The question has arisen on a seperate thread about a child being kept on life support rather than letting it die naturally. The question that came to mind as I was responding was this:

If god gave man the intelligence to create such a machine that would keep this child alive, would it be considered interfering with his plan to unplug that machine and in essence kill the child?

God made the baby defective in the first place, did he not?

Man has knowledge of medicines, machines etc. to help the sick. Not all sick people are help able. Doesn't this baby have a rare disease, with no cure in sight? I can't see how it would be the right thing to keep him alive. Esp. when he's in constant pain with no chance of recovery. *I know he's getting morphine, by which the grace of god, docs have the knowledge to use*

Perhaps to force men to use their intelligence to fix the problem. I suppose it depends on what role you think god plays, whether he hand makes every individual or created us to breed and multiply on our own. In which case the problem may not have been directly caused by god but a deteriorating gene pool over the centuries.

I'm not saying this is fact, just trying to grasp on whether people think life support interferes with gods plan or was it gods plan to make us develop the technology.

If god gave man the intelligence to create such a machine that would keep this child alive, would it be considered interfering with his plan to unplug that machine and in essence kill the child?You seem to be asking if god's plan is for the machine to stay on then would it be against his plan to switch it off. Obviously yes.

Perhaps to force men to use their intelligence to fix the problem. I suppose it depends on what role you think god plays, whether he hand makes every individual or created us to breed and multiply on our own. In which case the problem may not have been directly caused by god but a deteriorating gene pool over the centuries.

I'm not saying this is fact, just trying to grasp on whether people think life support interferes with gods plan or was it gods plan to make us develop the technology.

There are many diseases people have in which there is no cure.
A friend of mine has a rare one with no cure and is at this moment struggling to live. Her's is more rare, then say 'cancer'.

The medical field works on helping the masses, and the more rare ones get pushed aside.

O, and btw. I don't believe in life support: only in the cases when someone is put into a medical coma and recovers and is able to live off the machine later.

There are many diseases people have in which there is no cure.
A friend of mine has a rare one with no cure and is at this moment struggling to live. Her's is more rare, then say 'cancer'.

The medical field works on helping the masses, and the more rare ones get pushed aside.

It is sad that the medical profession, drug companies specifically focus more on mass diseases or even worse improving drugs like Viagra which dont save lives. Not that mass diseases don't warrant the attention. But I find it hard to believe that allowing someone to have a hardon for 4 hours is more vital than developing drugs that can save someone. The worst part is that in some cases the drugs exist to help these people but are not economical enough to produce.

I am sincerely sorry for your friend and what she is going through. The good news is that new cures are developed sometimes by accident or spur of the moment. We can only hope that she beats hers or someone developes a cure soon.

I feel as a person whom is not religious but hopes there is something better that when a loved one dies they go to. Heaven I guess would be my image.
Life support I feel (in my opinion) should only be used if there is a hope that the person on the machine may come back to us.
But on the flip side I have a living will and a DNR order on file. I do not wish to be kept alive on machines if there is no hope that I will ever be what I was before the incident.
This is for me. If it were my loved one I would have to honor their wishes and that is something that I would talk about with them in great details and have them written out so there is no miss communications.

But I find it hard to believe that allowing someone to have a hardon for 4 hours is more vital than developing drugs that can save someone.

But perhaps the massive profits on the ED drugs helps fund research on solving some of the bigger problems.

But perhaps the massive profits on the ED drugs helps fund research on solving some of the bigger problems.


An option I truly hadn't entertained. Thanks. I can only hope the people in charge will actually use the money that way.

I feel as a person whom is not religious but hopes there is something better that when a loved one dies they go to. Heaven I guess would be my image.That is interesting; contrary to common atheist assumptions, people want there to be an afterlife more for loved ones than for themselves. That is to say, such beliefs are motivated more from desire to keep our loved ones than from fear of death.
Life support I feel (in my opinion) should only be used if there is a hope that the person on the machine may come back to us.The problem is we can never be sure. Much as we find it uncomfortable to admit, practical considerations such as cost should be included. At some point the technology will exist to keep everyone biologically functioning, but long before then these hard issues will have to be addressed pragmatically.

