? Who should be responsible for anticipating dual use? | Home
By Lauren | April 6, 2012
With the Supreme Court considering the health care reform law, it seems a good time to write about an NPR interview that has really haunted me. In February, Ira Flatow of Science Friday interviewed Dr. Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics who has serious concerns about the amount of processed sugar Americans consume. According to Dr. Lustig, consuming extra sugar can be hard on the liver, just as alcohol consumption can. He proposed regulating and taxing sugary foods and drinks just as we do alcohol.
Dr. Lustig?s proposal seemed a little extreme to me, but what really distressed me were the comments from listeners who called into the show. They seemed to fall into two broad categories. There were the people who worried about what excess sugar does to kids, a concern that struck me as entire reasonable. The second group, though, another matter. In the course of the interview, Dr. Lustig linked excess sugar consumption with obesity and related diseases like diabetes. Some of the callers were outraged that people who couldn?t afford to pay for their own health care would dare to eat sugar and, in the process, gain weight and get sick. After all, hospitals are required by law to care for indigent patients, so the cost of health care for the poor gets split among the rest of us. The callers were livid at the thought of paying to treat low-income Americans who suffer from illnesses related to the food they consume. Their remarks struck me as vicious, judgmental and appalling.
Maybe I?m missing something, but when did we get to be so mean-spirited? This is one of the wealthiest nations in the history of civilization, the recent economic downturn notwithstanding. Have we honestly become so selfish that we?d deny medical care to poor people who eat more sugar than they should? It?s not as though anyone would choose to be poor, nor is healthy food cheap or easy to come by in many impoverished neighborhoods. Quite the contrary - cheap, filling food tends to be loaded with sugar and salt, and it?s not as though folks who live in poverty can afford to buy better.
The way I see it, we have a choice. We can continue to condemn anyone who doesn?t have enough money to be completely self-sufficient, essentially deciding that a human being?s value is measured solely by the money she makes. Alternatively, we can take pride in recognizing that we have an ethical responsibility to look out for one another, and provide decent medical care to the poor when they need it regardless of what caused their illnesses. People are priceless no matter how much money they make. It would be downright inhuman to punish anyone by denying them needed medical care because of what they ate.
Topics: Lauren Recommends, Social Ethics, ethics |
Comments
punxsutawney facebook ipo facebook ipo egypt soccer riot right to work mike kelley puxatony phil
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন