The story behind what you’re seeing here — a 2.1 gram 24kt gold nugget implanted in a forearm by Ben in Ottawa at The Ink Spot — is quite interesting.
The person who got the implant is Islamic, and was in need of a medical procedure that for spiritual reasons was forbidden. Her Mullah suggested that she have a blessed object implanted in her body instead, so this piece of gold was blessed, and she went to Ben asking to have it installed (anywhere would do, so they chose the forearm for ease of maintenance). Interesting intersection of cultures.
I guess this is a “learn something new every day” day, because while I was aware that blessed gold implants are a part of Buddhist culture (and also, are still done), I had no idea they were a part of Muslim culture, let alone in Canada!
Anyway, if anyone knows anything else on this subject, please post it in the comment forum!
BME/News and Modblog highlight only a small fraction of what
I hope a friend of mine doesn’t mind me reposting her comment here:
‘As you know, there are different practices of “Islam” in various parts of the Muslim World. In most cases, pre-Islamic traditions of a particular culture are mixed with Islamic traditions and so you get different practices in different parts of the world, all deemed as “Islamic”.’
‘So i’m not quite sure where and what the origin of this practice is.’
‘All i know is that according to Islam, body modifications (i.e. tattoos) are Haram (not ok)’
‘Also, just as FYI – it’s best to call someone who practices Islam as “Muslim” and not “Islamic”‘
‘Also, I’m pretty sure the word you were looking for was either “Sheikh” or “Imam” or even “spiritual guide”, but definitely not “Mullah” – from what I know, a “mullah” doesn’t have that much sway in terms of guiding Muslims in terms of everyday life stuff…such as medical procedures.’
I hope a friend of mine doesn’t mind me reposting her comment here:
‘As you know, there are different practices of “Islam” in various parts of the Muslim World. In most cases, pre-Islamic traditions of a particular culture are mixed with Islamic traditions and so you get different practices in different parts of the world, all deemed as “Islamic”.’
‘So i’m not quite sure where and what the origin of this practice is.’
‘All i know is that according to Islam, body modifications (i.e. tattoos) are Haram (not ok)’
‘Also, just as FYI – it’s best to call someone who practices Islam as “Muslim” and not “Islamic”‘
‘Also, I’m pretty sure the word you were looking for was either “Sheikh” or “Imam” or even “spiritual guide”, but definitely not “Mullah” – from what I know, a “mullah” doesn’t have that much sway in terms of guiding Muslims in terms of everyday life stuff…such as medical procedures.’
I hope a friend of mine doesn’t mind me reposting her comment here:
‘As you know, there are different practices of “Islam” in various parts of the Muslim World. In most cases, pre-Islamic traditions of a particular culture are mixed with Islamic traditions and so you get different practices in different parts of the world, all deemed as “Islamic”.’
‘So i’m not quite sure where and what the origin of this practice is.’
‘All i know is that according to Islam, body modifications (i.e. tattoos) are Haram (not ok)’
‘Also, just as FYI – it’s best to call someone who practices Islam as “Muslim” and not “Islamic”‘
‘Also, I’m pretty sure the word you were looking for was either “Sheikh” or “Imam” or even “spiritual guide”, but definitely not “Mullah” – from what I know, a “mullah” doesn’t have that much sway in terms of guiding Muslims in terms of everyday life stuff…such as medical procedures.’
I hope a friend of mine doesn’t mind me reposting her comment here:
‘As you know, there are different practices of “Islam” in various parts of the Muslim World. In most cases, pre-Islamic traditions of a particular culture are mixed with Islamic traditions and so you get different practices in different parts of the world, all deemed as “Islamic”.’
‘So i’m not quite sure where and what the origin of this practice is.’
‘All i know is that according to Islam, body modifications (i.e. tattoos) are Haram (not ok)’
‘Also, just as FYI – it’s best to call someone who practices Islam as “Muslim” and not “Islamic”‘
‘Also, I’m pretty sure the word you were looking for was either “Sheikh” or “Imam” or even “spiritual guide”, but definitely not “Mullah” – from what I know, a “mullah” doesn’t have that much sway in terms of guiding Muslims in terms of everyday life stuff…such as medical procedures.’
i’m torn between being impressed at the implant and horrified by the fact that it’s a spiritual substitute for a necessary medical procedure.
i’m torn between being impressed at the implant and horrified by the fact that it’s a spiritual substitute for a necessary medical procedure.
i’m torn between being impressed at the implant and horrified by the fact that it’s a spiritual substitute for a necessary medical procedure.
i’m torn between being impressed at the implant and horrified by the fact that it’s a spiritual substitute for a necessary medical procedure.
Actually, “Mullah” IS the correct term; Shi’ites most often refer to leaders (who can be Imams or Shaykhs) as “Mullahs”. The term “Hoja” is also applicable. As for this practice, I consulted my Shaykh, invested by the Niatullahi/Kwajaghani and Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufi orders; he states that in such cases an item is chosen for its purity (which can mean its “spiritual” purity, as opposed to biocompatibility), certain verses of the Qur’an are chanted over it as well as Salawats for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) until the object is imbued with the essence of healing as promised in Surahs such as Ya Seen and Ayats such as Al-Kursi. The object can them be worn as a talisman, or in more extreme cases can be made to become a part of the body in the way described. This is NOT considered body modification, but a legitimate route of medical healing as viewed within some Islamic traditions. This is the same as someone having a medically necessary amputation calling it a “mod”; in western medical views, I’m certain the implantation of a blessed bead would be considered ill-advised and highly elective at best. I would imagine this sister, however she did it, discovered that a modification artist was more amenable to the procedure, and went ahead with it as planned.
Actually, “Mullah” IS the correct term; Shi’ites most often refer to leaders (who can be Imams or Shaykhs) as “Mullahs”. The term “Hoja” is also applicable. As for this practice, I consulted my Shaykh, invested by the Niatullahi/Kwajaghani and Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufi orders; he states that in such cases an item is chosen for its purity (which can mean its “spiritual” purity, as opposed to biocompatibility), certain verses of the Qur’an are chanted over it as well as Salawats for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) until the object is imbued with the essence of healing as promised in Surahs such as Ya Seen and Ayats such as Al-Kursi. The object can them be worn as a talisman, or in more extreme cases can be made to become a part of the body in the way described. This is NOT considered body modification, but a legitimate route of medical healing as viewed within some Islamic traditions. This is the same as someone having a medically necessary amputation calling it a “mod”; in western medical views, I’m certain the implantation of a blessed bead would be considered ill-advised and highly elective at best. I would imagine this sister, however she did it, discovered that a modification artist was more amenable to the procedure, and went ahead with it as planned.
Actually, “Mullah” IS the correct term; Shi’ites most often refer to leaders (who can be Imams or Shaykhs) as “Mullahs”. The term “Hoja” is also applicable. As for this practice, I consulted my Shaykh, invested by the Niatullahi/Kwajaghani and Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufi orders; he states that in such cases an item is chosen for its purity (which can mean its “spiritual” purity, as opposed to biocompatibility), certain verses of the Qur’an are chanted over it as well as Salawats for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) until the object is imbued with the essence of healing as promised in Surahs such as Ya Seen and Ayats such as Al-Kursi. The object can them be worn as a talisman, or in more extreme cases can be made to become a part of the body in the way described. This is NOT considered body modification, but a legitimate route of medical healing as viewed within some Islamic traditions. This is the same as someone having a medically necessary amputation calling it a “mod”; in western medical views, I’m certain the implantation of a blessed bead would be considered ill-advised and highly elective at best. I would imagine this sister, however she did it, discovered that a modification artist was more amenable to the procedure, and went ahead with it as planned.
Actually, “Mullah” IS the correct term; Shi’ites most often refer to leaders (who can be Imams or Shaykhs) as “Mullahs”. The term “Hoja” is also applicable. As for this practice, I consulted my Shaykh, invested by the Niatullahi/Kwajaghani and Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufi orders; he states that in such cases an item is chosen for its purity (which can mean its “spiritual” purity, as opposed to biocompatibility), certain verses of the Qur’an are chanted over it as well as Salawats for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) until the object is imbued with the essence of healing as promised in Surahs such as Ya Seen and Ayats such as Al-Kursi. The object can them be worn as a talisman, or in more extreme cases can be made to become a part of the body in the way described. This is NOT considered body modification, but a legitimate route of medical healing as viewed within some Islamic traditions. This is the same as someone having a medically necessary amputation calling it a “mod”; in western medical views, I’m certain the implantation of a blessed bead would be considered ill-advised and highly elective at best. I would imagine this sister, however she did it, discovered that a modification artist was more amenable to the procedure, and went ahead with it as planned.
Good work, Islam (as in “I-slam women to the ground and kick them in the face for leaving the house”)!
Way to keep up on the cutting-edge medical innovations…of the 7th century.
Given that cutting of the flesh is considered haram in Islam, I can’t exactly understand how this is consider “kosher”.
Oops, I mean, “Death to the Jews! ZOG! ZOG! ZOG!”
Good work, Islam (as in “I-slam women to the ground and kick them in the face for leaving the house”)!
Way to keep up on the cutting-edge medical innovations…of the 7th century.
Given that cutting of the flesh is considered haram in Islam, I can’t exactly understand how this is consider “kosher”.
Oops, I mean, “Death to the Jews! ZOG! ZOG! ZOG!”
Good work, Islam (as in “I-slam women to the ground and kick them in the face for leaving the house”)!
Way to keep up on the cutting-edge medical innovations…of the 7th century.
Given that cutting of the flesh is considered haram in Islam, I can’t exactly understand how this is consider “kosher”.
Oops, I mean, “Death to the Jews! ZOG! ZOG! ZOG!”
Good work, Islam (as in “I-slam women to the ground and kick them in the face for leaving the house”)!
Way to keep up on the cutting-edge medical innovations…of the 7th century.
Given that cutting of the flesh is considered haram in Islam, I can’t exactly understand how this is consider “kosher”.
Oops, I mean, “Death to the Jews! ZOG! ZOG! ZOG!”
I agree with Joshua. I am complete disagreement with religions restricting medical treatment. Just like jehovah’s wwitness are not allowed tranfusions. A 3 year old child born into a jehovah’s witnesses’ family who needs a life-or-death blood tranfusion will be denied it. SO, in that spirit, i say that piercer was irresponsible in his act of helping this person contribute to his failing health. If anything its going to make this person even sicker as with most diseases, your immune system takes a blow, so healing that thing and keeping it infection-free is going to be next to impossible. Not to mention that person just brought in this peice of gold saying that it was blessed and to stick it into his forearm. Given it was sterilized before insertion, this doesn’t mean its got a perfectly smooth serface or any TOXIC materials within it. Honestly, it could just be a really crafty way to commit suicide so that they arn’t shamed by their religion’s followers.
I’m completely opposed to this procedure being done under the circumstances explained. Even worse that its in canada and this person is most likely going to end up sicker and therefore abuse the free health care. You want to make yourself sicker? Get your ass out of canada. We don’t pay a ton of taxes and shit for our health care system just for “religious beleifs” to cause even more health probolems. I mean christ we already have the smoking and CAD problem.
Okay, i’m going to stop before i insult someone too much. Put I could keep pulling out there points over and over to argue why this is so wrong.
