Terminal Illness

@rhinogrey,

richrf;72155 wrote:

Are you, as a physician, satisfied with saying something with certainty based upon your own experience and some consensus that is reached by a group of your peers?

The ability to "say things with certainty" is not an important measure of my satisfaction, either intellectually or professionally. I have a job to do and I do it. Anything I say regarding that which I need know for my job is merely a derivative of what I do for a living -- but my profession is not to "say things with certainty", it's to make people's lives better by preventing, treating, and palliating medical disease.

richrf wrote:

So, with all of this evidence to the contrary and without any kind of research at all to back up your statement (not that I put much validity on research, but that is your gold standard not mind), how do you reach certainty in this case?

Certainty is based on sufficiency of information. And seeing as you are indifferent to information, I'm not sure that you're receptive to the kind that might further illustrate my point of view.

I'd just remind you that you almost certainly know a lot more about the behavior of pigeons and squirrels than you do about the behavior of dodos and mastodons, and you know a lot more about the typical weather in the places you've lived than you do about the typical weather at the north pole of Venus. The world is not a blank slate. No one cares about absolute knowledge or absolute certainty -- at least no one who has to communicate things or achieve things. I don't care about it either. I care about having the best knowledge to make the best decisions for those to whom I bear responsibility. I continue to study, to learn from colleagues, from published reports and research, from experience, and from patients; and as my knowledge and experience change, and as the prevailing consensus changes, so will my practice and certainty.

Certainty is an amorphous thing. If you're interested in my sense of absolute certainty, you can save your keyboard the percussion because I have not a shred of interest in it. It doesn't matter -- and of that I'm quite certain.

And I'm not impressed with anecdotes about the doctors who say this or that with absolute finality and they turn out to be wrong. It's generally irresponsible to say something like "you'll never be off blood pressure medications". What one should do is give the parameters that would make that possible -- however likely it is to be. But "My friend's doctor said this" or "that" is hearsay, and it's almost certain that the conversation happened a bit differently than that.

After all, how can you be so certain what these people you paraphrase really said??

1 Reply

@rhinogrey,

Outstanding discussion. I am not going to take sides here for I understand it from both perspectives. In defense of Paul, we have not really taught our doctors the language of eliminating the word "terminal" from our discussions. My, god, we are all going to "exit this body" someday. What I mean by that is subject for another thread. The OP was, I think, alluding to a "quality" of life in which I think Salima addressed appropriately. I do believe the body can heal itself, especially in regards to the young and to some extent to the aged as well. We can't avoid death, it's apart of life. I personally hate the word "terminal", unless you are waiting for a train in one, or trying to jump start your car and get your wires crossed. Ha.

We should never use the word for it evokes self fulfilling prophesy in so many people as they, some, give up "mentally", when their mental state-is where the "cure" is. IMO. I had a relative on my wife's side who was diagnosed with cancer and she made a very profound statement to me, "Dying is easy; surviving is what is hard." Surviving terminal illness is almost impossible for many especially when they are told they are going to die. That's were we need to change our language. Of the ones I have met in my life that "beat the odds" had the mental capability to absolutely "ignore" the "fact" that they were dying and subsequently didn't as they wer determined to "live". Most don't have that grit.

Granted some people may go to Rich for answers and as far a Rado, I don't know that much about him; but I can assure you they all go to "doctor's first". A physician is simply that a "physical doctor" trained in physical evidence to make a diagnosis and offer the proper treatment. Rich, you are not bound by such protocol. Paul, is. The patient who comes to you wants what you have. That is the key. They have crossed that mental boundary that encourages the mind and the body to "fight". Paul doesn't have that luxury and can't afford to go there. IMO. He deals with the ailing and they cover a very large spectrum of illnesses. He can't afford to speculate for if he is wrong, it would be disasterous for the good he does do.

It would be great, if there were more collaboration between physicians and those "alternative practices" such would be the category in which you fall into. Such a those who teach holistic approaches and homeopathy, focusing on health as you do for those they classify as terminal. Unfortunately that is not the practice and I feel it should be.

It all comes down to means. What can people afford to do. It cost to survive on this planet, I am so very sad to say. You are both right but there really needs more of a unity between practitioners working together for that which is in the best interest of the patient both mentally and physically.

Suicide is a loss of hope and it not only pertains to the physically ailing, but the mentally ailing as well. There are those who Paul treats that will be ideal for you, Rich to work with if you two could collaborate as to the patient and use a referral system of sorts. I have no idea of what that language would entail but it's worth a shot. IMO. For what it's worth, my
two cents worth.

