions for health problems, but it is ultimately the patients’ responsibility to put the solution into action. The patient has the say on whether or not a procedure can occur, so in the end, they have the full responsibility of maintaining their own health.

    Group 3: Plastic surgery is a physical change, so I don’t think that we are creating a new form of biological evolution. For evolution to occur, the person would need to be able to pass on the traits they had altered. In my mind, cosmetic surgery tends to occur due to psychological reasons.

  6. Group 1: I have to agree with Group 1's stance on this issue. At the end of the day, regardless of the ethical disparities or issues that arise from medical tourism, it is still the choice of the patients. Even if it was agreed that the government should regulate this problem, it is nearly impossible to check and maintain every licensed (or unlicensed) physician in the world. Thus, the sole responsibility of both ethics and health lies with the patient.

    Group 2: I believe that the main responsibility with maintaining health lies with the patient, not the doctor. This comparison can be applied to almost any similar circumstance. Education and learning depends on the student (and his or her parents) more than the teacher. Training and fitness depends on the trainee more than the trainer. Of course, both parties play a role in the overall picture. However, majority of the responsibility lies with the patient.

    Group 3: Again, I believe it is the patient's choice and responsibility. People receive plastic surgery for a variety of reasons, but regardless of those reasons there should be no moral judgement from the doctor. If a patient wants an operation done, that is his or her freedom. The position of a doctor is to help the health of patients, even if it's health of one's ego or self confidence (in terms of cosmetic surgery). Therefore, I see nothing wrong with people receiving plastic surgery.

  7. In response to Group 1, I don't believe that medical tourism could ever be regulated on a world wide scale. Say that the United States created the perfect system for regulating doctor shopping; the person could go to a different country if they wanted a certain type of operation, or a certain type of medication. After all, every society has their own standards for what is medically acceptable, and some countries are willing to offer things that others would not.

    In response to Group 2's post, I believe that responsibility lies on the doctor and the patient. It is the patients responsibility to recognize that there is an issue that is not treatable within their own means, and the doctor should be responsible for creating a reasonable solution to the patients problem. I found an interesting video on a doctors view of the patient-doctor relationship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BchSzH51Ss

    As for Group 3, I believe that there are reasonable uses for plastic surgery, such as corrective surgery, and reconstruction, but there are always going to be those people that take it too far. Plastic surgery serves its purpose, but it is only when people begin to misuse it that we start to see the psychological issues.

    DQ: Is human enhancement morally wrong? Or perhaps just a bad idea in general?

    DQ: In the mayors dilemma, can you say that on outcome is better than any of the other outcomes?

  8. Group 1: I was part of this discussion so I dont have much I can say on this but that the idea of not regulating medical tourism is a good idea becuase of the difficulty of enofrcing it as well as the overly strict grip on peoples rights.

    Group2: This is a tough question to answer as both have responsibilities in the health of the patient. I believe that the patient is more responsible as they have more affect than the doctor ever could on their individual health. That does not abstain the doctor from not providing his best medical advice.

    Group 3: Cosmetic surgery is most certainly for physical appearance before anything else. But there is in most cases no medical advantage. There is an argument for the psychology of the patient being positively affected by cosmetic surgery if it helps with their self-esteem.

    FQ1: What are the four principles of Biomedical ethics?
    A: Respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice

    FQ2: Libertarianism stresses what important feature?
    A: Freedom of the individual.

    DQ: As far as Value ethics go do you ever think there would be one set of VE that would make everyone happy and not just one subset of people pertaining to one religion or culture?

  9. Group 1 - This was my group and we all collectively agreed that we don't believe that the government should regulate medical tourism, mostly because of how difficult this would be.

    Group 2 - I guess I would say that it is the doctor's responsibility to provide the hard facts, and the patient's responsibility to follow through with the treatment that the doctor reccomends, or the treatment that they have both mutually agreed on.

    Group 3 - Obviously, most plastic surgeries are for psychological reasons, but there are other instances where plastic surgery goes beyond being purely to improve one's appearance. I know that most people with deviated septums have to get surgery which usually changes the shape of their nose (for the better) but having this surgery greatly improves their quality of life.

  10. Group 1 - I agree with you, governments should not start to regulate due to this being the patient's responsibility to take into account the risks of procedures and such that are not available in their country.

    Group 2 - In regards to maintaining one's health, I think it is the patient who is responsible, seeing as it is their personal long term health in question. But for providing solutions to health problems that arise from time to time, that is the doctor's responsibility, or else what would doctors exist for?

    Group 3 - I can see plastic surgery becoming so mainstream that it becomes a sort of social evolution, though I would hesitate to use the word "evolution" for all the connotations it would bring with it.

    DQ: With the emergence of using DNA to looking for one's personal aptness for specific diseases, should this become a right for all citizens or still be controlled by private enterprises?

  11. Group 1 – In terms of medical tourism I do not think government will be able to truly regulate it because countries’ governments have different rulings of what medical practices should be allowed. Governments have ruled against certain practices due to the majority’s opinions and judgments, but the individual is still entitled to their own opinion. As long as society views the clinical relationship as a “consumer-provider” transaction, as how contemporary society has caused it to become, medical tourism will be seen as a right of the individual who wants to continue shopping for more options.
    Group 2 – I see the doctor as being responsible for providing knowledge and tactics of preserving the patient’s health, but the patient is also responsible for accepting the doctor’s opinions and creating habits to maintain health. Especially in today’s society, the patient has taken responsibility in to their own hands as doctors opinions have grown to be seen more as optional.
    Group 3 – Since plastic surgery is not permanent like genetics, I do not see it as causing a biological evolution. In relevance to evolution theory, I do view plastic surgery as people’s attempt to fur fill the role of beauty amongst survival of the fittest. I more so see it as individuals attempting to deal with more so psychological issues than physical medical issues. I feel medicalization has come too far with plastic surgery along with other areas by medicalizing or attempting to “fix” things that are not necessarily medical problems.
    FQ – “Consequentialism and deontological theory describe why people react to morally compromised situations the same way.” True or False
    FQ – “What does ‘Felicific calculus’ mean?”
    DQ – “Should individuals be judged by how they react to morally compromised situations like the war examples in chapter 2?”

  12. I was part of group one so I won't comment about that.

    Group 2 - Given the nature of the relationship between the knowledge provider and the receiver, it seems natural to assume that some of the responsibility at least must lie with the health care provider. The patient has an authority over their treatment which can aide or impugn a successful outcome. The solution lies within a balance between the two parties.

    Group 3 - I do not believe that plastic surgery could constitute a form of evolution. Plastic surgery is regarded by many patients as well as doctors as being psychology with a scalpel. The benefits of the practice of cosmetic surgery are real, as are the negatives.