Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I have never been ill a day in my life. Why should I pay for someone else's treatment?
    Explain the argument behind this statement. What assumptions does it make? Argue to the contrary that people should pay taxes to support the NHS.

    As individuals work to earn money (sometimes even opting to work long and stressful hours to maximise it), they have a right to use it on whatever they desire. Having never used a service, why should an individual be compelled to continue paying the service providers? Even if others who can't afford treatment may require it, it is not just for money earnt by hard-working individuals to be used by others. If one feels like everyone has a 'right' to healthcare, they should donate to healthcare as they please but enforcing it on everyone through taxation is taking it a step too far. This is worsened by the fact that poverty can be somewhat attributed to lack of motivation to work, something one can change. Providing luxury services healthcare to all may in fact exacerbate this behaviour. Furthermore, the majority of the time, healthcare services aim to improve quality of life rather than save it. The added comfort of healthcare in these instances is not sufficient to deem it a right. No-one would argue that holidays are a right, yet they are equally a luxury.

    On the contrary, this statement makes a few invalid assumptions. Firstly, it presupposes that the individual in question hasn't benefitted at all from healthcare services due to the fact that they haven't been ill before. This is incorrect. Indeed many treatments such as vaccinations benefit the public as much as the patient as the rate of transmission decreases. Maybe the reason for the individual having never been ill is as a result of such treatments. Also, it assumes that just because they've never been ill before, that they either never will be or never need the NHS. The average individual in old age costs the NHS over 4 times as much as younger people. Therefore, it is very likely the individual will need the NHS later on and this will be incredibly expensive and thus, make full use of the service like any other individual.

    Publicly funded services like the NHS where never created to provide financial benefits to all, as this individual assumes. The entire purpose is that it would be immoral for one's life to be contingent on how wealthy they are and as such, the main principle of the NHS is to provide high quality care at the point of delivery for all. The money that could be spent by individuals with surplus income would be of more benefit to those deathly ill, poor patients. Our responsibility to put the needs of the community supersedes ours.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graphicsturtle)
    Overall a great essay that addresses all aspects of the question coherently and with well developed points and arguments. Personally would give it a 4/5A
    Thank you very much! Appreciate the feedback and the self-esteem boost haha.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Would be appreciated if someone could critique my essay please

    There is money to be made from not curing disease.

    What do you think is meant by this statement? Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree that there is money to be made from disease?

    I believe that this statement is referring to the potential greater monetary gain of continuous symptomatic treatment of a condition as opposed to its cure. As a result of this potential, companies driven mainly by profit margins may choose to spend money on research and development of treatments rather than cures.

    There are many industries whose existence depends on the continuation of illness. Logically a company will make more money selling tablets that must be taken every day to manage high blood pressure, than they would selling a pill that only needs to be taken once to cure it. In some cases diabetes can be reversed through diet and exercise at no cost to the patient or the NHS. If all diabetics who could manage their condition in this way did, then companies making blood sugar monitoring devices and automatic insulin dispensing implants would lose a lot of money. Often treating symptoms rather than curing disease creates an illusion of better health due to the relief of symptoms, and as such many healthcare industries continue to profit.

    However, while some industries may make money from treating symptoms rather than curing disease, the NHS certainly does not. With an ageing population and ever increasing complexity of patients’ needs, more and more money has to be spent on relieving symptoms in the absence of a viable cure. With some patients taking tens of different pills and tablets a day, this costs the NHS billions in prescription costs a year. Furthermore, patients with comorbidities inevitably have longer and more frequent stays in hospital, using more resources and taking up precious bed space. If some of their conditions could be cured rather than symptomatically managed, it would certainly save the NHS money.

    One may argue it is necessary to spend more money treating symptoms as the profit from than can then fund research into cures, and in an ideal world this would be the case- however with people such as Martin Shkreli who increased the price of an AIDS drug from $13.50 to $750 overnight, it may be naïve to think that patient wellbeing is always the number one priority.

    In consideration of these reasons I believe that, yes, for some industries there is money to be made from not curing disease; however healthcare organisations such as the NHS lose out financially.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graphicsturtle)
    Would be appreciated if someone could critique my essay please

    There is money to be made from not curing disease.

    What do you think is meant by this statement? Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree that there is money to be made from disease?