William

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;72181 wrote:

T It's generally irresponsible to say something like "you'll never be off blood pressure medications".

I agree. How about similar statements, like "you are going to die" or "you only have a few months to live".? Irresponsible?

Rich

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

Hi William,

i agree that there is no reason or even support for the use of the word terminal. I know of physicians in Europe who have totally different protocols than used in the U.S. Whose science is better, or does the laws of science change as we cross the Atlantic. The Royal Family of England is well known for its use and support of Homeopathy.

You are correct, that people who come to me for some relief are already in a different mindset. They have more or less lost all faith in physicians and are looking for alternatives. I suggest two things:

1) Find another physician who is comfortable with alternative approaches and there are many in Chicago.

2) Make some lifestyle changes which are generally eagerly supported by the new physicians.

When one of my students told me that his current physician would not even consider reducing the blood pressure medication, I just told him to find another physician who would. Smile

And it did. :a-ok:

Anyone who is going to a physician should try out a very simple experiment. Change physicians and see how different the treatment is. I challenged my girlfriend to do it. Four physicians. Four completely different diagnosis (each physician scoffed at the other diagnoses), and four completely different treatments. So goes science. :detective:

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

William;72184 wrote:

It would be great, if there were more collaboration between physicians and those "alternative practices" such would be the category in which you fall into. Such a those who teach holistic approaches and homeopathy, focusing on health as you do for those they classify as terminal. Unfortunately that is not the practice and I feel it should be.

Not sure how universal it is, but we've had "alternative" providers in every hospital I've ever worked in -- and there have been oh maybe 20 or 30 hospitals that I've worked in. Accupuncturists, accupressure, ayurveda, massage, pastoral services, and even the medical cosmetician (i.e. a hairdresser) are around and available on patient request, and for patients in various circumstances I've called them myself to see the patients.

I'm not going to make any case that I should be the one prescribing homeopathic or ayurvedic or naturopathic remedies, because I need to know the benefits and the risks of anything I do and lacking much data to that end I feel it would be irresponsible to go out on a limb like that. When there are data to support treatment X for condition Y in patient Z, then I'm all ears. There are some things like tea tree oil that I've become a fan of based on data, and there are some things like probiotics that I have ceased recommending based on data.

richrf;72205 wrote:

I agree. How about similar statements, like "you are going to die" or "you only have a few months to live".? Irresponsible?

I have neither said either of those things, nor have I ever heard of someone saying such a thing. The only times I've ever predicted death with the sort of definitiveness that you connote have been times in which the patients have indeed died within hours. Times when they have been in irreversible multiorgan failure from shock. But it's always case-by-case, and there are ways to convey that information sensitively, with humility, and always including what you CAN offer a patient (there is always something you can offer, even when life and health fall beyond our abilities).

richrf;72205 wrote:

i agree that there is no reason or even support for the use of the word terminal

It's not used very often. I'm not sure I've ever used it in communication with a patient.

richrf wrote:

You are correct, that people who come to me for some relief are already in a different mindset. They have more or less lost all faith in physicians and are looking for alternatives.

I wonder if you'd have more respect for the practice of medicine if you'd spend some time talking to people who have had good experiences. There are a lot of them out there, you know...

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;72254 wrote:

I wonder if you'd have more respect for the practice of medicine if you'd spend some time talking to people who have had good experiences. There are a lot of them out there, you know...

Hi,

I speak all the time to people who speak very, very highly of their physician. The problem is all of them are extremely unhealthy. A think a wreak would be an appropriate word. All sorts of problems and drugs. Barely able to walk. Certainly cannot bend. Constantly going to the hospital or the physicians. And, now, since I am closing in on 60, they are starting to go one by one. One friend of mine, a few years older than me, was crying from pain. He asked me whether there was anything he could do. I made some suggestions. He had lost all faith in his physician who he has been seeing ever since he had his first hip replacement.

I would say, that in no fashion or manner, would I ever want to trade places with any of them, even though they highly recommend I go to their physician. What is the saying? Misery loves company?

None of them - absolutely none of my friends, is even close to my health. Today, I read an article about how physicians are suggesting that $50,000 in medical treatment is worthwhile if it gives an extra year of quality of life. Imagine how much great food, really nutritious food, as well as daily massages that $50,000 can buy! Of course, they would never recommend this . The $50,000 is going to ...... knee replacements! Such is life. I try not to cry, so I just have to laugh. It is either one or the other.