I agree with Joshua. I am complete disagreement with religions restricting medical treatment. Just like jehovah’s wwitness are not allowed tranfusions. A 3 year old child born into a jehovah’s witnesses’ family who needs a life-or-death blood tranfusion will be denied it. SO, in that spirit, i say that piercer was irresponsible in his act of helping this person contribute to his failing health. If anything its going to make this person even sicker as with most diseases, your immune system takes a blow, so healing that thing and keeping it infection-free is going to be next to impossible. Not to mention that person just brought in this peice of gold saying that it was blessed and to stick it into his forearm. Given it was sterilized before insertion, this doesn’t mean its got a perfectly smooth serface or any TOXIC materials within it. Honestly, it could just be a really crafty way to commit suicide so that they arn’t shamed by their religion’s followers.
I’m completely opposed to this procedure being done under the circumstances explained. Even worse that its in canada and this person is most likely going to end up sicker and therefore abuse the free health care. You want to make yourself sicker? Get your ass out of canada. We don’t pay a ton of taxes and shit for our health care system just for “religious beleifs” to cause even more health probolems. I mean christ we already have the smoking and CAD problem.
Okay, i’m going to stop before i insult someone too much. Put I could keep pulling out there points over and over to argue why this is so wrong.
I agree with Joshua. I am complete disagreement with religions restricting medical treatment. Just like jehovah’s wwitness are not allowed tranfusions. A 3 year old child born into a jehovah’s witnesses’ family who needs a life-or-death blood tranfusion will be denied it. SO, in that spirit, i say that piercer was irresponsible in his act of helping this person contribute to his failing health. If anything its going to make this person even sicker as with most diseases, your immune system takes a blow, so healing that thing and keeping it infection-free is going to be next to impossible. Not to mention that person just brought in this peice of gold saying that it was blessed and to stick it into his forearm. Given it was sterilized before insertion, this doesn’t mean its got a perfectly smooth serface or any TOXIC materials within it. Honestly, it could just be a really crafty way to commit suicide so that they arn’t shamed by their religion’s followers.
I’m completely opposed to this procedure being done under the circumstances explained. Even worse that its in canada and this person is most likely going to end up sicker and therefore abuse the free health care. You want to make yourself sicker? Get your ass out of canada. We don’t pay a ton of taxes and shit for our health care system just for “religious beleifs” to cause even more health probolems. I mean christ we already have the smoking and CAD problem.
Okay, i’m going to stop before i insult someone too much. Put I could keep pulling out there points over and over to argue why this is so wrong.
I agree with Joshua. I am complete disagreement with religions restricting medical treatment. Just like jehovah’s wwitness are not allowed tranfusions. A 3 year old child born into a jehovah’s witnesses’ family who needs a life-or-death blood tranfusion will be denied it. SO, in that spirit, i say that piercer was irresponsible in his act of helping this person contribute to his failing health. If anything its going to make this person even sicker as with most diseases, your immune system takes a blow, so healing that thing and keeping it infection-free is going to be next to impossible. Not to mention that person just brought in this peice of gold saying that it was blessed and to stick it into his forearm. Given it was sterilized before insertion, this doesn’t mean its got a perfectly smooth serface or any TOXIC materials within it. Honestly, it could just be a really crafty way to commit suicide so that they arn’t shamed by their religion’s followers.
I’m completely opposed to this procedure being done under the circumstances explained. Even worse that its in canada and this person is most likely going to end up sicker and therefore abuse the free health care. You want to make yourself sicker? Get your ass out of canada. We don’t pay a ton of taxes and shit for our health care system just for “religious beleifs” to cause even more health probolems. I mean christ we already have the smoking and CAD problem.
Okay, i’m going to stop before i insult someone too much. Put I could keep pulling out there points over and over to argue why this is so wrong.
Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.
Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.
Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.
Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.
I have recently taken a medical ethics course as a nursing student in the United States, and as for a 3 yr old JW receiving a blood transfusion: here, in the USA, if it is deemed medically necesary by the doctors, it can be performed on the child without the parent’s consent in a life or death situation. There are some sects of faiths that, while they disallow certain medical proceedures, they make exceptions for the young, especially when legally necesary. It’s unfortunate that doctors can make such decisions, in some cases. I read about a man who lost both of his arms while working with farming equipment and needed a blood transfusion, but was a JW. He had a card in his wallet and continuously implored the doctors (while he was conscious) not to perform one. They did anyways, and it saved his life. Now, sans arms, he is a patient advocate for others with religious beliefs barring certain proceedures. He wishes he had died rather than be forced to disobey his religion, and I think that’s his right.
I have recently taken a medical ethics course as a nursing student in the United States, and as for a 3 yr old JW receiving a blood transfusion: here, in the USA, if it is deemed medically necesary by the doctors, it can be performed on the child without the parent’s consent in a life or death situation. There are some sects of faiths that, while they disallow certain medical proceedures, they make exceptions for the young, especially when legally necesary. It’s unfortunate that doctors can make such decisions, in some cases. I read about a man who lost both of his arms while working with farming equipment and needed a blood transfusion, but was a JW. He had a card in his wallet and continuously implored the doctors (while he was conscious) not to perform one. They did anyways, and it saved his life. Now, sans arms, he is a patient advocate for others with religious beliefs barring certain proceedures. He wishes he had died rather than be forced to disobey his religion, and I think that’s his right.
I have recently taken a medical ethics course as a nursing student in the United States, and as for a 3 yr old JW receiving a blood transfusion: here, in the USA, if it is deemed medically necesary by the doctors, it can be performed on the child without the parent’s consent in a life or death situation. There are some sects of faiths that, while they disallow certain medical proceedures, they make exceptions for the young, especially when legally necesary. It’s unfortunate that doctors can make such decisions, in some cases. I read about a man who lost both of his arms while working with farming equipment and needed a blood transfusion, but was a JW. He had a card in his wallet and continuously implored the doctors (while he was conscious) not to perform one. They did anyways, and it saved his life. Now, sans arms, he is a patient advocate for others with religious beliefs barring certain proceedures. He wishes he had died rather than be forced to disobey his religion, and I think that’s his right.
I have recently taken a medical ethics course as a nursing student in the United States, and as for a 3 yr old JW receiving a blood transfusion: here, in the USA, if it is deemed medically necesary by the doctors, it can be performed on the child without the parent’s consent in a life or death situation. There are some sects of faiths that, while they disallow certain medical proceedures, they make exceptions for the young, especially when legally necesary. It’s unfortunate that doctors can make such decisions, in some cases. I read about a man who lost both of his arms while working with farming equipment and needed a blood transfusion, but was a JW. He had a card in his wallet and continuously implored the doctors (while he was conscious) not to perform one. They did anyways, and it saved his life. Now, sans arms, he is a patient advocate for others with religious beliefs barring certain proceedures. He wishes he had died rather than be forced to disobey his religion, and I think that’s his right.
Or if they were pressured or forced into not getting treatment. Don’t assume it was a choice. I think a person has the right to do anything they want with their health, which is why I’m very against religions that require people to forgoe necessary medical procedures.
Or if they were pressured or forced into not getting treatment. Don’t assume it was a choice. I think a person has the right to do anything they want with their health, which is why I’m very against religions that require people to forgoe necessary medical procedures.
Or if they were pressured or forced into not getting treatment. Don’t assume it was a choice. I think a person has the right to do anything they want with their health, which is why I’m very against religions that require people to forgoe necessary medical procedures.
Or if they were pressured or forced into not getting treatment. Don’t assume it was a choice. I think a person has the right to do anything they want with their health, which is why I’m very against religions that require people to forgoe necessary medical procedures.
I would be worried about the person not getting the medical treatment they need, on religious grounds, but as long as they have made an informed decision based on full medical and religious information, I think it’s their choice to make. Similarly for the implant – I don’t believe it’s going to heal them but if it’s what they want done, and it won’t by itself make them sicker, then they should be allowed to have it.
This was a very interesting story, Shannon – thanks for posting it here! I’m intrigued by the fact that in the person’s tradition it wouldn’t be considered a body modification although it’s seen as that by people who are familiar with similar work done in the modification spirit.
I would be worried about the person not getting the medical treatment they need, on religious grounds, but as long as they have made an informed decision based on full medical and religious information, I think it’s their choice to make. Similarly for the implant – I don’t believe it’s going to heal them but if it’s what they want done, and it won’t by itself make them sicker, then they should be allowed to have it.
This was a very interesting story, Shannon – thanks for posting it here! I’m intrigued by the fact that in the person’s tradition it wouldn’t be considered a body modification although it’s seen as that by people who are familiar with similar work done in the modification spirit.
I would be worried about the person not getting the medical treatment they need, on religious grounds, but as long as they have made an informed decision based on full medical and religious information, I think it’s their choice to make. Similarly for the implant – I don’t believe it’s going to heal them but if it’s what they want done, and it won’t by itself make them sicker, then they should be allowed to have it.
This was a very interesting story, Shannon – thanks for posting it here! I’m intrigued by the fact that in the person’s tradition it wouldn’t be considered a body modification although it’s seen as that by people who are familiar with similar work done in the modification spirit.
I would be worried about the person not getting the medical treatment they need, on religious grounds, but as long as they have made an informed decision based on full medical and religious information, I think it’s their choice to make. Similarly for the implant – I don’t believe it’s going to heal them but if it’s what they want done, and it won’t by itself make them sicker, then they should be allowed to have it.
This was a very interesting story, Shannon – thanks for posting it here! I’m intrigued by the fact that in the person’s tradition it wouldn’t be considered a body modification although it’s seen as that by people who are familiar with similar work done in the modification spirit.
“Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.”
Actually it’s not really their individual choice, considering their healthcare is funded by the state as they have said already. It’s morally the same as smashing up a council house you dont like so they re-home you.
“Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.”
Actually it’s not really their individual choice, considering their healthcare is funded by the state as they have said already. It’s morally the same as smashing up a council house you dont like so they re-home you.
“Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.”
Actually it’s not really their individual choice, considering their healthcare is funded by the state as they have said already. It’s morally the same as smashing up a council house you dont like so they re-home you.
“Why is it horrifying? It’s someone’s choice, based on a choice they made about which god to worship and which customs to follow. What would horrify me is if it were not an informed decision this person is making.”
Actually it’s not really their individual choice, considering their healthcare is funded by the state as they have said already. It’s morally the same as smashing up a council house you dont like so they re-home you.
It is an individual choice. I don’t know much about the Canadian health care system or whatever it’s called, but they are making a choice to not have one operation in favor of another so that there is no conflict with their chosen religious path.
It is an individual choice. I don’t know much about the Canadian health care system or whatever it’s called, but they are making a choice to not have one operation in favor of another so that there is no conflict with their chosen religious path.
It is an individual choice. I don’t know much about the Canadian health care system or whatever it’s called, but they are making a choice to not have one operation in favor of another so that there is no conflict with their chosen religious path.
It is an individual choice. I don’t know much about the Canadian health care system or whatever it’s called, but they are making a choice to not have one operation in favor of another so that there is no conflict with their chosen religious path.
They’re making a choice to forgo a medical procedure that would have made him better. And whoever said that as long as it won’t make him sicker, chances are, it will. Whatever illness he has, its standard knowledge that when you’re sick so is your immune system. Putting that in there is just another blow to his system and its just going to have to work ten-fold to try and reject it, which most likely will mean that the illness will then have an advantage over his immune system and be able to take hold.
I’m also absolutely against religions that negotiate medical treatment. Its almost hypocritical to have his religion state that he can have one procedure but not the next or the other more effective one.
Dilbert: by making that choice, they are infact going to get sicker and cost the healthcare system that much more. Canada’s healthcare is shit, and people like that just make it worse. Say if they were muslim and their religion dnies a certain medical procedure, then they should not be treated at all by any of our healthcare sectors. Its abuse/neglect of self in any way you look at it.