    I believe that this statement is referring to the potential greater monetary gain of continuous symptomatic treatment of a condition as opposed to its cure. As a result of this potential, companies driven mainly by profit margins may choose to spend money on research and development of treatments rather than cures. Good statement that clearly answers the first part of the question.

    There are many industries whose existence depends on the continuation of illness. Logically a company will make more money selling tablets that must be taken every day to manage high blood pressure, than they would selling a pill that only needs to be taken once to cure it. Not necessarily, cost of one tablet could be averaged out to a dollar as opposed to a cure that cost hundred of thousands. In some cases diabetes can be reversed through diet and exercise at no cost to the patient or the NHS. If all diabetics who could manage their condition in this way did, then companies making blood sugar monitoring devices and automatic insulin dispensing implants would lose a lot of money. Often treating symptoms rather than curing disease creates an illusion of better health due to the relief of symptoms, and as such many healthcare industries continue to profit. Hmm the portion regarding diabetes being reversed may not be accurate if I am not wrong, diabetes is linked to the either the pancreas' inability to produce insulin or insulin resistance within the body. In both cases, it cannot be cured through exercise, although exercise and diet can definitely help in managing the condition. This is an interesting point but the support is slightly lacking. Could raise the example that many treatments of disease are aimed at keeping the patient alive rather than cure the disease, for eg, HIV medications can only keep the patient healthy rather than cure the disease. This point could later be countered by arguing that it is due to limitations of research rather than financial motives.

    However, while some industries may make money from treating symptoms rather than curing disease, the NHS certainly does not. With an ageing population and ever increasing complexity of patients’ needs, more and more money has to be spent on relieving symptoms in the absence of a viable cure. With some patients taking tens of different pills and tablets a day, this costs the NHS billions in prescription costs a year. Furthermore, patients with comorbidities inevitably have longer and more frequent stays in hospital, using more resources and taking up precious bed space. If some of their conditions could be cured rather than symptomatically managed, it would certainly save the NHS money. I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you saying that in a socialized healthcare system, there is no profit motives and they are likely to provide cures if it is possible. And from there, since even NHS is not providing cures, the reason behind it is technological limitations?

    One may argue it is necessary to spend more money treating symptoms as the profit from than can then fund research into cures, and in an ideal world this would be the case- however with people such as Martin Shkreli who increased the price of an AIDS drug from $13.50 to $750 overnight, it may be naïve to think that patient wellbeing is always the number one priority.

    In consideration of these reasons I believe that, yes, for some industries there is money to be made from not curing disease; however healthcare organisations such as the NHS lose out financially.
    Your essay raised quite a few interesting perspective, but the flow is slightly confusing. Overall, still a good essay! Hope my comments helped and I wasn't too harsh, I still think its a good essay!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    I have never been ill a day in my life. Why should I pay for someone else's treatment?
    Explain the argument behind this statement. What assumptions does it make? Argue to the contrary that people should pay taxes to support the NHS.

    As individuals work to earn money (sometimes even opting to work long and stressful hours to maximise it), they have a right to use it on whatever they desire. Having never used a service, why should an individual be compelled to continue paying the service providers? Even if others who can't afford treatment may require it, it is not just for money earnt by hard-working individuals to be used by others. If one feels like everyone has a 'right' to healthcare, they should donate to healthcare as they please but enforcing it on everyone through taxation is taking it a step too far. This is worsened by the fact that poverty can be somewhat attributed to lack of motivation to work, something one can change. Providing luxury services healthcare to all may in fact exacerbate this behaviour. Furthermore, the majority of the time, healthcare services aim to improve quality of life rather than save it. The added comfort of healthcare in these instances is not sufficient to deem it a right. No-one would argue that holidays are a right, yet they are equally a luxury. Hmm, I am not sure if NHS could be considered luxurious now with a long waiting time etc. Just because healthcare is geared towards improving quality of life and not just saving a life does not mean it is not justified. Quality of life matters, sometimes more than just staying alive. Usage of palliative care while there are treatment options reflects that.

    On the contrary, this statement makes a few invalid assumptions. Firstly, it presupposes that the individual in question hasn't benefitted at all from healthcare services due to the fact that they haven't been ill before. This is incorrect. Indeed many treatments such as vaccinations benefit the public as much as the patient as the rate of transmission decreases.Good point regarding the indirect benefits of NHS. Maybe the reason for the individual having never been ill is as a result of such treatments. Also, it assumes that just because they've never been ill before, that they either never will be or never need the NHS. The average individual in old age costs the NHS over 4 times as much as younger people. Good support as well. Therefore, it is very likely the individual will need the NHS later on and this will be incredibly expensive and thus, make full use of the service like any other individual. The unpredictability of illnesses could also be raised. Similar to the argument for getting insurance while you're yet to be sick.