Rich

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

Hey, you're healthy, keep doing what you're doing and enjoy it. Not everyone is so lucky, even if they take good care of themselves.

I'm not sure what you're paraphrasing with the $50k and all, but it's probably a cost effectiveness argument about QALYs and DALYs (quality-adjusted life years and disability-adjusted life years), and these are population-based statistical maneuverings that are inherently problematic and can't be translated into individualized recommendations.

But even if what you're saying is truly verbatim what some doctor or another has said, I side with you (and I'd imagine most of us would). The most cost-effective preventive medical interventions are a whole lot better than $50k per person and on average they'd give a whole lot more than one year.

Life has no price tag. It's got inherent worth.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;72289 wrote:

Hey, you're healthy, keep doing what you're doing and enjoy it. Not everyone is so lucky, even if they take good care of themselves.

I always like to point out that my whole family is in a similar condition. No physicians, no drugs, no chronic problems - though a light cold now and then, usually caused by excessive diet.

Aedes wrote:

I'm not sure what you're paraphrasing with the $50k and all, but it's probably a cost effectiveness argument about QALYs and DALYs (quality-adjusted life years and disability-adjusted life years), and these are population-based statistical maneuverings that are inherently problematic and can't be translated into individualized recommendations.

This is the article in the WSJ

Knee Replacements Are Determined to Be Cost-Effective - WSJ.com

My main comment is that since, as the article states, knee problems are directly related to obesity, then the best prescription would be good food!
As Sen. Harkins said, today, in the U.S. we have sick-care not health care. There is a reason that almost every other developed country has a higher life-expectancy while still spending substantially less per capita for health care.

Rich

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

That's exactly what I thought the article would say, it's indeed a cost-effectiveness analysis looking at QALYs. It is not a blanket statement that "$50,000 in medical treatment is worthwhile if it gives an extra year of quality of life". That is absolutely NOT what this sort of analysis says. It's a sort of "actuarial" analysis at a population-cost and population-benefit level, but has no bearing on the individual's risk-benefit calculus.

You're completely right that prevention of obesity would be MORE cost-effective. But that's not what the article was studying -- and I'd be interested to know what policy you'd implement to prevent obesity at this population level.

But be that as it may, it's utterly disheartening how many of these procedures (and others) are done because of obesity (see the editorial below). Not because of the cost, but because of the suffering. It's the second leading cause of preventable death after smoking, and people with it truly suffer.

I took the liberty to cut the abstract from the original article, as well as part of the following editorial, and they appear below. It's from the June 22 issue of Archives in Internal Medicine.

Here is the abstract:

Quote:

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) relieves pain and improves quality of life for persons with advanced knee osteoarthritis. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of TKA and the influences of hospital volume and patient risk on TKA cost-effectiveness have not been investigated in the United States. METHODS: We developed a Markov, state-transition, computer simulation model and populated it with Medicare claims data and cost and outcomes data from national and multinational sources. We projected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for different risk populations and varied TKA intervention and hospital volume. Cost-effectiveness of TKA was estimated across all patient risk and hospital volume permutations. Finally, we conducted sensitivity analyses to determine various parameters' influences on cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Overall, TKA increased QALE from 6.822 to 7.957 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Lifetime costs rose from $37,100 (no TKA) to $57 900 after TKA, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18,300 per QALY. For high-risk patients, TKA increased QALE from 5.713 to 6.594 QALY, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $28,100 per QALY. At all risk levels, TKA was more costly and less effective in low-volume centers than in high-volume centers. Results were insensitive to variations of key input parameters within policy-relevant, clinically plausible ranges. The greatest variations were seen for the quality of life gain after TKA and the cost of TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Total knee arthroplasty appears to be cost-effective in the US Medicare-aged population, as currently practiced across all risk groups. Policy decisions should be made on the basis of available local options for TKA. However, when a high-volume hospital is available, TKAs performed in a high-volume hospital confer even greater value per dollar spent than TKAs performed in low-volume centers.

Here are some excerpts from the editorial that appears in the same issue:

Quote:

The number of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed in the United States has been rising rapidly. In 2006, approximately 500 000 TKAs were performed, incurring direct medical costs of roughly $11 billion (our unpublished estimate). Use of this procedure is expected to continue to rise due to both the obesity epidemic and the aging of the population. One study estimates that 3.5 million TKAs will be performed annually by the year 2030.1 The increasing use of this procedure has prompted an increased interest in its evaluation...