They’re making a choice to forgo a medical procedure that would have made him better. And whoever said that as long as it won’t make him sicker, chances are, it will. Whatever illness he has, its standard knowledge that when you’re sick so is your immune system. Putting that in there is just another blow to his system and its just going to have to work ten-fold to try and reject it, which most likely will mean that the illness will then have an advantage over his immune system and be able to take hold.
I’m also absolutely against religions that negotiate medical treatment. Its almost hypocritical to have his religion state that he can have one procedure but not the next or the other more effective one.
Dilbert: by making that choice, they are infact going to get sicker and cost the healthcare system that much more. Canada’s healthcare is shit, and people like that just make it worse. Say if they were muslim and their religion dnies a certain medical procedure, then they should not be treated at all by any of our healthcare sectors. Its abuse/neglect of self in any way you look at it.
They’re making a choice to forgo a medical procedure that would have made him better. And whoever said that as long as it won’t make him sicker, chances are, it will. Whatever illness he has, its standard knowledge that when you’re sick so is your immune system. Putting that in there is just another blow to his system and its just going to have to work ten-fold to try and reject it, which most likely will mean that the illness will then have an advantage over his immune system and be able to take hold.
I’m also absolutely against religions that negotiate medical treatment. Its almost hypocritical to have his religion state that he can have one procedure but not the next or the other more effective one.
Dilbert: by making that choice, they are infact going to get sicker and cost the healthcare system that much more. Canada’s healthcare is shit, and people like that just make it worse. Say if they were muslim and their religion dnies a certain medical procedure, then they should not be treated at all by any of our healthcare sectors. Its abuse/neglect of self in any way you look at it.
They’re making a choice to forgo a medical procedure that would have made him better. And whoever said that as long as it won’t make him sicker, chances are, it will. Whatever illness he has, its standard knowledge that when you’re sick so is your immune system. Putting that in there is just another blow to his system and its just going to have to work ten-fold to try and reject it, which most likely will mean that the illness will then have an advantage over his immune system and be able to take hold.
I’m also absolutely against religions that negotiate medical treatment. Its almost hypocritical to have his religion state that he can have one procedure but not the next or the other more effective one.
Dilbert: by making that choice, they are infact going to get sicker and cost the healthcare system that much more. Canada’s healthcare is shit, and people like that just make it worse. Say if they were muslim and their religion dnies a certain medical procedure, then they should not be treated at all by any of our healthcare sectors. Its abuse/neglect of self in any way you look at it.
Why is it that someone who made a choice to do a procedure such as a transdermal implant garnering more horror and suspicion than the post above where a man removed his own penis and then re-routed his urethra beneath his testacals.
Personally I would expect more from this community when it comes to understanding that other people have different understandings of religion and of body modification. The fact that this person chose to go to a tattoo shop to have this done suggests that perhaps she is not the stereotype that some are subtlety suggesting. Any religion has many, many different versions, denominations, and personal conceptions. Perhaps this was someone’s way of rectifying their personal religious beliefs (to not have a medical procedure) with their desire for body modification.
The arguments pertaining to choices made about one’s own body, be them medical, religious, or of modifications are very interesting. In my mind these choices are inherently personal and not something that the government needs to dictate. Even less so is it something that this board is justified to judge. Here, if anywhere, I would have expected more people to voice similar ideals.
Maybe I am over sensitive, or maybe I am over reacting, but how is this choice any different than any one else’s to change their body?
It was for personal reasons, based on deep set personal beliefs.
Further more, I don’t think that any of the posters would argue that body modification cannot/does not/could not have a beneficial effect on individuals; spiritually, mentally, and holistically. Reading the countless experiences on this site has certainly convinced me of that it does.
I am a long time lurker on this site, but was quite surprised by the response this post got.
Why is it that someone who made a choice to do a procedure such as a transdermal implant garnering more horror and suspicion than the post above where a man removed his own penis and then re-routed his urethra beneath his testacals.
Personally I would expect more from this community when it comes to understanding that other people have different understandings of religion and of body modification. The fact that this person chose to go to a tattoo shop to have this done suggests that perhaps she is not the stereotype that some are subtlety suggesting. Any religion has many, many different versions, denominations, and personal conceptions. Perhaps this was someone’s way of rectifying their personal religious beliefs (to not have a medical procedure) with their desire for body modification.
The arguments pertaining to choices made about one’s own body, be them medical, religious, or of modifications are very interesting. In my mind these choices are inherently personal and not something that the government needs to dictate. Even less so is it something that this board is justified to judge. Here, if anywhere, I would have expected more people to voice similar ideals.
Maybe I am over sensitive, or maybe I am over reacting, but how is this choice any different than any one else’s to change their body?
It was for personal reasons, based on deep set personal beliefs.
Further more, I don’t think that any of the posters would argue that body modification cannot/does not/could not have a beneficial effect on individuals; spiritually, mentally, and holistically. Reading the countless experiences on this site has certainly convinced me of that it does.
I am a long time lurker on this site, but was quite surprised by the response this post got.
Why is it that someone who made a choice to do a procedure such as a transdermal implant garnering more horror and suspicion than the post above where a man removed his own penis and then re-routed his urethra beneath his testacals.
Personally I would expect more from this community when it comes to understanding that other people have different understandings of religion and of body modification. The fact that this person chose to go to a tattoo shop to have this done suggests that perhaps she is not the stereotype that some are subtlety suggesting. Any religion has many, many different versions, denominations, and personal conceptions. Perhaps this was someone’s way of rectifying their personal religious beliefs (to not have a medical procedure) with their desire for body modification.
The arguments pertaining to choices made about one’s own body, be them medical, religious, or of modifications are very interesting. In my mind these choices are inherently personal and not something that the government needs to dictate. Even less so is it something that this board is justified to judge. Here, if anywhere, I would have expected more people to voice similar ideals.
Maybe I am over sensitive, or maybe I am over reacting, but how is this choice any different than any one else’s to change their body?
It was for personal reasons, based on deep set personal beliefs.
Further more, I don’t think that any of the posters would argue that body modification cannot/does not/could not have a beneficial effect on individuals; spiritually, mentally, and holistically. Reading the countless experiences on this site has certainly convinced me of that it does.
I am a long time lurker on this site, but was quite surprised by the response this post got.
Why is it that someone who made a choice to do a procedure such as a transdermal implant garnering more horror and suspicion than the post above where a man removed his own penis and then re-routed his urethra beneath his testacals.
Personally I would expect more from this community when it comes to understanding that other people have different understandings of religion and of body modification. The fact that this person chose to go to a tattoo shop to have this done suggests that perhaps she is not the stereotype that some are subtlety suggesting. Any religion has many, many different versions, denominations, and personal conceptions. Perhaps this was someone’s way of rectifying their personal religious beliefs (to not have a medical procedure) with their desire for body modification.
The arguments pertaining to choices made about one’s own body, be them medical, religious, or of modifications are very interesting. In my mind these choices are inherently personal and not something that the government needs to dictate. Even less so is it something that this board is justified to judge. Here, if anywhere, I would have expected more people to voice similar ideals.
Maybe I am over sensitive, or maybe I am over reacting, but how is this choice any different than any one else’s to change their body?
It was for personal reasons, based on deep set personal beliefs.
Further more, I don’t think that any of the posters would argue that body modification cannot/does not/could not have a beneficial effect on individuals; spiritually, mentally, and holistically. Reading the countless experiences on this site has certainly convinced me of that it does.
I am a long time lurker on this site, but was quite surprised by the response this post got.
hmm. so, leavethepoliticstomadmen, are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service? What if someone chooses not to have a procedure that will leave them with an ugly scar because they’re a model? It’s their right. It’s not always a good idea because they might get better, but they will end up simply disgusted with themselves, much like the man with no arms I wrote about earlier.
btw, the Canadian health insurance policy does has it’s flaws, but those flaws are inherent in a system in which people are allowed to use moral hazard with no punishment (moral hazard = use of extra tests “because they’re free”).
One final comment,
I have studied religion’s impact on someone’s healing time, happiness, etc, and it has been proven by numerous surveys that people who are religious and pray about their recovery tend to recover faster, and tend to keep “faith” in their chances of survival, and tend not to give up during treatment. I am not religious, but I understand that for some people, religion is such an intrinsic part of their lives that they weave their faith with their health, and place them at one whole entity.
Really though, try to be understanding. Religion, in many cases, is simply someone’s beliefs. I’ve heard of paranoid atheists refusing medical services because they think the doctor is in a conspiracy trying to kill them. If they choose to do something with THEIR OWN DAMN BODIES, it is their right (unless they are children according to the law). Just like I choose to stick metal bits in me and embellish my skin with ink.
hmm. so, leavethepoliticstomadmen, are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service? What if someone chooses not to have a procedure that will leave them with an ugly scar because they’re a model? It’s their right. It’s not always a good idea because they might get better, but they will end up simply disgusted with themselves, much like the man with no arms I wrote about earlier.
btw, the Canadian health insurance policy does has it’s flaws, but those flaws are inherent in a system in which people are allowed to use moral hazard with no punishment (moral hazard = use of extra tests “because they’re free”).
One final comment,
I have studied religion’s impact on someone’s healing time, happiness, etc, and it has been proven by numerous surveys that people who are religious and pray about their recovery tend to recover faster, and tend to keep “faith” in their chances of survival, and tend not to give up during treatment. I am not religious, but I understand that for some people, religion is such an intrinsic part of their lives that they weave their faith with their health, and place them at one whole entity.
Really though, try to be understanding. Religion, in many cases, is simply someone’s beliefs. I’ve heard of paranoid atheists refusing medical services because they think the doctor is in a conspiracy trying to kill them. If they choose to do something with THEIR OWN DAMN BODIES, it is their right (unless they are children according to the law). Just like I choose to stick metal bits in me and embellish my skin with ink.
hmm. so, leavethepoliticstomadmen, are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service? What if someone chooses not to have a procedure that will leave them with an ugly scar because they’re a model? It’s their right. It’s not always a good idea because they might get better, but they will end up simply disgusted with themselves, much like the man with no arms I wrote about earlier.
btw, the Canadian health insurance policy does has it’s flaws, but those flaws are inherent in a system in which people are allowed to use moral hazard with no punishment (moral hazard = use of extra tests “because they’re free”).
One final comment,
I have studied religion’s impact on someone’s healing time, happiness, etc, and it has been proven by numerous surveys that people who are religious and pray about their recovery tend to recover faster, and tend to keep “faith” in their chances of survival, and tend not to give up during treatment. I am not religious, but I understand that for some people, religion is such an intrinsic part of their lives that they weave their faith with their health, and place them at one whole entity.
Really though, try to be understanding. Religion, in many cases, is simply someone’s beliefs. I’ve heard of paranoid atheists refusing medical services because they think the doctor is in a conspiracy trying to kill them. If they choose to do something with THEIR OWN DAMN BODIES, it is their right (unless they are children according to the law). Just like I choose to stick metal bits in me and embellish my skin with ink.
hmm. so, leavethepoliticstomadmen, are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service? What if someone chooses not to have a procedure that will leave them with an ugly scar because they’re a model? It’s their right. It’s not always a good idea because they might get better, but they will end up simply disgusted with themselves, much like the man with no arms I wrote about earlier.
btw, the Canadian health insurance policy does has it’s flaws, but those flaws are inherent in a system in which people are allowed to use moral hazard with no punishment (moral hazard = use of extra tests “because they’re free”).