    Publicly funded services like the NHS where never created to provide financial benefits to all, as this individual assumes. The entire purpose is that it would be immoral for one's life to be contingent on how wealthy they are and as such, the main principle of the NHS is to provide high quality care at the point of delivery for all. The money that could be spent by individuals with surplus income would be of more benefit to those deathly ill, poor patients. Our responsibility to put the needs of the community supersedes ours.
    Generally answered the question well but could be better structured. Avoid raising a fresh argument when concluding without sufficient support. Just my opinion on the essay, hope it helped!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Generally answered the question well but could be better structured. Avoid raising a fresh argument when concluding without sufficient support. Just my opinion on the essay, hope it helped!
    Thank you! Probably should have phrased the luxury part differently, I meant that, at the end of the day, the quality of a rich man's life with nice plush sofas, in-built stereo systems in every room, chefs and chauffeurs waiting at their every order will be, on average, much greater than the bottom 10% earners in the country. Since 'quality of life' is essentially subjective, at what point is the quality sufficient and starts spilling into luxury?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Would appreciate if someone could take a look at and critique my essay.

    'A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle'
    What do you think the statement implies? Demonstrate through examples where acting on a small amount of knowledge may be less helpful than not acting on a wealth of knowledge'

    The statement states that doing something with incomplete knowledge is significantly more useful than doing nothing with more knowledge. In some cases, a doctor may not have a complete understanding of a patient as he may be waiting for test records or the patient's medical record. In such cases, the statement imply that a doctor is better off acting quickly with incomplete knowledge than wait for the information and risk acting too late.

    This may appear to be true in cases where treatment or actions have to be taken urgently. If a patient potentially had a lethal and contagious disease, it would be justifiable to err on the side of caution and quarantine him while waiting for results. For a person who suspects he has HIV, he should cease sexual activity immediately to prevent potential contamination. It is preferably to act even with incomplete knowledge where the consequences of inaction are immediate and harmful. Especially when considering that we can never have complete knowledge.

    On the other hand, there are certainly cases where further investigations should be preferred over immediate actions with insufficient knowledge. For a person with cancer, as urgent as it is, a doctor will never be justified to carry out a surgery without establishing the location of the tumour. It is important to possess the necesary information acting. Doing otherwise would be simply irresponsible. Without establishing the drug allergies of a patient, starting a course of treatment could prove deadly. Furthermore, most medical cases are not so urgent that a clinician could not afford to wait.

    Whether a clinician should prioritize action over investigation is dependent on benefit and opportunity cost of immediate actions. That is affected by other factors including the urgency of the illness or the amount of knowledge already available. All things considered, the decision maker should always be the patient as he best understands his needs and priorities. An avid climber might prefer to wait to establish if his fingers have to be amputated and risk the chance of death from infection than to err on the side of caution.

    Thanks for the help and apologies for the mess of an essay, attempted it in the time limit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Would appreciate if someone could take a look at and critique my essay.

    'A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle'
    What do you think the statement implies? Demonstrate through examples where acting on a small amount of knowledge may be less helpful than not acting on a wealth of knowledge'

    The statement states that doing something with incomplete knowledge is significantly more useful than doing nothing with more knowledge. In some cases, a doctor may not have a complete understanding of a patient as he may be waiting for test records or the patient's medical record. In such cases, the statement imply that a doctor is better off acting quickly with incomplete knowledge than wait for the information and risk acting too late.

    This may appear to be true in cases where treatment or actions have to be taken urgently. If a patient potentially had a lethal and contagious disease, it would be justifiable to err on the side of caution and quarantine him while waiting for results. For a person who suspects he has HIV, he should cease sexual activity immediately to prevent potential contamination. It is preferably to act even with incomplete knowledge where the consequences of inaction are immediate and harmful. Especially when considering that we can never have complete knowledge.