At least in the United States, even well-performed cost-effectiveness analyses do not influence either payers or physicians directly. Payers do not use the results to make coverage determinations nor do physicians use them to make treatment decisions. How we move from this current state to a system in which cost-effectiveness of procedures affects medical practice is unclear...

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;72315 wrote:

. But that's not what the article was studying -- and I'd be interested to know what policy you'd implement to prevent obesity at this population level.Here are some excerpts from the editorial that appears in the same issue:

A total change in emphasis from treatment to prevention. Prevention as a result of quality of food (fresh vegetables, whole grains, fresh fruit), stretching and moderate exercise (non of this weight lifting suff), and proper rest and relaxation as well as breathing exercises.

Rich

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

That's a principle, but not a policy.

What is your policy? You're the president, or a public health official.

What specifically do you do to put these ideas into action?

Oh, by the way, weights can prevent help prevent osteoporosis, increased muscle mass can increase insulin sensitivity (potentially reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes), and it increases basal metabolic rate (potentially reducing the likelihood of obesity). Not that stretching and aerobic exercise aren't good too, but don't dismiss weights when it is part and parcel of a comprehensive fitness plan.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;72328 wrote:

That's a principle, but not a policy.

What is your policy? You're the president, or a public health official.

What specifically do you do to put these ideas into action?

I believe that good health practices is a mind set and not a matter of government dictate. Therefore, I think what is required people who really believe that diet, exercise, and restful mind are what is of primary importance.

Quote:

but don't dismiss weights when it is part and parcel of a comprehensive fitness plan.

I do not recommend weight lifting, because I do not embrace any type of movement that has the intent to tear muscles and cause scarring in order to build muscle. The scarring inhibits proper blood and energy movement throughout the body. Prevention of the problems that you mention, I believe are better promoted by flexibility and healthy and unobstructed fluid flow throughout the body. This is what is the basis of ancient health practices such as Tai Chi and Yoga. These are some of the suggestions I make to people who want to reverse the problems that you mention. Certain people do not want to make the change and that is their choice.

Rich

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;72150 wrote:

Then why are these same infants more likely to die of leukemia, lymphoma, influenza, or malaria than older children? Do you have a rationalization for that too?

Well there must be one. My basic starting point is that all physical processes are controlled by consciousness at some level and therefore we must find the answer to these things in those consciousnesses that are involved in the process we're investigating. From that point alone a lot of things become obvious which otherwise may be unexplainable.

Rado

---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

Aedes;72181 wrote:

No one cares about absolute knowledge or absolute certainty -- at least no one who has to communicate things or achieve things. I don't care about it either.

I think that's the problem here for without understanding what's absolute and what's relative, one understands nothing.

Rado

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

rado wrote:

But what is determining the odds? Why do some survive "miraculously" despite all odds and prognosis? If science knew that, it would also have the cure.

You were on the right track with your first question: What determines the "odds"?

Answer: We do! We've constructed the "odds" and prognosis! It's a little game doctors have to play in order to psychologically accommodate their patients.

The people that wind up surviving aren't "living miraculously". There is a perfectly logical, biological answer for their survival. What is this fixation with "odds" and "miracles"? "Jimmy beat the odds, it's a miracle!". Sorry to burst your mystical bubble, Jimmy, but nothing 'special' happened here. Sure, maybe science can't explain your case explicately, but how would it? That would require doctors to consistently evaluate your body. Not practical. You beat cancer, get in line. And let's not drag science into this. Science has nothing to do with "reason", it has to do with "cause".

But let me ask you this, my "odd" loving friend. Do you feel you "beat the odds" if you take a green ****? In my case, I eat many greens, but very rarely **** green. I definitely "beat the odds" last Sunday. Would you consider you "beat the odds" if you got into a car accident? I mean, you had good odds you wouldn't have gotten into an accident. Certainly, you beat them.

Yeah, we "beat the odds" when we desire the outcome. If it's something we don't desire or don't care about, we never apply this meaningless saying.

Quote:

Well there must be one. My basic starting point is that all physical processes are controlled by consciousness at some level and therefore we must find the answer to these things in those consciousnesses that are involved in the process we're investigating. From that point alone a lot of things become obvious which otherwise may be unexplainable.