One final comment,
I have studied religion’s impact on someone’s healing time, happiness, etc, and it has been proven by numerous surveys that people who are religious and pray about their recovery tend to recover faster, and tend to keep “faith” in their chances of survival, and tend not to give up during treatment. I am not religious, but I understand that for some people, religion is such an intrinsic part of their lives that they weave their faith with their health, and place them at one whole entity.
Really though, try to be understanding. Religion, in many cases, is simply someone’s beliefs. I’ve heard of paranoid atheists refusing medical services because they think the doctor is in a conspiracy trying to kill them. If they choose to do something with THEIR OWN DAMN BODIES, it is their right (unless they are children according to the law). Just like I choose to stick metal bits in me and embellish my skin with ink.
“[…] are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service?”
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
A socialized healthcare system is essentially a collective (as is everything “socialist”). Given that the system is funded by taxpayer dollars, it would only be logical that there be certain rules in place about fair and prudent use of the system so as not to put undue strain on said system (in the form of unnecessary costs, exorbitant wait times, etc.).
If someone has a legitimate medical condition that is curable or can be treated in some form (such as is the case with many types of cancer) it would seem logical that the person should undergo the appropriate treatment for the condition as recommended by a doctor. Does that mean the individual is forced to do so? Of course not. Not only would forced treatment infringe upon individual rights but a person NOT seeking medical treatment does not add any additional costs to the taxpayer-funded social healthcare system.
On the other hand, if the patient in question has a curable or treatable ailment and refuses legitimate medical treatment in favor of all sorts of primitive pseudo-religious quackery, it would seem that the aforementioned patient has made a conscious decision to opt out of the healthcare system (and the realm of legitimate medicine).
What happens when the needless implantation of a metal ball (not performed by a healthcare professional) into the patient’s arm results in rejection that, firstly, further compromises or degrades the patient’s immune system and, additionally, has delayed legitimate medical treatment to the point that the condition is now more serious and will require more agrressive (that is, costly) medical treatment?
Are we to be expected to subsidize the idiocy of others?
There was a legitimate medical course of action suggested and the patient eschewed such in favor of what amounts to witchcraft or voodoo. His or her decision was without coercion and he or she was free to make that decision; just as the rest of us should be free to say (via official healthcare policy) that we aren’t going to pay for any treatments to correct damage or harm caused by the patient’s reckless negligence.
I think this whole discussion is analogous to the debate over whether a patient should be given a taxpayer-funded transplant if he or she refuses to quit smoking in the period of time leading up to the operation.
In a socialized healthcare system you no longer “own” your health, the entire population responsible for the subsidization of your treatment has a stake in your sickness or wellness. If you choose to cause undue harm to your body (harm that would have otherwise not occurred) or you exacerbate a condition by refusing real medical treatment, I feel that it is YOU who should be responsible for the costs associated with the resulting treatment.
You have the right to make whatever choice you want, but choices have consequences.
“[…] are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service?”
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
A socialized healthcare system is essentially a collective (as is everything “socialist”). Given that the system is funded by taxpayer dollars, it would only be logical that there be certain rules in place about fair and prudent use of the system so as not to put undue strain on said system (in the form of unnecessary costs, exorbitant wait times, etc.).
If someone has a legitimate medical condition that is curable or can be treated in some form (such as is the case with many types of cancer) it would seem logical that the person should undergo the appropriate treatment for the condition as recommended by a doctor. Does that mean the individual is forced to do so? Of course not. Not only would forced treatment infringe upon individual rights but a person NOT seeking medical treatment does not add any additional costs to the taxpayer-funded social healthcare system.
On the other hand, if the patient in question has a curable or treatable ailment and refuses legitimate medical treatment in favor of all sorts of primitive pseudo-religious quackery, it would seem that the aforementioned patient has made a conscious decision to opt out of the healthcare system (and the realm of legitimate medicine).
What happens when the needless implantation of a metal ball (not performed by a healthcare professional) into the patient’s arm results in rejection that, firstly, further compromises or degrades the patient’s immune system and, additionally, has delayed legitimate medical treatment to the point that the condition is now more serious and will require more agrressive (that is, costly) medical treatment?
Are we to be expected to subsidize the idiocy of others?
There was a legitimate medical course of action suggested and the patient eschewed such in favor of what amounts to witchcraft or voodoo. His or her decision was without coercion and he or she was free to make that decision; just as the rest of us should be free to say (via official healthcare policy) that we aren’t going to pay for any treatments to correct damage or harm caused by the patient’s reckless negligence.
I think this whole discussion is analogous to the debate over whether a patient should be given a taxpayer-funded transplant if he or she refuses to quit smoking in the period of time leading up to the operation.
In a socialized healthcare system you no longer “own” your health, the entire population responsible for the subsidization of your treatment has a stake in your sickness or wellness. If you choose to cause undue harm to your body (harm that would have otherwise not occurred) or you exacerbate a condition by refusing real medical treatment, I feel that it is YOU who should be responsible for the costs associated with the resulting treatment.
You have the right to make whatever choice you want, but choices have consequences.
“[…] are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service?”
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
A socialized healthcare system is essentially a collective (as is everything “socialist”). Given that the system is funded by taxpayer dollars, it would only be logical that there be certain rules in place about fair and prudent use of the system so as not to put undue strain on said system (in the form of unnecessary costs, exorbitant wait times, etc.).
If someone has a legitimate medical condition that is curable or can be treated in some form (such as is the case with many types of cancer) it would seem logical that the person should undergo the appropriate treatment for the condition as recommended by a doctor. Does that mean the individual is forced to do so? Of course not. Not only would forced treatment infringe upon individual rights but a person NOT seeking medical treatment does not add any additional costs to the taxpayer-funded social healthcare system.
On the other hand, if the patient in question has a curable or treatable ailment and refuses legitimate medical treatment in favor of all sorts of primitive pseudo-religious quackery, it would seem that the aforementioned patient has made a conscious decision to opt out of the healthcare system (and the realm of legitimate medicine).
What happens when the needless implantation of a metal ball (not performed by a healthcare professional) into the patient’s arm results in rejection that, firstly, further compromises or degrades the patient’s immune system and, additionally, has delayed legitimate medical treatment to the point that the condition is now more serious and will require more agrressive (that is, costly) medical treatment?
Are we to be expected to subsidize the idiocy of others?
There was a legitimate medical course of action suggested and the patient eschewed such in favor of what amounts to witchcraft or voodoo. His or her decision was without coercion and he or she was free to make that decision; just as the rest of us should be free to say (via official healthcare policy) that we aren’t going to pay for any treatments to correct damage or harm caused by the patient’s reckless negligence.
I think this whole discussion is analogous to the debate over whether a patient should be given a taxpayer-funded transplant if he or she refuses to quit smoking in the period of time leading up to the operation.
In a socialized healthcare system you no longer “own” your health, the entire population responsible for the subsidization of your treatment has a stake in your sickness or wellness. If you choose to cause undue harm to your body (harm that would have otherwise not occurred) or you exacerbate a condition by refusing real medical treatment, I feel that it is YOU who should be responsible for the costs associated with the resulting treatment.
You have the right to make whatever choice you want, but choices have consequences.
“[…] are you saying that if someone for any reason chooses not to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor should be completely refused medical service?”
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
A socialized healthcare system is essentially a collective (as is everything “socialist”). Given that the system is funded by taxpayer dollars, it would only be logical that there be certain rules in place about fair and prudent use of the system so as not to put undue strain on said system (in the form of unnecessary costs, exorbitant wait times, etc.).
If someone has a legitimate medical condition that is curable or can be treated in some form (such as is the case with many types of cancer) it would seem logical that the person should undergo the appropriate treatment for the condition as recommended by a doctor. Does that mean the individual is forced to do so? Of course not. Not only would forced treatment infringe upon individual rights but a person NOT seeking medical treatment does not add any additional costs to the taxpayer-funded social healthcare system.
On the other hand, if the patient in question has a curable or treatable ailment and refuses legitimate medical treatment in favor of all sorts of primitive pseudo-religious quackery, it would seem that the aforementioned patient has made a conscious decision to opt out of the healthcare system (and the realm of legitimate medicine).
What happens when the needless implantation of a metal ball (not performed by a healthcare professional) into the patient’s arm results in rejection that, firstly, further compromises or degrades the patient’s immune system and, additionally, has delayed legitimate medical treatment to the point that the condition is now more serious and will require more agrressive (that is, costly) medical treatment?
Are we to be expected to subsidize the idiocy of others?
There was a legitimate medical course of action suggested and the patient eschewed such in favor of what amounts to witchcraft or voodoo. His or her decision was without coercion and he or she was free to make that decision; just as the rest of us should be free to say (via official healthcare policy) that we aren’t going to pay for any treatments to correct damage or harm caused by the patient’s reckless negligence.
I think this whole discussion is analogous to the debate over whether a patient should be given a taxpayer-funded transplant if he or she refuses to quit smoking in the period of time leading up to the operation.
In a socialized healthcare system you no longer “own” your health, the entire population responsible for the subsidization of your treatment has a stake in your sickness or wellness. If you choose to cause undue harm to your body (harm that would have otherwise not occurred) or you exacerbate a condition by refusing real medical treatment, I feel that it is YOU who should be responsible for the costs associated with the resulting treatment.
You have the right to make whatever choice you want, but choices have consequences.
Hmm, a minor clarification is necesary on my behalf. I am writing from the United States, and thus far my education has soley been based on the American system (if it can be called that) of health care. It is based on the idea that it’s your own damn fault. There are tax funded programs, but those apply to the very poor, and the very sick, and the old. So any part of my arguement should be viewed in light of this.
However, I also believe there is a fundamental problem at hand: should we keep on helping the darwinian idiots? If someone is hellbent to remove themselves from the genepool, should we let them? Is it their social responsibility to control their health in order to reduce the burden on society, or is it society’s role to guide it’s sheep-citizens to a healthy and perfect life, no obesity, no smoking, no sticking balls under the skin?
If it’s their responsibility, they could feel that they get no marginal benefit from society for not smoking/eating/etc and that the benefit that they receive from “sin” is greater. So fuck the social healthcare, pass me a beer.
If it’s the society’s responsibility, it could just ban all negative activities, first having figured out which ones are negative. Who thinks that piercings/cuttings/tattoos would be the first to go (aside from overeating, smoking, and some other sundry evils).
So, in short, I believe it is people’s responsibility to guard their own health, and society’s to enlighten them as to why they want to be healthy, and both of their responsibilities to pay for it.
Hmm, a minor clarification is necesary on my behalf. I am writing from the United States, and thus far my education has soley been based on the American system (if it can be called that) of health care. It is based on the idea that it’s your own damn fault. There are tax funded programs, but those apply to the very poor, and the very sick, and the old. So any part of my arguement should be viewed in light of this.
However, I also believe there is a fundamental problem at hand: should we keep on helping the darwinian idiots? If someone is hellbent to remove themselves from the genepool, should we let them? Is it their social responsibility to control their health in order to reduce the burden on society, or is it society’s role to guide it’s sheep-citizens to a healthy and perfect life, no obesity, no smoking, no sticking balls under the skin?
If it’s their responsibility, they could feel that they get no marginal benefit from society for not smoking/eating/etc and that the benefit that they receive from “sin” is greater. So fuck the social healthcare, pass me a beer.
If it’s the society’s responsibility, it could just ban all negative activities, first having figured out which ones are negative. Who thinks that piercings/cuttings/tattoos would be the first to go (aside from overeating, smoking, and some other sundry evils).
