Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(46)
-
▼
July
(13)
- Health Care Systems (PP12)
- Alternative Medicine (PP11)
- Animal Rights Extremism (PP10)
- Should Healthcare Be Rationed? (PP9)
- Organ Transplants - Child Donors (PP8)
- Creating a Life to Save a Life (PP7)
- Right to Refuse Treatment (PP6)
- Stem Cell Research (PP5)
- Conscience Laws and the Rights of Individuals (PP4)
- Roe v Wade (PP3)
- Ethical and Religious Directives - Beginning of Li...
- Ethical and Religious Directives - Care for the Dy...
- Welcome Summer PHI213 Students!
-
▼
July
(13)
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
9 comments:
No, alternative health treatments that have not been proven in controlled clinical settings should not be paid for through publicly funded health programs. This is because the alternative treatments may not work or, even worse, may cause harm to the patient. There is no way to know since we are supposing that the treatments have not been officially proven and tested for safety. Paying for these treatments with public funds could ultimately prove to be more costly, since the treatments may not work or may even make the patient worse. In that case, the alternative treatments would be paid for without any benefit or make the patient even worse, after which time proven therapies would have to be paid for to remedy the patient. It is better to just use public health funds for proven therapies in the first place. These therapies are more likely to work or at least not make the patient worse. Anything could happen with an unproven, alternative therapy, so it’s better to play it safe and only cover the proven therapies.
No, publically funded health care programs should not pay for alternative treatments if they have not been tested in a clinical setting. If the treatments have been tested and proven successful, then publically funded health care programs should pay for such services. It is because of the inability to prove success of such treatments and possible harmful effects that could arise due to such treatments. Public funds should only pay for services and treatment that have been tested and effects known, both positive and negative. In agreement with Emanuel, public funding for alternative treatments might prove to be more costly because adequate testing was not preformed and could have the potential to harm the patient even further, in which that case more medical treatment would be required, thus increasing costs. Hopefully, alternative treatments will be tested clinically so they could be covered under public funds, because such treatments can and have proved to be very successful in many situations and could give patients more options in addition to regular standard care.
There are so many different types of alternative medicine, its hard to put them all in one group and say “yes” or “no” You have chiropractic, herbal treatments, acupuncture, homeopathic, hypnosis, special diets, and meditation…Just to name a few. I think chiropractic and changing diet are the two alternative medicines that I would say yes to, I think there are enough results out there showing these are somewhat effective treatments for certain disorders. Statistically speaking im not sure what the results are in regards to curing patients. I think they would fall into the preventative area of treatment.
However, if I had to give an overall answer it would be no. There just isn’t enough money out there to fund all these different types of treatments that may or may not help someone. If there is a known good treatment that has a high rate of success and is widely used, then this is the safe and best way to treat. There are too many unknowns when it comes to treating people, we need to make sure that these patients are getting the best care at the best price. We don’t have an endless supply of money or time to try this one, then this one….etc…Finally, if all else fails we will use the mainstream treatment. It’s just not viable and doesn’t present much longevity.
If these alternative treatments really work, then get them set up in clinical testing, get FDA approvals and make them part of the mainstream. Until then, use of them is a personal decision and should be paid for as such.
Personally, I do not believe alternative medicines without proven basis for treatment should be paid for under public programs. Essentially, it’s throwing away money. There is a reason why drugs go through long strenuous clinical trials; to prove their safety, course of treatment, uses, side effects, etc. Many alternative treatments have not been subjected to clinical standards and if used short term or long term could be potentially harmful to individuals because we don’t know what those remedies can do to our immune systems. That said, not all alternative medicine should be rejected. Treatments such as acupuncture, chiropatric, or diet can be beneficial as preventative care and should be paid for but not treatments that have no known benefits
Yes and No!Just because an alternative treatment has not been tested in a controlled clinical setting does not mean it does not work.These issues should be considered in a per case basis.Sometimes some of the so called standard treatments that have been clinically tested and approved does not really work for some people or conditions.Sometimes the so called alternative treatments works real good on some people who have wasted a lot of time and public money on approved and tested treatments.I mean finding a cure or solution to a medical problem sometimes takes a trial and error sort of method.
If an approved or tested method fails to work,people should be given at least one chance to try an alternative treatment,that way further wastage of public resources is put to rest.
Treatments like yoga,acupuncture,tai chi and other traditional/natural medicines and treatments may work for some people when everything else has failed and should always be given an opportunity to prove otherwise.However,there should be strict guidelines under which these treatments should be pursued as not to waste public funds for treatments that wouldn't work.
I am a person who believes in some alternative services, however I don't think they should be payed for by public health programs if it hasn't been tested in a controlled clinical setting. There are a lot of alternative treatments said to be out there that help for this and that do that but they don't and that would be a waist of tax payers money and public health programs money to treat people for something and the alternative rout doesn't even work.
I beleive that some alternative treatments do work and have been proven to work but they are not cheap ethier and not even people who aren't on public health programs that can't afford these alternative methods.
I do think if the alternative treatment has been proven to work and been tested in controled clinical setting and is the only other option that may be there at the time to render service to a person then maybe it could be covered by the public health programs. In that type of situation it would have to be one of those this is the last resort for trying to help a person with what ever treatment they need and the others havent worked.
Publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. The main reason…because it would be publicly funded. The cost of treatments or services that have not been studied to determine if they have a positive effect on a disease or illness would be a waste of the publics’ money and resources. When patients enter into medical trials (experiments), they are not funded by the public and are taking place in a controlled clinical setting under strict guidelines and regulations. These rules are in place to help determine if the outcome or results are legitimate and beneficial. If alternative treatments or services are going to be offered using public funds they should be held to the same rules, guidelines, and testing as any other treatment or medical service.
Alternative health treatments should not be funded through public health care programs. Why? Well for once alternative health treatments have scarce proof of being successful and may not be officially proven to be safe for patients. Alternative health treatments might be hazardous to our kids as well as to adults it may contain secondary effects that might damage the health of patients even more. We should not fund alternative health treatments from public health programs if the treatment has not undergone such test that proves to be safe. We cannot base the health of the people on "Maybe it works," treatments should as accurately it can get to undergo procedures that ensures people well being.
I think that alternative medicine would not be an issue of concern if there was some way to monitor the progress of the treatment. If the treatment would show improvements I don't see an issue with it. I think that there can be a happy median that would help with the recovery of someones situation. I think there would be ways that it could be taken the wrong way and if it doesn't work how would that be dealt with is also something that should be taken into consideration. I would like to see them expand into the various forms of treatment. I think like many things there is more than 1 method to solving a problem. I have be a fan of natural pathetic medicine. I don't think that all things can be solved that way but that's the reason for monitoring the clients for results to make sure that funding would be well placed
Post a Comment