    On the other hand, there are certainly cases where further investigations should be preferred over immediate actions with insufficient knowledge. For a person with cancer, as urgent as it is, a doctor will never be justified to carry out a surgery without establishing the location of the tumour. It is important to possess the necesary information acting. Doing otherwise would be simply irresponsible. Without establishing the drug allergies of a patient, starting a course of treatment could prove deadly. Furthermore, most medical cases are not so urgent that a clinician could not afford to wait.

    Whether a clinician should prioritize action over investigation is dependent on benefit and opportunity cost of immediate actions. That is affected by other factors including the urgency of the illness or the amount of knowledge already available. All things considered, the decision maker should always be the patient as he best understands his needs and priorities. An avid climber might prefer to wait to establish if his fingers have to be amputated and risk the chance of death from infection than to err on the side of caution.

    Thanks for the help and apologies for the mess of an essay, attempted it in the time limit.

    'A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle'

    What do you think the statement implies? Demonstrate through examples where acting on a small amount of knowledge may be less helpful than not acting on a wealth of knowledge’

    The statement states that doing something with incomplete knowledge is significantly more useful than doing nothing with more knowledge. In some cases, a doctor may not have a complete understanding of a patient as he may be waiting for test records or the patient's medical record. In such cases, the statement imply that a doctor is better off acting quickly with incomplete knowledge than wait for the information and risk acting too late. Hmm, perhaps you have misinterpreted the statement. The case you have described is between acting QUICKLY on little knowledge or SLOWLY on more knowledge. The statement doesn’t mention the speed with which knowledge is acted upon but whether it does. Either way, a doctor acts on the knowledge provided and in fact, acts more as diagnoses provide more information about the patient. Just my 2 cents.

    This may appear to be true in cases where treatment or actions have to be taken urgently. If a patient potentially had a lethal and contagious disease, it would be justifiable to err on the side of caution and quarantine him while waiting for results. Perhaps add this sentence to third paragraph? For a person who suspects he has HIV, he should cease sexual activity immediately to prevent potential contamination. It is preferably to act even with incomplete knowledge where the consequences of inaction are immediate and harmful. Especially when considering that we can never have complete knowledge. This last sentence is a dependent clause and should at least be linked to the previous one through a semi-colon.

    On the other hand, there are certainly cases where further investigations should be preferred over immediate actions with insufficient knowledge. For a person with cancer, as urgent as it is, a doctor will never be justified to carry out a surgery without establishing the location of the tumour. It is important to possess the necesary information acting. Doing otherwise would be simply irresponsible. Without establishing the drug allergies of a patient, starting a course of treatment could prove deadly. Furthermore, most medical cases are not so urgent that a clinician could not afford to wait. Good point and well expanded. Try to find another point to back this up. It doesn’t need to always be related to medicine.

    Whether a clinician should prioritize action over investigation is dependent on benefit and opportunity cost of immediate actions. That is affected by other factors including the urgency of the illness or the amount of knowledge already available. All things considered, the decision maker should always be the patient as he best understands his needs and priorities. An avid climber might prefer to wait to establish if his fingers have to be amputated and risk the chance of death from infection than to err on the side of caution. Strong conclusion. Effective summary of the points made on both sides.

    It would be a brilliant essay if the statement was 'A little knowledge that is quickly acted upon is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is quickly acted upon.' Essentially, the examiner was trying to see if you could balance the reasons for being that the purpose of knowledge is for action to be derived from it and that little knowledge can be dangerous (which you did address) and if a wealth of knowledge is still not enough to act, we shouldn't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Would anyone be kind enough to mark my essay?



    'Mapping the human genome has been compared with putting a man on the moon'

    What do you understand by the statement above? Explain why the study of genetics could be helpful in medicine. Discuss the extent to which reliance on genetics may be dangerous?

    Following the first moon landing, humans started to speculate about the vast possibilities both in the present and in the future, when technology is further developed; one of which is the inhabitation of other planets and more meaningful astronomy studies, which further adds to our knowledge of the universe. Similarly, the mapping of the human genome was a start to an array of possibilities, some of which are so magically that it seems to have been taken out of a science-fiction movie.

    One example of how genetics can aid Medicine is through gene therapy. Having mapped the human genome, it is exponentially more easy to discover what trait genes code for, and which genes are faulty and lead to disorders. When a faulty gene is detected, it can simply be corrected. No longer does evolution have it’s cold shackles confining us and ruthlessly taking lives away due to ‘survival of the fittest’. Further study into genetic mutations may also allow us to discover the mechanisms by which cancer occurs (a disease that almost half the population will suffer from during their lifetime) and the possible cures for it.