So, in short, I believe it is people’s responsibility to guard their own health, and society’s to enlighten them as to why they want to be healthy, and both of their responsibilities to pay for it.
Hmm, a minor clarification is necesary on my behalf. I am writing from the United States, and thus far my education has soley been based on the American system (if it can be called that) of health care. It is based on the idea that it’s your own damn fault. There are tax funded programs, but those apply to the very poor, and the very sick, and the old. So any part of my arguement should be viewed in light of this.
However, I also believe there is a fundamental problem at hand: should we keep on helping the darwinian idiots? If someone is hellbent to remove themselves from the genepool, should we let them? Is it their social responsibility to control their health in order to reduce the burden on society, or is it society’s role to guide it’s sheep-citizens to a healthy and perfect life, no obesity, no smoking, no sticking balls under the skin?
If it’s their responsibility, they could feel that they get no marginal benefit from society for not smoking/eating/etc and that the benefit that they receive from “sin” is greater. So fuck the social healthcare, pass me a beer.
If it’s the society’s responsibility, it could just ban all negative activities, first having figured out which ones are negative. Who thinks that piercings/cuttings/tattoos would be the first to go (aside from overeating, smoking, and some other sundry evils).
So, in short, I believe it is people’s responsibility to guard their own health, and society’s to enlighten them as to why they want to be healthy, and both of their responsibilities to pay for it.
Hmm, a minor clarification is necesary on my behalf. I am writing from the United States, and thus far my education has soley been based on the American system (if it can be called that) of health care. It is based on the idea that it’s your own damn fault. There are tax funded programs, but those apply to the very poor, and the very sick, and the old. So any part of my arguement should be viewed in light of this.
However, I also believe there is a fundamental problem at hand: should we keep on helping the darwinian idiots? If someone is hellbent to remove themselves from the genepool, should we let them? Is it their social responsibility to control their health in order to reduce the burden on society, or is it society’s role to guide it’s sheep-citizens to a healthy and perfect life, no obesity, no smoking, no sticking balls under the skin?
If it’s their responsibility, they could feel that they get no marginal benefit from society for not smoking/eating/etc and that the benefit that they receive from “sin” is greater. So fuck the social healthcare, pass me a beer.
If it’s the society’s responsibility, it could just ban all negative activities, first having figured out which ones are negative. Who thinks that piercings/cuttings/tattoos would be the first to go (aside from overeating, smoking, and some other sundry evils).
So, in short, I believe it is people’s responsibility to guard their own health, and society’s to enlighten them as to why they want to be healthy, and both of their responsibilities to pay for it.
I cannot believe there is a debate about this. I would have thought that the body mod community would understand that a person’s body is their own. If this person wants to forgo medical treatment because of religious beliefs that’s THEIR decision. If they want to have an object implanted in their body, and fully understand the risks, it ought to be THEIR decision. I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice. Besides, I really don’t think this particular person is burdening our healthcare system by refusing traditional medical treatment.
And also, don’t shit talk Ben because he knows his shit.
I cannot believe there is a debate about this. I would have thought that the body mod community would understand that a person’s body is their own. If this person wants to forgo medical treatment because of religious beliefs that’s THEIR decision. If they want to have an object implanted in their body, and fully understand the risks, it ought to be THEIR decision. I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice. Besides, I really don’t think this particular person is burdening our healthcare system by refusing traditional medical treatment.
And also, don’t shit talk Ben because he knows his shit.
I cannot believe there is a debate about this. I would have thought that the body mod community would understand that a person’s body is their own. If this person wants to forgo medical treatment because of religious beliefs that’s THEIR decision. If they want to have an object implanted in their body, and fully understand the risks, it ought to be THEIR decision. I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice. Besides, I really don’t think this particular person is burdening our healthcare system by refusing traditional medical treatment.
And also, don’t shit talk Ben because he knows his shit.
I cannot believe there is a debate about this. I would have thought that the body mod community would understand that a person’s body is their own. If this person wants to forgo medical treatment because of religious beliefs that’s THEIR decision. If they want to have an object implanted in their body, and fully understand the risks, it ought to be THEIR decision. I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice. Besides, I really don’t think this particular person is burdening our healthcare system by refusing traditional medical treatment.
And also, don’t shit talk Ben because he knows his shit.
Whitney,
No one is telling anyone what they should or should not do with regard to his or her body (nor in any other personal matter).
All I’m saying is that:
1. If someone chooses to defy medical opinion and do something that harms his or her body and has a detrimental impact upon his or her health, it should be the individual who assumes financial responsibility for the effects resulting from his or her actions (in an environmental with a socialized healthcare system).
The state (via the revenues collected from taxpayers) should not have to foot the bill for medical treatment because you stick a ball in your arm or cut your testicles off with an exacto knife.
2. Anyone believing the implatation of a metal ball into their flesh will provide a medical benefit or cure other than that of a purely psychosomatic/placebo effect-nature is an idiot. Period.
“I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice.”
That’s just a silly statement. Do you recall the recent dust-up when Shannon criticized and compared two tribal tattoos?
Additionally, though none of us have the right to prevent someone from making any choice he or she chooses, we absolutely have the right to criticize or critique said choice. The alternative is known as fascism. If you have the right to do as you please without repression or authoritarian control, then, consequently, I too am afforded the same right.
Whitney,
No one is telling anyone what they should or should not do with regard to his or her body (nor in any other personal matter).
All I’m saying is that:
1. If someone chooses to defy medical opinion and do something that harms his or her body and has a detrimental impact upon his or her health, it should be the individual who assumes financial responsibility for the effects resulting from his or her actions (in an environmental with a socialized healthcare system).
The state (via the revenues collected from taxpayers) should not have to foot the bill for medical treatment because you stick a ball in your arm or cut your testicles off with an exacto knife.
2. Anyone believing the implatation of a metal ball into their flesh will provide a medical benefit or cure other than that of a purely psychosomatic/placebo effect-nature is an idiot. Period.
“I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice.”
That’s just a silly statement. Do you recall the recent dust-up when Shannon criticized and compared two tribal tattoos?
Additionally, though none of us have the right to prevent someone from making any choice he or she chooses, we absolutely have the right to criticize or critique said choice. The alternative is known as fascism. If you have the right to do as you please without repression or authoritarian control, then, consequently, I too am afforded the same right.
Whitney,
No one is telling anyone what they should or should not do with regard to his or her body (nor in any other personal matter).
All I’m saying is that:
1. If someone chooses to defy medical opinion and do something that harms his or her body and has a detrimental impact upon his or her health, it should be the individual who assumes financial responsibility for the effects resulting from his or her actions (in an environmental with a socialized healthcare system).
The state (via the revenues collected from taxpayers) should not have to foot the bill for medical treatment because you stick a ball in your arm or cut your testicles off with an exacto knife.
2. Anyone believing the implatation of a metal ball into their flesh will provide a medical benefit or cure other than that of a purely psychosomatic/placebo effect-nature is an idiot. Period.
“I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice.”
That’s just a silly statement. Do you recall the recent dust-up when Shannon criticized and compared two tribal tattoos?
Additionally, though none of us have the right to prevent someone from making any choice he or she chooses, we absolutely have the right to criticize or critique said choice. The alternative is known as fascism. If you have the right to do as you please without repression or authoritarian control, then, consequently, I too am afforded the same right.
Whitney,
No one is telling anyone what they should or should not do with regard to his or her body (nor in any other personal matter).
All I’m saying is that:
1. If someone chooses to defy medical opinion and do something that harms his or her body and has a detrimental impact upon his or her health, it should be the individual who assumes financial responsibility for the effects resulting from his or her actions (in an environmental with a socialized healthcare system).
The state (via the revenues collected from taxpayers) should not have to foot the bill for medical treatment because you stick a ball in your arm or cut your testicles off with an exacto knife.
2. Anyone believing the implatation of a metal ball into their flesh will provide a medical benefit or cure other than that of a purely psychosomatic/placebo effect-nature is an idiot. Period.
“I think everyone here should keep their opinions off of other people’s bodies. No one has the right to criticize this person for their personal choice.”
That’s just a silly statement. Do you recall the recent dust-up when Shannon criticized and compared two tribal tattoos?
Additionally, though none of us have the right to prevent someone from making any choice he or she chooses, we absolutely have the right to criticize or critique said choice. The alternative is known as fascism. If you have the right to do as you please without repression or authoritarian control, then, consequently, I too am afforded the same right.
So, if someone does something like this, which may or may not put additional strain on the health care system because something worse may happen, and thus could be considered opting out of the health care system by some of the individuals here, would driving your car for any unnecessary trips also opt one out of the system? Or what about the jogger who gets hit by a car, does he not get health care because he was making a choice that exposed him to the danger of getting run over. Should someone who gets mugged and shot at night while going to the convience store be not covered for the same reason?
So, if someone does something like this, which may or may not put additional strain on the health care system because something worse may happen, and thus could be considered opting out of the health care system by some of the individuals here, would driving your car for any unnecessary trips also opt one out of the system? Or what about the jogger who gets hit by a car, does he not get health care because he was making a choice that exposed him to the danger of getting run over. Should someone who gets mugged and shot at night while going to the convience store be not covered for the same reason?
So, if someone does something like this, which may or may not put additional strain on the health care system because something worse may happen, and thus could be considered opting out of the health care system by some of the individuals here, would driving your car for any unnecessary trips also opt one out of the system? Or what about the jogger who gets hit by a car, does he not get health care because he was making a choice that exposed him to the danger of getting run over. Should someone who gets mugged and shot at night while going to the convience store be not covered for the same reason?
So, if someone does something like this, which may or may not put additional strain on the health care system because something worse may happen, and thus could be considered opting out of the health care system by some of the individuals here, would driving your car for any unnecessary trips also opt one out of the system? Or what about the jogger who gets hit by a car, does he not get health care because he was making a choice that exposed him to the danger of getting run over. Should someone who gets mugged and shot at night while going to the convience store be not covered for the same reason?
First off, allow me to clarify one point: I’m not saying people should be refused medical treatment, but rather I’m merely suggesting that those people should assume part (or preferrably all) of the cost of treatment in a socialized healthcare system when the individual is solely responsible for the injury (and, consequently, the resulting medical treatment).
With that caveat out of the way, let’s examine your example. If we simply compare the two, your analogy is ridiculous. Driving an automobile is a behavior with a valid and discernible purpose, that is, to transport items and people from one destination to another. Driving carries inherent risks and automobiles can be used recklessly but there is a valid reason for their existence and usage.
What, pray tell, is the valid and discernible use for implanting a “blessed” metal ball into your skin at the behest of a religious nutball (in lieu of a real medical procedure that “for spiritual reasons was forbidden”) and operating under the laughable premise that doing so will have some sort of healing effect?
There is none.
Obviously people should be treated for injuries sustained during an automobile crash. But if a person chooses to engage in drag racing at a track, for example, and sustains injuries totally of his or her own causing and resulting from a reckless and needless behavior, I think the individual should incur the expenses associated with the resulting medical bills.
The notion that drag racing is a needless behavior posing an undue risk and with a high potential for casualty would seem to be validated by the fact that one has to sign a waiver (both accepting responsibility and excusing others from being held culpable) before participating.
Follow my logic?
Examples of things that should be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-car accident injuries
-cuts sustained on the job (construction, for example)
-a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner
-bullet wounds from a bank robbery
Examples of things that should NOT be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-drag racing injuries
-cuts and blood loss from a castration performed without medical need
-injuries sustained during sky diving
-bullet wounds after a weapon misfires at a firing range
If you participate in actions that pose an obvious and undue risk of harm to yourself or others, it is you who should be responsible for paying your medical bills should you be injured.
