I have to ask, now that they are planning to bring in new criteria regarding gestational diabetes screening, how much we can actually should control for through medical intervention.
I worked in the health industry and I wondered about it. Now I don't work in the industry and am planning to move into alternative medicine I wonder about it even more.
How much should and can we control for? Can we actually get it down to no risk, and in reality should we? The human body is a complex organism.
( An example or a rant about how things go to far )
Okay, so ethically, intelligently, who should be drawing the line in the sand regarding medical intervention, and how much is too much? And should we have the ability to control how much is done to our bodies?
Another example, very quickly, that I have never agreed with (mostly because I come from a family with allergies) is the number of immunisations they give infants at once nowadays. Yes, most of them are important, but seriously, giving injections that cover 8 diseases at once doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Firstly, if there is a severe reaction to one of the immunisations, you have no idea which one. Secondly, it compromises the baby's immune system for about 6 weeks. 6 weeks!! Where you should actually be limiting their contact with anyone as their immune system struggles to deal with having to deal with producing antibodies to 8 diseases. Some of which aren't deadly, have limited protection (take meningococcal C - the non-deadly one- which infants are immunised against with the hope it will help them deal with exposure to meningococcal B), or could be provided at a later date and still be effective.
I have always maintained, even if I have to pay for it, if I have kids I would love to be able to get each immunisation needle (I say this as there are combined immunisations in each needle) done weekly for 4-5 weeks (without looking it up I can't remember how many shots there are). That way I can monitor them and determine whether they have a bad reaction to any of them.
In the end, how far do people think that medicine should intervene?
I worked in the health industry and I wondered about it. Now I don't work in the industry and am planning to move into alternative medicine I wonder about it even more.
How much should and can we control for? Can we actually get it down to no risk, and in reality should we? The human body is a complex organism.
( An example or a rant about how things go to far )
Okay, so ethically, intelligently, who should be drawing the line in the sand regarding medical intervention, and how much is too much? And should we have the ability to control how much is done to our bodies?
Another example, very quickly, that I have never agreed with (mostly because I come from a family with allergies) is the number of immunisations they give infants at once nowadays. Yes, most of them are important, but seriously, giving injections that cover 8 diseases at once doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Firstly, if there is a severe reaction to one of the immunisations, you have no idea which one. Secondly, it compromises the baby's immune system for about 6 weeks. 6 weeks!! Where you should actually be limiting their contact with anyone as their immune system struggles to deal with having to deal with producing antibodies to 8 diseases. Some of which aren't deadly, have limited protection (take meningococcal C - the non-deadly one- which infants are immunised against with the hope it will help them deal with exposure to meningococcal B), or could be provided at a later date and still be effective.
I have always maintained, even if I have to pay for it, if I have kids I would love to be able to get each immunisation needle (I say this as there are combined immunisations in each needle) done weekly for 4-5 weeks (without looking it up I can't remember how many shots there are). That way I can monitor them and determine whether they have a bad reaction to any of them.
In the end, how far do people think that medicine should intervene?
6 comments | Leave a comment