How did you come to this conclusion? Are you implying that each of our cells are independently conscious?

Quote:

I think that's the problem here for without understanding what's absolute and what's relative, one understands nothing.

Hate to break it to you, but this whole "absolute" thing doesn't exist. We made it up, like the boogey man. It's a cute idea, like "God", "Holy", "Zombies", and "Pinocchio". You know what it is? It's a metaphor for our desire to be certain! We love certainty, don't we? I don't even understand how one can know something "absolute". What exactly do you mean by "understanding what's absolute"?

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey;61799 wrote:

An interesting new field of ethical inquiry that the contemporary medical industry has opened to us:

If one is diagnosed with a terminal disease is he then justified in taking his own life to avoid the slow suffering that awaits him?

Life is a long suffering terminal affair. The same question can be asked at any point in life. Shall I end the suffering (that awaits?) Now?

Quote:

Or is this a cheat on life; must we always take the good with the bad even when we have the knowledge to avoid the bad?

One does as one must. Some suicide for all sorts of reasons, most do not.

Quote:

Is it immoral to embrace death?

Is it foolish not to?

Quote:

Can hope overtake despair in the case of not knowing?

Rather than 'hope' or 'despair', how about living the moment in which one finds oneself. It turns out that the more that one focuses on the Now!, and Now! and Now! the less suffering one endures. 'Hope' entails fantasy and disappointment and a lack of being Here Now! Much 'despair' is the clouds that we drag around with us, preventing us from seeing the sun of Now!

"Despair is the earnest attempt to go through life with justice, virtue and understanding and to fulfill their requirements. Children live on one side of despair, the 'awakened' on the other side." - H. Hesse's Journey to the East

It is my experience, that comming face to face with one's mortality (whether a pistol in the face or lymphatic cancer) is often the most meaningful event in a person's life, and entails a great reshuffling of priorities (from things to people, for instance) and the 'truest and deepest' happiness ever experienced.
Some miss this by taking their life.
(Not that there is any 'choice' in the matter.)

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;72289 wrote:

Hey, you're healthy, keep doing what you're doing and enjoy it. Not everyone is so lucky, even if they take good care of themselves.

It's noy about luck, but about knowledge. Knowledge is power. And the knowledge that can give everyone the power to heal themselves from anything already exist.

That said, one thing is that this knowledge already exist and is freely available for everyone, another thing is to make people understand and absorb it to such a degree that they can use it practicallty. That takes time, for we need to change a lot of core beliefs that penetrates our modern societies if we want to improve healt in general. Core beliefs that affect not only our perception of sickness and health but a loft of other aspects of life as well.

That is the difficult part of it - to change our beliefs. Because the reality we experience as individuals is always a reflection of our beliefs - whatever we believe those beliefs will be confirmed by our experience. Not only because of mental projection, but also because the physical events and circumstances we experience literally are molded by our beliefs. This is a fundamental truth and the first thing one must understand in order to get to the truth of all other things. Otherwise we're caught in a catch 22 of our own beliefs/illusions/ignorance, whatever they are.

Rado

---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

Zetherin;72394 wrote:

How did you come to this conclusion? Are you implying that each of our cells are independently conscious?

Yes, and they obey the higher consciousness which is YOU - the entity who decides that it will try to heal itself when it gets ill.

Zetherin;72394 wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but this whole "absolute" thing doesn't exist.

Absolute means "eternal, never changing". The core of reality is absolute, it must be, logically. Otherwise it would mean that reality at some point would disappear into nothing. Relativity - i.e. the physical world - cannot exist and makes no sense without an absolute foundation.

A simpler way to put it is that all that exist is ONE, and that this ONE represents the absolute. When we try to explain the world we divide the ONE into logical categories that relate to each other - relateivity.

Rado

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;72347 wrote:

I believe that good health practices is a mind set and not a matter of government dictate. Therefore, I think what is required people who really believe that diet, exercise, and restful mind are what is of primary importance.

Then you are not advocating a policy that will change public health, or even one to change mindset.

If not, then how can you complain that much of medicine is reactive, i.e. treating otherwise preventable problems?

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------

rado;72391 wrote:

without understanding what's absolute and what's relative, one understands nothing.

Belief that one has access to the absolute is both delusional and dangerous.