First off, allow me to clarify one point: I’m not saying people should be refused medical treatment, but rather I’m merely suggesting that those people should assume part (or preferrably all) of the cost of treatment in a socialized healthcare system when the individual is solely responsible for the injury (and, consequently, the resulting medical treatment).
With that caveat out of the way, let’s examine your example. If we simply compare the two, your analogy is ridiculous. Driving an automobile is a behavior with a valid and discernible purpose, that is, to transport items and people from one destination to another. Driving carries inherent risks and automobiles can be used recklessly but there is a valid reason for their existence and usage.
What, pray tell, is the valid and discernible use for implanting a “blessed” metal ball into your skin at the behest of a religious nutball (in lieu of a real medical procedure that “for spiritual reasons was forbidden”) and operating under the laughable premise that doing so will have some sort of healing effect?
There is none.
Obviously people should be treated for injuries sustained during an automobile crash. But if a person chooses to engage in drag racing at a track, for example, and sustains injuries totally of his or her own causing and resulting from a reckless and needless behavior, I think the individual should incur the expenses associated with the resulting medical bills.
The notion that drag racing is a needless behavior posing an undue risk and with a high potential for casualty would seem to be validated by the fact that one has to sign a waiver (both accepting responsibility and excusing others from being held culpable) before participating.
Follow my logic?
Examples of things that should be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-car accident injuries
-cuts sustained on the job (construction, for example)
-a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner
-bullet wounds from a bank robbery
Examples of things that should NOT be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-drag racing injuries
-cuts and blood loss from a castration performed without medical need
-injuries sustained during sky diving
-bullet wounds after a weapon misfires at a firing range
If you participate in actions that pose an obvious and undue risk of harm to yourself or others, it is you who should be responsible for paying your medical bills should you be injured.
First off, allow me to clarify one point: I’m not saying people should be refused medical treatment, but rather I’m merely suggesting that those people should assume part (or preferrably all) of the cost of treatment in a socialized healthcare system when the individual is solely responsible for the injury (and, consequently, the resulting medical treatment).
With that caveat out of the way, let’s examine your example. If we simply compare the two, your analogy is ridiculous. Driving an automobile is a behavior with a valid and discernible purpose, that is, to transport items and people from one destination to another. Driving carries inherent risks and automobiles can be used recklessly but there is a valid reason for their existence and usage.
What, pray tell, is the valid and discernible use for implanting a “blessed” metal ball into your skin at the behest of a religious nutball (in lieu of a real medical procedure that “for spiritual reasons was forbidden”) and operating under the laughable premise that doing so will have some sort of healing effect?
There is none.
Obviously people should be treated for injuries sustained during an automobile crash. But if a person chooses to engage in drag racing at a track, for example, and sustains injuries totally of his or her own causing and resulting from a reckless and needless behavior, I think the individual should incur the expenses associated with the resulting medical bills.
The notion that drag racing is a needless behavior posing an undue risk and with a high potential for casualty would seem to be validated by the fact that one has to sign a waiver (both accepting responsibility and excusing others from being held culpable) before participating.
Follow my logic?
Examples of things that should be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-car accident injuries
-cuts sustained on the job (construction, for example)
-a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner
-bullet wounds from a bank robbery
Examples of things that should NOT be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-drag racing injuries
-cuts and blood loss from a castration performed without medical need
-injuries sustained during sky diving
-bullet wounds after a weapon misfires at a firing range
If you participate in actions that pose an obvious and undue risk of harm to yourself or others, it is you who should be responsible for paying your medical bills should you be injured.
First off, allow me to clarify one point: I’m not saying people should be refused medical treatment, but rather I’m merely suggesting that those people should assume part (or preferrably all) of the cost of treatment in a socialized healthcare system when the individual is solely responsible for the injury (and, consequently, the resulting medical treatment).
With that caveat out of the way, let’s examine your example. If we simply compare the two, your analogy is ridiculous. Driving an automobile is a behavior with a valid and discernible purpose, that is, to transport items and people from one destination to another. Driving carries inherent risks and automobiles can be used recklessly but there is a valid reason for their existence and usage.
What, pray tell, is the valid and discernible use for implanting a “blessed” metal ball into your skin at the behest of a religious nutball (in lieu of a real medical procedure that “for spiritual reasons was forbidden”) and operating under the laughable premise that doing so will have some sort of healing effect?
There is none.
Obviously people should be treated for injuries sustained during an automobile crash. But if a person chooses to engage in drag racing at a track, for example, and sustains injuries totally of his or her own causing and resulting from a reckless and needless behavior, I think the individual should incur the expenses associated with the resulting medical bills.
The notion that drag racing is a needless behavior posing an undue risk and with a high potential for casualty would seem to be validated by the fact that one has to sign a waiver (both accepting responsibility and excusing others from being held culpable) before participating.
Follow my logic?
Examples of things that should be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-car accident injuries
-cuts sustained on the job (construction, for example)
-a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner
-bullet wounds from a bank robbery
Examples of things that should NOT be treated without cost to the patient under a socialized healthcare system:
-drag racing injuries
-cuts and blood loss from a castration performed without medical need
-injuries sustained during sky diving
-bullet wounds after a weapon misfires at a firing range
If you participate in actions that pose an obvious and undue risk of harm to yourself or others, it is you who should be responsible for paying your medical bills should you be injured.
What an interesting debate is going on here. How we all see the world with different perspectives.
This person choose not to have a medical procedure done because of beliefs. They do this at the same time millions of other people around the world are electing not to get any medical treatment at all for anything. Cancer patients are not geting chemo or radiation for multiple reasons. AIDS patients are not taking their chemical cocktails for many many reasons. Pregnant women are not getting prenatal care and STD carriers are not getting needed antibiotics. All because of personal choices. How is this any different?
If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?
Your mind has more to do with your healing ability then many people know. You can be sick by just thinking about it. You can forget pain by a few simple mind clearing breaths, if you so believe. If you think you are going to keep getting worse and worse, you will. IF this implant helps this person set in their own mind that it will help with the medical problem, most likely it will. More and more there is research showing that your beliefe has more to do with medical problems and recovery then just a surgery or treatment does.
What an interesting debate is going on here. How we all see the world with different perspectives.
This person choose not to have a medical procedure done because of beliefs. They do this at the same time millions of other people around the world are electing not to get any medical treatment at all for anything. Cancer patients are not geting chemo or radiation for multiple reasons. AIDS patients are not taking their chemical cocktails for many many reasons. Pregnant women are not getting prenatal care and STD carriers are not getting needed antibiotics. All because of personal choices. How is this any different?
If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?
Your mind has more to do with your healing ability then many people know. You can be sick by just thinking about it. You can forget pain by a few simple mind clearing breaths, if you so believe. If you think you are going to keep getting worse and worse, you will. IF this implant helps this person set in their own mind that it will help with the medical problem, most likely it will. More and more there is research showing that your beliefe has more to do with medical problems and recovery then just a surgery or treatment does.
What an interesting debate is going on here. How we all see the world with different perspectives.
This person choose not to have a medical procedure done because of beliefs. They do this at the same time millions of other people around the world are electing not to get any medical treatment at all for anything. Cancer patients are not geting chemo or radiation for multiple reasons. AIDS patients are not taking their chemical cocktails for many many reasons. Pregnant women are not getting prenatal care and STD carriers are not getting needed antibiotics. All because of personal choices. How is this any different?
If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?
Your mind has more to do with your healing ability then many people know. You can be sick by just thinking about it. You can forget pain by a few simple mind clearing breaths, if you so believe. If you think you are going to keep getting worse and worse, you will. IF this implant helps this person set in their own mind that it will help with the medical problem, most likely it will. More and more there is research showing that your beliefe has more to do with medical problems and recovery then just a surgery or treatment does.
What an interesting debate is going on here. How we all see the world with different perspectives.
This person choose not to have a medical procedure done because of beliefs. They do this at the same time millions of other people around the world are electing not to get any medical treatment at all for anything. Cancer patients are not geting chemo or radiation for multiple reasons. AIDS patients are not taking their chemical cocktails for many many reasons. Pregnant women are not getting prenatal care and STD carriers are not getting needed antibiotics. All because of personal choices. How is this any different?
If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?
Your mind has more to do with your healing ability then many people know. You can be sick by just thinking about it. You can forget pain by a few simple mind clearing breaths, if you so believe. If you think you are going to keep getting worse and worse, you will. IF this implant helps this person set in their own mind that it will help with the medical problem, most likely it will. More and more there is research showing that your beliefe has more to do with medical problems and recovery then just a surgery or treatment does.
All I can say is I’m glad you’re not in charge of our fucking healthcare…
How do you decide what is a person’s fault and what isn’t? For example: “a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner” Does that only apply to passengers or does it include the pilot and co-pilot? What if they were in some part responsible for the crash?
At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?
Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system. I’m just glad our government makes an attempt to provide everyone with proper medical treatment, not just those who make enough money to afford it.
All I can say is I’m glad you’re not in charge of our fucking healthcare…
How do you decide what is a person’s fault and what isn’t? For example: “a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner” Does that only apply to passengers or does it include the pilot and co-pilot? What if they were in some part responsible for the crash?
At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?
Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system. I’m just glad our government makes an attempt to provide everyone with proper medical treatment, not just those who make enough money to afford it.
All I can say is I’m glad you’re not in charge of our fucking healthcare…
How do you decide what is a person’s fault and what isn’t? For example: “a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner” Does that only apply to passengers or does it include the pilot and co-pilot? What if they were in some part responsible for the crash?
At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?
Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system. I’m just glad our government makes an attempt to provide everyone with proper medical treatment, not just those who make enough money to afford it.
All I can say is I’m glad you’re not in charge of our fucking healthcare…
How do you decide what is a person’s fault and what isn’t? For example: “a broken leg as a result of a rough landing in a commerical airliner” Does that only apply to passengers or does it include the pilot and co-pilot? What if they were in some part responsible for the crash?
At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?
Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system. I’m just glad our government makes an attempt to provide everyone with proper medical treatment, not just those who make enough money to afford it.
If the pilot or co-pilot were responsible for the crash and were injured I certainly think there’s an excellent case to be made that it is they who should pay for their injuries rather than the rest of us.
Whenever a crash occurs, the NTSB conducts an investigation and rules on whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure, weather conditions or human error. Assuming the NTSB ruled that the latter was the cause of the crash, why would the pilot, co-pilot, etc. not be held responsible? If their actions posed such an undue risk of harm that a crash occurred, wouldn’t those same actions be responsible for their injuries?
“At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?”
Would I refuse coverage to smokers with lung cancer? No, seeing that no one is suggesting that coverage should be refused. Should smokers with lung cancer pay for their own cancer treatment? I sure as hell think so. They made the choice to smoke, and with every choice comes a set of consequences (in this case the possible consequence being cancer).
Would I refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? Again, no one is refusing treatment but if it were medically determined that the patient-caused obesity was what precipitated the heart attack I believe it would only be logical to hold the patient financially responsible.
If a person had a genetic predisposition to heart failure, a doctor could simply compare the patient to another individual (with a similar genetic makeup and risk factors) who actually followed a regiment of diet and exercise and determine just how responsible the obese patient was for his or her heart attack. If the patient’s lifestyle (rather than latent genetic factors) was primarily responsible for the heart attack, the patient would pay the majority of the medical expenses.
“Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system.”
That’s quite an easy (if not exactly genteel) statement to make when one doesn’t bother to take into account the massive expenditures and accrued healthcare costs resulting from preventable illness.
Each time a smoker with lung cancer receives treatment, every taxpayer in a nation with socialized medicine incurs a portion of the costs associated with the smoker’s medical treatment. Do you like having to pay for someone to receive treatment for a totally preventable illness? What if, rather than individually paying a tiny percentage, you were personally asked to foot the bill for the smoker’s lung cancer treatment? Would you find such an arrangement to be fair? How is it any more fair on a different scale or in different proportions?
“If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?”
Would I say “the same thing” (which would be what exactly) to what? I don’t understand your question.
Should the person be allowed to recieve a tattoo or piercing? Certainly. Should the person be prevented from receiving future medical treatment? Of course not. But if the tattoo or piercing caused an infection (due to the patient’s compromised immune system) or on the highly improbable off-chance that the modification interfered with the cancer treatment and rendered said treatment useless, then I believe the patient should be the one to pay the cost of treating the infection, et al that resulted from his or her uncoerced choice and actions.
If the pilot or co-pilot were responsible for the crash and were injured I certainly think there’s an excellent case to be made that it is they who should pay for their injuries rather than the rest of us.
Whenever a crash occurs, the NTSB conducts an investigation and rules on whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure, weather conditions or human error. Assuming the NTSB ruled that the latter was the cause of the crash, why would the pilot, co-pilot, etc. not be held responsible? If their actions posed such an undue risk of harm that a crash occurred, wouldn’t those same actions be responsible for their injuries?
“At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?”
Would I refuse coverage to smokers with lung cancer? No, seeing that no one is suggesting that coverage should be refused. Should smokers with lung cancer pay for their own cancer treatment? I sure as hell think so. They made the choice to smoke, and with every choice comes a set of consequences (in this case the possible consequence being cancer).
Would I refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? Again, no one is refusing treatment but if it were medically determined that the patient-caused obesity was what precipitated the heart attack I believe it would only be logical to hold the patient financially responsible.
If a person had a genetic predisposition to heart failure, a doctor could simply compare the patient to another individual (with a similar genetic makeup and risk factors) who actually followed a regiment of diet and exercise and determine just how responsible the obese patient was for his or her heart attack. If the patient’s lifestyle (rather than latent genetic factors) was primarily responsible for the heart attack, the patient would pay the majority of the medical expenses.
“Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system.”
That’s quite an easy (if not exactly genteel) statement to make when one doesn’t bother to take into account the massive expenditures and accrued healthcare costs resulting from preventable illness.
Each time a smoker with lung cancer receives treatment, every taxpayer in a nation with socialized medicine incurs a portion of the costs associated with the smoker’s medical treatment. Do you like having to pay for someone to receive treatment for a totally preventable illness? What if, rather than individually paying a tiny percentage, you were personally asked to foot the bill for the smoker’s lung cancer treatment? Would you find such an arrangement to be fair? How is it any more fair on a different scale or in different proportions?
“If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?”
Would I say “the same thing” (which would be what exactly) to what? I don’t understand your question.
Should the person be allowed to recieve a tattoo or piercing? Certainly. Should the person be prevented from receiving future medical treatment? Of course not. But if the tattoo or piercing caused an infection (due to the patient’s compromised immune system) or on the highly improbable off-chance that the modification interfered with the cancer treatment and rendered said treatment useless, then I believe the patient should be the one to pay the cost of treating the infection, et al that resulted from his or her uncoerced choice and actions.
If the pilot or co-pilot were responsible for the crash and were injured I certainly think there’s an excellent case to be made that it is they who should pay for their injuries rather than the rest of us.
Whenever a crash occurs, the NTSB conducts an investigation and rules on whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure, weather conditions or human error. Assuming the NTSB ruled that the latter was the cause of the crash, why would the pilot, co-pilot, etc. not be held responsible? If their actions posed such an undue risk of harm that a crash occurred, wouldn’t those same actions be responsible for their injuries?
“At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?”
Would I refuse coverage to smokers with lung cancer? No, seeing that no one is suggesting that coverage should be refused. Should smokers with lung cancer pay for their own cancer treatment? I sure as hell think so. They made the choice to smoke, and with every choice comes a set of consequences (in this case the possible consequence being cancer).
Would I refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? Again, no one is refusing treatment but if it were medically determined that the patient-caused obesity was what precipitated the heart attack I believe it would only be logical to hold the patient financially responsible.
If a person had a genetic predisposition to heart failure, a doctor could simply compare the patient to another individual (with a similar genetic makeup and risk factors) who actually followed a regiment of diet and exercise and determine just how responsible the obese patient was for his or her heart attack. If the patient’s lifestyle (rather than latent genetic factors) was primarily responsible for the heart attack, the patient would pay the majority of the medical expenses.
“Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system.”
That’s quite an easy (if not exactly genteel) statement to make when one doesn’t bother to take into account the massive expenditures and accrued healthcare costs resulting from preventable illness.
Each time a smoker with lung cancer receives treatment, every taxpayer in a nation with socialized medicine incurs a portion of the costs associated with the smoker’s medical treatment. Do you like having to pay for someone to receive treatment for a totally preventable illness? What if, rather than individually paying a tiny percentage, you were personally asked to foot the bill for the smoker’s lung cancer treatment? Would you find such an arrangement to be fair? How is it any more fair on a different scale or in different proportions?
“If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?”
Would I say “the same thing” (which would be what exactly) to what? I don’t understand your question.
Should the person be allowed to recieve a tattoo or piercing? Certainly. Should the person be prevented from receiving future medical treatment? Of course not. But if the tattoo or piercing caused an infection (due to the patient’s compromised immune system) or on the highly improbable off-chance that the modification interfered with the cancer treatment and rendered said treatment useless, then I believe the patient should be the one to pay the cost of treating the infection, et al that resulted from his or her uncoerced choice and actions.
If the pilot or co-pilot were responsible for the crash and were injured I certainly think there’s an excellent case to be made that it is they who should pay for their injuries rather than the rest of us.
Whenever a crash occurs, the NTSB conducts an investigation and rules on whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure, weather conditions or human error. Assuming the NTSB ruled that the latter was the cause of the crash, why would the pilot, co-pilot, etc. not be held responsible? If their actions posed such an undue risk of harm that a crash occurred, wouldn’t those same actions be responsible for their injuries?
“At what point do you draw the line? Do you refuse coverage to smoker’s with lung cancer? Do you refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? What if those people, who obviously contributed to their condition, also happen to have a genetic predisposition to heart failure? How do you weigh the voluntary and involuntary factors?”
Would I refuse coverage to smokers with lung cancer? No, seeing that no one is suggesting that coverage should be refused. Should smokers with lung cancer pay for their own cancer treatment? I sure as hell think so. They made the choice to smoke, and with every choice comes a set of consequences (in this case the possible consequence being cancer).
Would I refuse to treat obese people who have heart attacks? Again, no one is refusing treatment but if it were medically determined that the patient-caused obesity was what precipitated the heart attack I believe it would only be logical to hold the patient financially responsible.
If a person had a genetic predisposition to heart failure, a doctor could simply compare the patient to another individual (with a similar genetic makeup and risk factors) who actually followed a regiment of diet and exercise and determine just how responsible the obese patient was for his or her heart attack. If the patient’s lifestyle (rather than latent genetic factors) was primarily responsible for the heart attack, the patient would pay the majority of the medical expenses.
“Bitch and whine all you want about the burden these people put on the healthcare system.”
That’s quite an easy (if not exactly genteel) statement to make when one doesn’t bother to take into account the massive expenditures and accrued healthcare costs resulting from preventable illness.
Each time a smoker with lung cancer receives treatment, every taxpayer in a nation with socialized medicine incurs a portion of the costs associated with the smoker’s medical treatment. Do you like having to pay for someone to receive treatment for a totally preventable illness? What if, rather than individually paying a tiny percentage, you were personally asked to foot the bill for the smoker’s lung cancer treatment? Would you find such an arrangement to be fair? How is it any more fair on a different scale or in different proportions?
“If a 4th stage cancer patient walked into a Tat studio and got the work done on their body that they had dreamed of since they were 15, yet were refusing radiation and chemo would you say the same things?”
Would I say “the same thing” (which would be what exactly) to what? I don’t understand your question.
Should the person be allowed to recieve a tattoo or piercing? Certainly. Should the person be prevented from receiving future medical treatment? Of course not. But if the tattoo or piercing caused an infection (due to the patient’s compromised immune system) or on the highly improbable off-chance that the modification interfered with the cancer treatment and rendered said treatment useless, then I believe the patient should be the one to pay the cost of treating the infection, et al that resulted from his or her uncoerced choice and actions.
Well I am glad that the general consensus back to the fact that someone can make a personal choice, regardless of gender or religiosity without being open to the full brunt of the body modification community’s wrath.
As for the debate on public vs. private health care, I am not going to weigh in, because really I think the conversation has gone rather sideways, however, to the poster so in favor of a privatized pay-system, I will say this-
You are missing the point of a collective system, I sincerely hope that I, nor anyone I know or love will ever need the equipment necessary for a heart transplant, however, I recognize that others will, and I recognize that some of my tax dollars will pay for things that I will never need. I accept that my tax dollars will pay for women’s health clinics which (as a male) will never utilize. I recognize that other individuals live their lives and pay their taxes and deserve the same quality of care from the collective heath care system, of which they are a part, that I do. Irregardless of the personal choices in life.
This is in my mind, paramount to any sort of collective health-care provision system, which relies on society wide buy-in to remain financially viable.
Oops,
I think I ended up weighing in
Well I am glad that the general consensus back to the fact that someone can make a personal choice, regardless of gender or religiosity without being open to the full brunt of the body modification community’s wrath.
As for the debate on public vs. private health care, I am not going to weigh in, because really I think the conversation has gone rather sideways, however, to the poster so in favor of a privatized pay-system, I will say this-
You are missing the point of a collective system, I sincerely hope that I, nor anyone I know or love will ever need the equipment necessary for a heart transplant, however, I recognize that others will, and I recognize that some of my tax dollars will pay for things that I will never need. I accept that my tax dollars will pay for women’s health clinics which (as a male) will never utilize. I recognize that other individuals live their lives and pay their taxes and deserve the same quality of care from the collective heath care system, of which they are a part, that I do. Irregardless of the personal choices in life.
This is in my mind, paramount to any sort of collective health-care provision system, which relies on society wide buy-in to remain financially viable.
Oops,
I think I ended up weighing in
Well I am glad that the general consensus back to the fact that someone can make a personal choice, regardless of gender or religiosity without being open to the full brunt of the body modification community’s wrath.
As for the debate on public vs. private health care, I am not going to weigh in, because really I think the conversation has gone rather sideways, however, to the poster so in favor of a privatized pay-system, I will say this-
You are missing the point of a collective system, I sincerely hope that I, nor anyone I know or love will ever need the equipment necessary for a heart transplant, however, I recognize that others will, and I recognize that some of my tax dollars will pay for things that I will never need. I accept that my tax dollars will pay for women’s health clinics which (as a male) will never utilize. I recognize that other individuals live their lives and pay their taxes and deserve the same quality of care from the collective heath care system, of which they are a part, that I do. Irregardless of the personal choices in life.
This is in my mind, paramount to any sort of collective health-care provision system, which relies on society wide buy-in to remain financially viable.