    On the other hand, this also opens the door to genetic modification for cosmetic purposes (an ethical dilemma known as designer babies). If a child isn’t slim or tall enough, they can easily change their genetics. Since beauty is largely subjective and essentially dictated by society, our genes will no longer be unique but follow the trends of the time. Additionally, an expensive treatment like gene therapy would not always be worth the cost. It would also have huge risks as a misplaced gene would impact a whole lineage. Excessive reliance on such treatments would exacerbate these issues.

    In conclusion, as beneficial as the mapping of the genome was, the applications will have to be carefully assessed in terms of risks, costs and benefits. Decisions may be clear-cut when it comes to dealing with fatal genetic disorders but it won’t be always. The usage of this technology to tackle certain problems should be extensively discussed and regulated.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    'A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle'

    What do you think the statement implies? Demonstrate through examples where acting on a small amount of knowledge may be less helpful than not acting on a wealth of knowledge’

    The statement states that doing something with incomplete knowledge is significantly more useful than doing nothing with more knowledge. In some cases, a doctor may not have a complete understanding of a patient as he may be waiting for test records or the patient's medical record. In such cases, the statement implies that a doctor is better off acting quickly with incomplete knowledge than wait for the information and risk acting too late. Hmm, perhaps you have misinterpreted the statement. The case you have described is between acting QUICKLY on little knowledge or SLOWLY on more knowledge. The statement doesn’t mention the speed with which knowledge is acted upon but whether it does. Either way, a doctor acts on the knowledge provided and in fact, acts more as diagnoses provide more information about the patient. Just my 2 cents.

    This may appear to be true in cases where treatment or actions have to be taken urgently. If a patient potentially had a lethal and contagious disease, it would be justifiable to err on the side of caution and quarantine him while waiting for results. Perhaps add this sentence to third paragraph? For a person who suspects he has HIV, he should cease sexual activity immediately to prevent potential contamination. It is preferable to act even with incomplete knowledge where the consequences of inaction are immediate and harmful. Especially when considering that we can never have complete knowledge. This last sentence is a dependent clause and should at least be linked to the previous one through a semi-colon.

    On the other hand, there are certainly cases where further investigations should be preferred over immediate actions with insufficient knowledge. For a person with cancer, as urgent as it is, a doctor will never be justified to carry out a surgery without establishing the location of a tumour. It is important to possess the necesary information acting. Doing otherwise would be simply irresponsible. Without establishing the drug allergies of a patient, starting a course of treatment could prove deadly. Furthermore, most medical cases are not so urgent that a clinician could not afford to wait. Good point and well expanded. Try to find another point to back this up. It doesn’t need to always be related to medicine.

    Whether a clinician should prioritize action over investigation is dependent on benefit and opportunity cost of immediate actions. That is affected by other factors including the urgency of the illness or the amount of knowledge already available. All things considered, the decision maker should always be the patient as he best understands his needs and priorities. An avid climber might prefer to wait to establish if his fingers have to be amputated and risk the chance of death from infection than to err on the side of caution. Strong conclusion. Effective summary of the points made on both sides.

    It would be a brilliant essay if the statement was 'A little knowledge that is quickly acted upon is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is quickly acted upon.' Essentially, the examiner was trying to see if you could balance the reasons for being that the purpose of knowledge is for action to be derived from it and that little knowledge can be dangerous (which you did address) and if a wealth of knowledge is still not enough to act, we shouldn't.
    Thanks for the help! Hmm, I still can't really understand the question, would you mind clarifying a bit more? Maybe, I should not have done that question HAHA
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    Would anyone be kind enough to mark my essay?



    'Mapping the human genome has been compared with putting a man on the moon'

    What do you understand by the statement above? Explain why the study of genetics could be helpful in medicine. Discuss the extent to which reliance on genetics may be dangerous?

    Following the first moon landing, humans started to speculate about the vast possibilities both in the present and in the future, when technology is further developed; one of which is the inhabitation of other planets and more meaningful astronomy studies, which further adds to our knowledge of the universe. Similarly, the mapping of the human genome was a start to an array of possibilities, some of which are so magically that it seems to have been taken out of a science-fiction movie. Well written intro, the only downside I could see would be that it is a tad long which is dangerous for BMAT due to to the limited space there. Maybe you could have gone directly to the possibilities raised from mapping the Human Genome.