2 Replies

@rhinogrey,

Please let me illustrate a point that brings the issue we are discussing here to the fore. About 30 years ago I got involved with a European outfit that had developed a chemical compound that when applied to various textile materials would render the material NON-combustible. You couldnt ignite it with a blow torch. The "life saving" potential of this chemical was unbelieveable. The material would char when a blow torch was attempting to ignite it by when the flame was taken away, it would not support itself and go out. Blankets on infants beds, carpet, draperies, funiture, etc. I invested in it. I invested a lot into it. I was naive and stupid for I did not know then what I know now. I put on a demonstration for the local networks and it was televised. The fire inspectors were there and the fire chief. What I didn't realize was the National Fire Prevention Assoc. main focus was in "putting fires out", not preventing them. Most furniture and carpet and textile furnishings meet a certain code of fire retardency. Initially!. But when those furnishings wear out you can go to Wal-Mart and replace them. so to speak which are made by non-american manufacturers who don't have such codes. The idea was for the fire inspectors to take small textile samples from carpet and drapery material in high rise dwellings, restaurants and an so forth to see if they were still up to "code". NO WAY IN HELL, would the do that. It would "rock the boat" so to speak. The marketing plan was to allow these "owners" a choice; treat the furnishings they had in place with the chemical or buy all new furnishings. The application of the chemical was far cheaper. I could literally take a tissue of kleenex that had been treated and squirt lighter fluid on it and hold it in my hand and ignite it. It would burn the area where the fluid was but stop burning when the fluid was exhausted. You could take a mattress and treat it and hold a blow torch all day and it would not ignite.

Now further research into this chemical was not done, though it should have been, for I did not know how long the life span of the chemical was. Still it was worth merit to investigate. But it would have seriously upset the apple cart and the economic system we operate under. It is more important for us to encourage the purchasing of goods not coded for it builds a healthy economy, than prevent the fires in the first place. I learn a very valuable, but expensive lesson here.

This little scenario is exactly what we are discussing here. Prevention vs. cure. We know how to keep people from getting ill. It's all about costs. We have to "make" money, to hell with everything else. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt both Rich and Paul would offer their knowledge for "free" if their livelihoods were not at stake and their families were secure. If Rich could continue his life just as he is and graranteed not to sacrifice all that he has accomplished, he would offer his services for he would be compelled to and love doing it. As would Paul. We live for helping others. It is what makes us human. Cost of living sucks. We are better than that. Now that I have put my foot in my mouth big time, ha; let's see if I am wrong.
Be gentle guys.

William

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

rado wrote:

Yes, and they obey the higher consciousness which is YOU - the entity who decides that it will try to heal itself when it gets ill.

As far as I know, your cells aren't conscious. Your cells are alive. There is no "higher consciousness" or "lower consciousness" - something alive is either conscious or not conscious. We wouldn't call an amoeba conscious. We do call humans conscious, but not because our cells are "obeying us". Cells cannot hold the trait of "obedience", this is absurd.

Quote:

Absolute means "eternal, never changing". The core of reality is absolute, it must be, logically. Otherwise it would mean that reality at some point would disappear into nothing. Relativity - i.e. the physical world - cannot exist and makes no sense without an absolute foundation.

A simpler way to put it is that all that exist is ONE, and that this ONE represents the absolute. When we try to explain the world we divide the ONE into logical categories that relate to each other - relateivity.

Sorry, but this sounds like a bunch of metaphysical who ha. But, I'll humor you.

What things known are absolute, and what things known are relative? Please be descriptive and provide some examples.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;72425 wrote:

Then you are not advocating a policy that will change public health, or even one to change mindset.

If not, then how can you complain that much of medicine is reactive, i.e. treating otherwise preventable problems?

I think the problem in the U.S. is that there is a monopoly on health practices that are propagated by a small number of people for their own financial benefit. This monopoly is enforced by lobbying efforts and laws. I am glad to hear that Sen. Hawkins is now presenting a new vision of health. We are evolving.

We have a sick care system not a health-care system.

What we need in the U.S. is a health-care system.

Rich

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;72503 wrote:

I think the problem in the U.S. is that there is a monopoly on health practices that are propagated by a small number of people for their own financial benefit.

So you'd suggest that we abolish the health care system, so that not only do we have poor prevention but people die of the illnesses that they get as a consequence?

Quote:

What we need in the U.S. is a health-care system.

And yet when I just asked you you declined to offer ANY suggestions as to what this might be or how we might get there. And I believe this is because you don't know what you mean when you say things like this.

1 Reply

Terminal Illness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know