Oops,
I think I ended up weighing in
Well I am glad that the general consensus back to the fact that someone can make a personal choice, regardless of gender or religiosity without being open to the full brunt of the body modification community’s wrath.
As for the debate on public vs. private health care, I am not going to weigh in, because really I think the conversation has gone rather sideways, however, to the poster so in favor of a privatized pay-system, I will say this-
You are missing the point of a collective system, I sincerely hope that I, nor anyone I know or love will ever need the equipment necessary for a heart transplant, however, I recognize that others will, and I recognize that some of my tax dollars will pay for things that I will never need. I accept that my tax dollars will pay for women’s health clinics which (as a male) will never utilize. I recognize that other individuals live their lives and pay their taxes and deserve the same quality of care from the collective heath care system, of which they are a part, that I do. Irregardless of the personal choices in life.
This is in my mind, paramount to any sort of collective health-care provision system, which relies on society wide buy-in to remain financially viable.
Oops,
I think I ended up weighing in
Okay, I didn’t even read all the way through, i’m just going to clarify things.
First of all, Whitney, we – well, I, for sure – am not saying that anybody doesn’t have the right to do anything to their bodies. We actually had a very healthy debate going on that was hardly even about the person who got the implant and even less about Ben. I don’t think anyone actually criticized Ben personally in the first place.
Second, my comments are based on a long time of working as a nurse in a very busy hospital. I am a very scientific person, as everything i do everyday must be backed up scientific rationale.
My BIG problem with particular situation is that this person sought out medical care to see what was wrong. Once a line of treatment was decided for him, he denied it and went along with his relgious beleifs.
Now my big problem is that i can almost 100% guarantee that he is not going to get well and eventually either return by emergency to the hospital or be so ill that he will go for the treatment anyways and try to be forgiven for his “sins”. By the time he gets back, he’ll be sicker, he’ll have the extra problem of infection in his arm because of the implant (its gold – so he says – with who know what else in there, his immune system is most likely very low and this is going to shoot it down.. and so on). Abuse of the system, in the end.
Another thing is that I don’t know exactly how sick he is, i mean he might just have a bening lump somewhere that requires remval to see and make sure its not cancerous. So in the end he may just be fine. However, this may also make him think that this gold ball thing actually works, so if he ever gets sicker with something serious… his beleif system might end up killing him.
I’m not denying the power of the mind. The power of beleiving that is going to work – that’s powerful. It may actually work. The power of the mind is unbeleivable. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
Honestly, the only reason why i am cjhallenging this decision is for his own good. I’m not hating on anybody and i’m not critizing his beleifs. Let him beleive in whatever he wants.
Its the usage of the healthcare system that i so vehemently hate in the first place. Why did he seek help if he had restricions in the first place. Its hard to tell, but if you have a deep cough, you know you’ll probably need antibiotics.. that sort of thing.
It would be EXTREMELY helpful to know exactly what treatment he denied and why.
The only thing i would criticize Ben for is implanting an object that he has no idea what its components actually are.
I understand that he did what he did for moral reasons and he wants to do a good deed. But sometimes hidden within good deeds are problems or bad decisions. That’s why i would not directly blame him.
Whitney, we were having a very educated argument and it was actually quite nice to read. I welcome you to post your own arguments, but one thing about this type of conversation is that your arguments have to be valid and backed up with evidence, proof, quotes.. whatever, but they have to beleivable, you know? Just the fact that we are all being very mature in our debating shows how much the mod community is able to comprehend why and maybe why not or where or how things are done and why we do them to ourselves. This is a very intelligent debate, its too bad ben or the person with the implant was not able to join
Okay, I didn’t even read all the way through, i’m just going to clarify things.
First of all, Whitney, we – well, I, for sure – am not saying that anybody doesn’t have the right to do anything to their bodies. We actually had a very healthy debate going on that was hardly even about the person who got the implant and even less about Ben. I don’t think anyone actually criticized Ben personally in the first place.
Second, my comments are based on a long time of working as a nurse in a very busy hospital. I am a very scientific person, as everything i do everyday must be backed up scientific rationale.
My BIG problem with particular situation is that this person sought out medical care to see what was wrong. Once a line of treatment was decided for him, he denied it and went along with his relgious beleifs.
Now my big problem is that i can almost 100% guarantee that he is not going to get well and eventually either return by emergency to the hospital or be so ill that he will go for the treatment anyways and try to be forgiven for his “sins”. By the time he gets back, he’ll be sicker, he’ll have the extra problem of infection in his arm because of the implant (its gold – so he says – with who know what else in there, his immune system is most likely very low and this is going to shoot it down.. and so on). Abuse of the system, in the end.
Another thing is that I don’t know exactly how sick he is, i mean he might just have a bening lump somewhere that requires remval to see and make sure its not cancerous. So in the end he may just be fine. However, this may also make him think that this gold ball thing actually works, so if he ever gets sicker with something serious… his beleif system might end up killing him.
I’m not denying the power of the mind. The power of beleiving that is going to work – that’s powerful. It may actually work. The power of the mind is unbeleivable. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
Honestly, the only reason why i am cjhallenging this decision is for his own good. I’m not hating on anybody and i’m not critizing his beleifs. Let him beleive in whatever he wants.
Its the usage of the healthcare system that i so vehemently hate in the first place. Why did he seek help if he had restricions in the first place. Its hard to tell, but if you have a deep cough, you know you’ll probably need antibiotics.. that sort of thing.
It would be EXTREMELY helpful to know exactly what treatment he denied and why.
The only thing i would criticize Ben for is implanting an object that he has no idea what its components actually are.
I understand that he did what he did for moral reasons and he wants to do a good deed. But sometimes hidden within good deeds are problems or bad decisions. That’s why i would not directly blame him.
Whitney, we were having a very educated argument and it was actually quite nice to read. I welcome you to post your own arguments, but one thing about this type of conversation is that your arguments have to be valid and backed up with evidence, proof, quotes.. whatever, but they have to beleivable, you know? Just the fact that we are all being very mature in our debating shows how much the mod community is able to comprehend why and maybe why not or where or how things are done and why we do them to ourselves. This is a very intelligent debate, its too bad ben or the person with the implant was not able to join
Okay, I didn’t even read all the way through, i’m just going to clarify things.
First of all, Whitney, we – well, I, for sure – am not saying that anybody doesn’t have the right to do anything to their bodies. We actually had a very healthy debate going on that was hardly even about the person who got the implant and even less about Ben. I don’t think anyone actually criticized Ben personally in the first place.
Second, my comments are based on a long time of working as a nurse in a very busy hospital. I am a very scientific person, as everything i do everyday must be backed up scientific rationale.
My BIG problem with particular situation is that this person sought out medical care to see what was wrong. Once a line of treatment was decided for him, he denied it and went along with his relgious beleifs.
Now my big problem is that i can almost 100% guarantee that he is not going to get well and eventually either return by emergency to the hospital or be so ill that he will go for the treatment anyways and try to be forgiven for his “sins”. By the time he gets back, he’ll be sicker, he’ll have the extra problem of infection in his arm because of the implant (its gold – so he says – with who know what else in there, his immune system is most likely very low and this is going to shoot it down.. and so on). Abuse of the system, in the end.
Another thing is that I don’t know exactly how sick he is, i mean he might just have a bening lump somewhere that requires remval to see and make sure its not cancerous. So in the end he may just be fine. However, this may also make him think that this gold ball thing actually works, so if he ever gets sicker with something serious… his beleif system might end up killing him.
I’m not denying the power of the mind. The power of beleiving that is going to work – that’s powerful. It may actually work. The power of the mind is unbeleivable. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
Honestly, the only reason why i am cjhallenging this decision is for his own good. I’m not hating on anybody and i’m not critizing his beleifs. Let him beleive in whatever he wants.
Its the usage of the healthcare system that i so vehemently hate in the first place. Why did he seek help if he had restricions in the first place. Its hard to tell, but if you have a deep cough, you know you’ll probably need antibiotics.. that sort of thing.
It would be EXTREMELY helpful to know exactly what treatment he denied and why.
The only thing i would criticize Ben for is implanting an object that he has no idea what its components actually are.
I understand that he did what he did for moral reasons and he wants to do a good deed. But sometimes hidden within good deeds are problems or bad decisions. That’s why i would not directly blame him.
Whitney, we were having a very educated argument and it was actually quite nice to read. I welcome you to post your own arguments, but one thing about this type of conversation is that your arguments have to be valid and backed up with evidence, proof, quotes.. whatever, but they have to beleivable, you know? Just the fact that we are all being very mature in our debating shows how much the mod community is able to comprehend why and maybe why not or where or how things are done and why we do them to ourselves. This is a very intelligent debate, its too bad ben or the person with the implant was not able to join
Okay, I didn’t even read all the way through, i’m just going to clarify things.
First of all, Whitney, we – well, I, for sure – am not saying that anybody doesn’t have the right to do anything to their bodies. We actually had a very healthy debate going on that was hardly even about the person who got the implant and even less about Ben. I don’t think anyone actually criticized Ben personally in the first place.
Second, my comments are based on a long time of working as a nurse in a very busy hospital. I am a very scientific person, as everything i do everyday must be backed up scientific rationale.
My BIG problem with particular situation is that this person sought out medical care to see what was wrong. Once a line of treatment was decided for him, he denied it and went along with his relgious beleifs.
Now my big problem is that i can almost 100% guarantee that he is not going to get well and eventually either return by emergency to the hospital or be so ill that he will go for the treatment anyways and try to be forgiven for his “sins”. By the time he gets back, he’ll be sicker, he’ll have the extra problem of infection in his arm because of the implant (its gold – so he says – with who know what else in there, his immune system is most likely very low and this is going to shoot it down.. and so on). Abuse of the system, in the end.
Another thing is that I don’t know exactly how sick he is, i mean he might just have a bening lump somewhere that requires remval to see and make sure its not cancerous. So in the end he may just be fine. However, this may also make him think that this gold ball thing actually works, so if he ever gets sicker with something serious… his beleif system might end up killing him.
I’m not denying the power of the mind. The power of beleiving that is going to work – that’s powerful. It may actually work. The power of the mind is unbeleivable. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
Honestly, the only reason why i am cjhallenging this decision is for his own good. I’m not hating on anybody and i’m not critizing his beleifs. Let him beleive in whatever he wants.
Its the usage of the healthcare system that i so vehemently hate in the first place. Why did he seek help if he had restricions in the first place. Its hard to tell, but if you have a deep cough, you know you’ll probably need antibiotics.. that sort of thing.
It would be EXTREMELY helpful to know exactly what treatment he denied and why.
The only thing i would criticize Ben for is implanting an object that he has no idea what its components actually are.
I understand that he did what he did for moral reasons and he wants to do a good deed. But sometimes hidden within good deeds are problems or bad decisions. That’s why i would not directly blame him.
Whitney, we were having a very educated argument and it was actually quite nice to read. I welcome you to post your own arguments, but one thing about this type of conversation is that your arguments have to be valid and backed up with evidence, proof, quotes.. whatever, but they have to beleivable, you know? Just the fact that we are all being very mature in our debating shows how much the mod community is able to comprehend why and maybe why not or where or how things are done and why we do them to ourselves. This is a very intelligent debate, its too bad ben or the person with the implant was not able to join
I thought the wearing of gold was haram under Islamic law…
I thought the wearing of gold was haram under Islamic law…
I thought the wearing of gold was haram under Islamic law…
I thought the wearing of gold was haram under Islamic law…
#26: only for men.
#26: only for men.
#26: only for men.
#26: only for men.