    One example of how genetics can aid Medicine is through gene therapy. Having mapped the human genome, it is exponentially more easy to discover what trait genes code for, and which genes are faulty and lead to disorders. When a faulty gene is detected, it can simply be corrected. No longer does evolution have it’s cold shackles confining us and ruthlessly taking lives away due to ‘survival of the fittest’. Further study into genetic mutations may also allow us to discover the mechanisms by which cancer occurs (a disease that almost half the population will suffer from during their lifetime) and the possible cures for it. This is a good point. If you raised an example of a gene therapy already at play, it would be even stronger. (Leukemia gene therapy approved in the US and many other examples). Well used metaphors and bracket as well!

    On the other hand, this also opens the door to genetic modification for cosmetic purposes (an ethical dilemma known as designer babies). If a child isn’t slim or tall enough, they can easily change their genetics. Since beauty is largely subjective and essentially dictated by society, our genes will no longer be unique but follow the trends of the time. Additionally, an expensive treatment like gene therapy would not always be worth the cost. For the cost, you might want to link it to the issue of accessibility. Medicine today is already too expensive for most. It would also have huge risks as a misplaced gene would impact a whole lineage. Excessive reliance on such treatments would exacerbate these issues. For this point, I think it is still not feasible for gene therapy to amend the genes for height for an already developing child but rather, its amending the embryo of the child which raise issues of consent as well.

    In conclusion, as beneficial as the mapping of the genome was, the applications will have to be carefully assessed in terms of risks, costs and benefits. Decisions may be clear-cut when it comes to dealing with fatal genetic disorders but it won’t be always. The usage of this technology to tackle certain problems should be extensively discussed and regulated.
    Good conclusion.

    Your essay answered the question very well and definitely warrant a good grade!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I may be going off on a tangent here, but does anyone know what time the BMAT is on Nov 2? I'm an international student from Canada.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lchong201)
    I may be going off on a tangent here, but does anyone know what time the BMAT is on Nov 2? I'm an international student from Canada.
    I believe it starts at 1:00 although you should check with your centre to confirm that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by try hard)
    Thanks for the help! Hmm, I still can't really understand the question, would you mind clarifying a bit more? Maybe, I should not have done that question HAHA
    Yeah, in all honesty, it isn't an easy question to answer. A little knowledge that can be applied is greater than a wealth of knowledge that can't. What the statement means to say is that the knowledge isn't intrinsically valuable in and of itself but only when it can be applied to better mankind's circumstances. We could know all the properties of a plant; it's age, it's colour, the exact nutrients it takes in, the mechanisms of it's reproduction. However, if this is not being put to use, by improving farming techniques for example, it is even less useful than simply knowing the plant has a nice aroma and then making perfume out of it. A real life example is the discovery of fire. When the first humans found out that it was possible to create fire by rubbing two rocks, massive improvements in our species occurred. It enabled us to eat more nutritious foods, reduce the need to eat as it raised our body temperature, led to the increase in brain capacity that allowed us to become the dominant species. Although, the knowledge was minuscule in comparison to what we now know about fire, we haven't been able to apply it nearly as much and remains 'idle'. Your counter argument was good, if the little knowledge is intended to be applied in a risky endeavour like surgery, it is better not applied at all. Wrote a whole essay myself explaining it haha.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hey could someone have a look at this please? Would greatly appreciate it!

    The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.
    Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that medicine does in fact do more than amuse the patient. To what extent do you think Voltaire is correct?

    The statement is implying that the discipline of medicine is dependent on disease and illness in a patient being cured naturally by the human body. Medicinal drugs only play a part in keeping the patient satisfied psychologically with the hope that they are being treated.

    However, this is an extravagant claim that undermines the true effectiveness of what medicine offers. There are many medicinal drugs and treatments which have a legitimate and proven basis upon which they work. Chemotherapy, for example, works on the heavily researched idea of killing cancerous cells with radiation. It is absurd therefore to claim that medicine only relies on nature to cure disease. If it was nature that cured disease, surely terminal illnesses, and those which no one seems to recover from, such as Alzheimer's, wouldn't exist. However, they continue to exist and this alone shows how vital human involvement is in curing disease.