An option I truly hadn't entertained. Thanks. I can only hope the people in charge will actually use the money that way.
The method of developing and approving new drugs in America stinks to high heaven. You have to prove efficacy and safety, and the rules regarding this make it so horribly expensive that no company in its right mind is going to incur the expense unless there is a huge market at the other end.

A few simple changes, such as requiring insurance companies to pay for experimental treatments so long as they are FDA supervised studies, and offering special grants to companies that devlop or work with non-patentable drugs, etc. would help.

Interesting point, brings up another question. If a person is dying from a disease, proven to be dying soon, should they be allowed to take an experimental drug, even if the FDA hasn't approved it yet?

In my opinion if the person is terminal and there is no hope of survival let them take it. The clock is ticking and they will die anyway. Safety is one thing, a chance for a cure is too much to lose in the governments red tape.

A few simple changes, such as requiring insurance companies to pay for experimental treatments so long as they are FDA supervised studies, and offering special grants to companies that devlop or work with non-patentable drugs, etc. would help.

And can you imagine what the insurance companies would charge us as far as rates go? People can barely afford it now. I have very little sympathy for these huge conglomorate companies that cry it's too expensive to make this and that. They constantly use their research as justification for the outrageous prices they charge everyone, but I have a feeling thier research has been paid for quite a few times over.

If god gave man the intelligence to create such a machine that would keep this child alive, would it be considered interfering with his plan to unplug that machine and in essence kill the child?

The fact than man was able to create such a machine should have no bearing on whether or not it should be used. We have nuclear weapons. Since god gave us the intelligence to use them, does that mean we should?

Whatever the decision should be based on, it definitely should not be that.

And can you imagine what the insurance companies would charge us as far as rates go? People can barely afford it now. I have very little sympathy for these huge conglomorate companies that cry it's too expensive to make this and that. They constantly use their research as justification for the outrageous prices they charge everyone, but I have a feeling thier research has been paid for quite a few times over.
Drug companies are human institutions and often do bad things, but they are much better at developing and bringing to market drugs than any government bureau or university.

I don't begrudge anyone who finds a cure for a serious disease--or a palliative for a form of suffering--from making a lot of money. I also understand that without this profit potential it wouldn't happen.

The problem is that a lot of drugs that can't be patented or that are for "orphan" diseases get passed over for economic reasons. Having insurance companies pay part of this cost to help their insured's would be a minor thing to them. Health insurance is not really that expensive when one considers what it pays for--affordability of health insurance comes from the outrageous costs of medical care in America.

I have a feeling thier research has been paid for quite a few times over"A feeling?" Your argument requires figures.

"A feeling?" Your argument requires figures.

I can respect that. This is of course from 2001.


2001 Data Show Big Drug Companies Spent Almost Two-and-a-Half Times as Much on Marketing, Advertising and Administration as They Spent on Research and Development


Drug Company Profits Exceeded R&D Spending by 60 Percent; Executive Compensation and Deferred Stock Options Were Huge



WASHINGTON--U.S. drug companies that market the 50 most often prescribed drugs to seniors spent almost two-and-one-half times as much on marketing, advertising, and administration as they spent on research and development (R&D) in 2001, according to an analysis released today. The report debunks President Bush's recent assertion, and drug companies' claims, that high and fast-rising drug prices are needed to support R&D.

The report was released as the United States Senate debates legislation that could add prescription drug coverage for America's seniors and could stimulate faster market entry of cheaper generic drugs.

According to the report, compiled by the consumer health organization Families USA, the nine U.S. publicly traded companies that market many of the most popular drugs to seniors spent a total of $45.4 billion on marketing, advertising, and administration and only $19.1 billion on R&D last year. Eight of the nine companies spent more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration as they did on R&D.

