The first article entitled “Medicine and the Drug Industry, a Morality Tale” deals on how the consumers or the public receives medicine as dictated by the drug or medical industry. The public is often times prescribed or given a high-cost medicine to cure their illness even if a cheaper medicine can do the same. The consumers also receive medicine as dictated by the deceitful patent-medicine peddlers, where in such cases, even perilous or risky drugs are continuously prescribed in order to achieve a higher market. Medical research is also affected by how a particular new drug or medicine can be marketed, and not by how high it may be valued by medical research societies (Zuger, 2007).
Consumers are at a losing end at these particular accounts. Most of the time, they are obliged to pay higher for their health’s sake for they do not receive prescriptions of cheaper medicine that has same effects. Instead of receiving medicine with very high assessments from medical societies, they do not. The drug industry dictates what medicine is to be released or given to the consumers, not how effective or how cheap a particular medicine is. The consumers do not receive the medicine that they deserve.
A persons’ ethics is the underlying principle of having morality. It determines what is right or wrong. If I were a doctor, who pledged to protect or give what the consumers deserves in the name of my profession, then the issue presented would be a problem for me. It is just and necessary to give what the consumers truly ought to have. But if I were on the drug industry, then, giving medicine which gives a high market or profit from the consumers would be my idea of what is ethical or right. The concept of morality is subjective for it may vary depending on the person or a group of person who would be looking at it, his or their intentions, motivations or personal philosophy. Depending on what perspective you use, consumer rights would vary.
The second article “Projections Show Troubles Still Loom for Benefit Plans,” gives you an idea about the perceived increase in the Medicare as sustained by the increase in raising taxes or cutting or decrease in the benefits. Medicare, a program launched by the United States government on health insurance that covers public of age 65 and higher or those that meets other special decisive factor. A proposition was launched to decrease the Medicare’s budget, thus resulting to an increase on the beneficiaries’ payments to accommodate their doctors’ services and prescribed drugs. Furthermore, the disadvantages that the Medicare suffers are due to the fact that there is an increase in the price for medical care is also increasing and the number of retirees (Andrews, 2007).
The Medicare provides the retirement benefits of its beneficiaries. Without it, then, retirees would have a hard time funding or spending for their improvement or maintenance, as especially in the aspect of their own health. It can also be seen that, as a consumer or the public subscribes to Medicare or become a member of its beneficiaries, then they would have to suffer a greater fee for their insurance. The right of the public for better benefits or health programs, such as from the Medicare, would be hindered by the state.
I believe that the government has the responsibility to allot a budget sufficient enough for the health benefits, or any other benefits, of the public. It is not the responsibility of the public, the taxpayers, to shoulder fully their own benefit which their own state provides them. I also think that health programs, such as Medicare, should increase or widen the coverage of the benefits that it provides its members or beneficiaries. It is the right of the public to receive better services after retirement.
“Breast Cancer Not Linked to Abortion, study says,” as the title states, shows that in a recent study, the belief that abortion may increase the risk of having breast cancer was disproved. If there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, then the Court would ban abortion procedures, thus a study was necessary to prove the connections between abortion and breast cancer. Scientists or researchers discovered that those women who had spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not, had no actual discrepancy as to having breast cancer (Bakalar, 2007).
The public needs to know whether there is a link between breast cancer and abortion for it concerns them, also with regards to their health consciousness. Those who had experienced abortion, spontaneous or not induced, will no longer have to worry whether their chance of having breast cancer had increased or not. On the other hand, if there was a link between the two, then either that the induced abortions would be less or reports or incidents of breast cancer would increase.
Whether there is a link between breast cancer and abortion, spontaneous or induced, or not, my main concern is still with regards to prevention. Advocacy for clean air and safe cosmetics, avoidance of unnecessary radiation and exploration of alternatives to artificial estrogens are some of the ways to prevent breast cancer, with or without single or multiple abortions, induced or spontaneous. Furthermore, I stand against induced abortions even if it is not linked with breast cancer. Induced abortions do not only possess risks with regards to having breast cancer, but risks to the person’s health as a whole. I strongly agree with the right to know the proper information, which the scientists or medical societies ought to report to us, the public.
Order your paper now!
I asked Essay Lab to write an essay for me and received paper the next day after I ordered it! Thank you!
Awesome WORK! If I ever need to write my essay – I will use only EssayLab!
These people are lifesavers! Just ask – “write me an essay” and they will start right away!