    Voltaire's statement is not completely false however. The statement says "consists", implying only a part of medicine involves natural healing. It can thus be argued that in some cases medicine does indeed merely amuse the patient whilst the body heals itself. For example, in cases such as small wounds, drugs such as painkillers may only distract from the pain, whilst the curing is done by the body's natural process of repairing. Drug trials where placebos are involved also highlight how it is reasonable to think in some cases the medical condition is treated without human intervention, and the idea of being given treatment alone comforts the patient until they are cured. Therefore, I believe the statement is true in certain situations, although it cannot be made as a general statement for all of the medical discipline.

    Reading back, I've clearly missed a main point about the compassion part of medicine, but hopefully the points I've made alone would be sufficient?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iras)
    Hey could someone have a look at this please? Would greatly appreciate it!

    The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.
    Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that medicine does in fact do more than amuse the patient. To what extent do you think Voltaire is correct?

    The statement is implying that the discipline of medicine is dependent on disease and illness in a patient being cured naturally by the human body. Medicinal drugs only play a part in keeping the patient satisfied psychologically with the hope that they are being treated. More could be done to explicitly state that medicine is implied to be nothing more than amusement. Art vs Science. This is definitely not true with efficacy being proven via clinical trials etc.

    However, this is an extravagant claim that undermines the true effectiveness of what medicine offers. There are many medicinal drugs and treatments which have a legitimate and proven basis upon which they work. Chemotherapy, for example, works on the heavily researched idea of killing cancerous cells with radiation. It is absurd therefore to claim that medicine only relies on nature to cure disease. If it was nature that cured disease, surely terminal illnesses, and those which no one seems to recover from, such as Alzheimer's, wouldn't exist. However, they continue to exist and this alone shows how vital human involvement is in curing disease. Hmm have we treated alzheimers though?

    Voltaire's statement is not completely false however. The statement says "consists", implying only a part of medicine involves natural healing. It can thus be argued that in some cases medicine does indeed merely amuse the patient whilst the body heals itself. For example, in cases such as small wounds, drugs such as painkillers may only distract from the pain, whilst the curing is done by the body's natural process of repairing. Drug trials where placebos are involved also highlight how it is reasonable to think in some cases the medical condition is treated without human intervention, and the idea of being given treatment alone comforts the patient until they are cured. Therefore, I believe the statement is true in certain situations, although it cannot be made as a general statement for all of the medical discipline. There are self-limiting illnesses where medicine are not required or not useful but the idea of placebo might be contradicting as medications ideally should work better than placebos to be considered effective and pass clinical trials.

    Reading back, I've clearly missed a main point about the compassion part of medicine, but hopefully the points I've made alone would be sufficient?
    Hope it helped!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys! I'm new to this thread (got introduced by a friend to join this very helpful community of aspiring doctors ) and hope that I can join in the fun too haha

    This an essay I wrote and kindly hope someone can critique it!

    "There is something attractive about people who don't regard their own health and longevity as the most important things in the world." (Alexander Chancellor)
    Explain what this statement means. Argue that nothing is more important than one's own health and longevity. To what extent do you agree with Alexander Chancellor? [2012 Qn 2]

    Alexander Chancellor regards those who enjoy taking risks and have a fearless attitude very highly. The author finds that it is very admirable to not be afraid of losing one's life or damaging one's health in pursuit of other things that they are passionate about. This apparent disregard for one's health or life may seem extreme at first, however, if it was done in a good way could actually turn out to be something worth emulating.

    One such example which supports the author's stand would be Malala Yousafzai, the teenager who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for standing up for women's rights in a patriarchal society. She was shot in the heat but fortunately survived the ordeal and lived to tell the story. Her passion for women's rights drove her to stand face-to-face with death, and yet she would not second-guess her decision when asked whether she would re-do the whole thing again. This fearless attitude and disregard for one's life to support a grand cause aptly shows the truth in Chancellor's statement.

    However, it can also be argued that having good health and living a considerably long life is paramount in one being able to do things that they are truly passionate about. Thus, it can be argued that nothing is more important than one's health as without it, Malala wouldn't have been able to continue to fight for what she believes in. Only when one lives would they have the chance to do things that they want to do.