COMPANY
PERCENT OF REVENUES SPENT ON MARKETING/ADVERTISING/ADMINISTRATION

Merck
13

Pfizer
35

Bristol-Myers Squibb
27

Abbott Laboratories
23

Wyeth
37

Pharmacia
44

Eli Lilly
30

Schering-Plough
36

Allergan
42




"At the same time that drug prices are skyrocketing, pharmaceutical companies are focusing more and more on marketing the most expensive drugs," said Ron Pollack, Families USA's executive director. "The result is a sky rocketing cost spiral that is making drugs increasingly unaffordable for America's seniors."

The Families USA report also demonstrated that drug companies pocketed much more in profits than they spent on R&D. The nine companies generated $30.6 billion in profits last year-more than 60 percent higher than their expenditures on R&D. Merck's profits, for example, were nearly three times the amount it spent on R&D in 2001. Bristol-Myers Squibb's profits were more than twice the amount it spent on R&D.

Drug company executives also received high compensation packages and held huge amounts of unexercised stock options, according to the Families USA report. The five highest-paid drug company executives received over $183 million in compensation, not including unexercised stock options. In 2001, the five highest-paid drug executives at the nine companies were:


###

Families USA is the national organization for health care consumers. It is nonprofit and nonpartisan and advocates for high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

1201 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1100 · Washington, DC 20005
202-628-3030 · E-mail: info@familiesusa.org · www.familiesusa.org

That is interesting; contrary to common atheist assumptions, people want there to be an afterlife more for loved ones than for themselves. That is to say, such beliefs are motivated more from desire to keep our loved ones than from fear of death.
I am agnostic not atheist. Yes I wish my love ones have moved on to a better place and are all together having a great time and watching me. I know my grand father is with me and he does little things to let me know that.
Funny I can smell his cigars some times and it turns my head to see why.
The problem is we can never be sure. Much as we find it uncomfortable to admit, practical considerations such as cost should be included. At some point the technology will exist to keep everyone biologically functioning, but long before then these hard issues will have to be addressed pragmatically.
Yes there are no sure things but in some cases it is best to let nature take its course. I have heard of miracle happening to people in really bad shape. I hope that for my cousin every day. But it has been 4 months and no change at all. Only difference for him is he is not on life support any more he chose to fight. We will see what time brings him.

If god gave man the intelligence to create such a machine that would keep this child alive, would it be considered interfering with his plan to unplug that machine and in essence kill the child?
There's a related question for the religious person who tries to answer this one:

According to your belief, can god's plan even be interfered? How? How did you come about this knowledge? If it's a sliding scale, how far does god's plan go? Again, how did you decide on this answer?

Apparently everyone has their own interpretation on this. See my "Theodicy (http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=26036)" thread for more information.

I can respect that. This is of course from 2001.


2001 Data Show Big Drug Companies Spent Almost Two-and-a-Half Times as Much on Marketing, Advertising and Administration as They Spent on Research and DevelopmentThanks Genzol. Those are fascinating figures, I had no idea.

I didn't realise you meant advertising. I thought you were implying some sort of systematic fraud across the industry regarding research costs, hence my scepticism.

I am agnostic not atheist. Yes I wish my love ones have moved on to a better place and are all together having a great time and watching me. I know my grand father is with me and he does little things to let me know that.
Funny I can smell his cigars some times and it turns my head to see why.

Yes there are no sure things but in some cases it is best to let nature take its course. I have heard of miracle happening to people in really bad shape. I hope that for my cousin every day. But it has been 4 months and no change at all. Only difference for him is he is not on life support any more he chose to fight. We will see what time brings him.
I made no comment on what you might be: I only said that the standard atheist explanation for belief in an afterlife is that people are afraid of dying. What you said indicated otherwise and I just wanted to make that point.

It is true we fear death, or at least dying, but we also fear loss of loved ones--our attachment to them is the cause of great grief and we fear that grief. I think this is in fact a greater concern than our personal deaths.

I don't think there is an after life. I think our life spirit survives personal death, but that is not us. Our memories that give us the illusion of self perish with our physical brain.