    Ultimately, whether or not Chancellor's statement can be agreed upon would be dependent on the reason for which the individual is risking their health and life for. If it was for a worthy cause such as supporting children's rights to education or for the liberalisation of oppressed groups, it would be revered by the masses. However, acts done in exchange for a person's life which bring more harm than good, such as the suicide bombers, should be condemned and prevented as nothing about it is attractive to the general public.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bossmanjacks)
    Yeah, in all honesty, it isn't an easy question to answer. A little knowledge that can be applied is greater than a wealth of knowledge that can't. What the statement means to say is that the knowledge isn't intrinsically valuable in and of itself but only when it can be applied to better mankind's circumstances. We could know all the properties of a plant; it's age, it's colour, the exact nutrients it takes in, the mechanisms of it's reproduction. However, if this is not being put to use, by improving farming techniques for example, it is even less useful than simply knowing the plant has a nice aroma and then making perfume out of it. A real life example is the discovery of fire. When the first humans found out that it was possible to create fire by rubbing two rocks, massive improvements in our species occurred. It enabled us to eat more nutritious foods, reduce the need to eat as it raised our body temperature, led to the increase in brain capacity that allowed us to become the dominant species. Although, the knowledge was minuscule in comparison to what we now know about fire, we haven't been able to apply it nearly as much and remains 'idle'. Your counter argument was good, if the little knowledge is intended to be applied in a risky endeavour like surgery, it is better not applied at all. Wrote a whole essay myself explaining it haha.
    Thanks for the help, that was definitely the correct interpretation of the essay haha, do hope i don't misinterpret the actual paper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yesplsnoty)
    Hi guys! I'm new to this thread (got introduced by a friend to join this very helpful community of aspiring doctors ) and hope that I can join in the fun too haha

    This an essay I wrote and kindly hope someone can critique it!

    "There is something attractive about people who don't regard their own health and longevity as the most important things in the world." (Alexander Chancellor)
    Explain what this statement means. Argue that nothing is more important than one's own health and longevity. To what extent do you agree with Alexander Chancellor? [2012 Qn 2]

    Alexander Chancellor regards those who enjoy taking risks and have a fearless attitude very highly. The author finds that it is very admirable to not be afraid of losing one's life or damaging one's health in pursuit of other things that they are passionate about. This apparent disregard for one's health or life may seem extreme at first, however, if it was done in a good way could actually turn out to be something worth emulating.

    One such example which supports the author's stand would be Malala Yousafzai, the teenager who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for standing up for women's rights in a patriarchal society. She was shot in the heat but fortunately survived the ordeal and lived to tell the story. Her passion for women's rights drove her to stand face-to-face with death, and yet she would not second-guess her decision when asked whether she would re-do the whole thing again. This fearless attitude and disregard for one's life to support a grand cause aptly shows the truth in Chancellor's statement.

    However, it can also be argued that having good health and living a considerably long life is paramount in one being able to do things that they are truly passionate about. Thus, it can be argued that nothing is more important than one's health as without it, Malala wouldn't have been able to continue to fight for what she believes in. Only when one lives would they have the chance to do things that they want to do.

    Ultimately, whether or not Chancellor's statement can be agreed upon would be dependent on the reason for which the individual is risking their health and life for. If it was for a worthy cause such as supporting children's rights to education or for the liberalisation of oppressed groups, it would be revered by the masses. However, acts done in exchange for a person's life which bring more harm than good, such as the suicide bombers, should be condemned and prevented as nothing about it is attractive to the general public.



    "There is something attractive about people who don't regard their own health and longevity as the most important things in the world." (Alexander Chancellor)

    Explain what this statement means. Argue that nothing is more important than one's own health and longevity. To what extent do you agree with Alexander Chancellor? [2012 Qn 2]



    Alexander Chancellor regards those who enjoy taking risks and have a fearless attitude very highly. The author finds that it is very admirable to not be afraid of losing one's life or damaging one's health in pursuit of other things that they are passionate about. This apparent disregard for one's health or life may seem extreme at first, however, if it was done in a good way could actually turn out to be something worth emulating. Good start.



    One such example which supports the author's stand would be Malala Yousafzai, the teenager who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for standing up for women's rights in a patriarchal society. She was shot in the heat but fortunately survived the ordeal and lived to tell the story. Her passion for women's rights drove her to stand face-to-face with death, and yet she would not second-guess her decision when asked whether she would re-do the whole thing again. This fearless attitude and disregard for one's life to support a grand cause aptly shows the truth in Chancellor's statement. There are many points that can be stated for this argument, try to think of at least one more to strengthen it. One such example is that living life whilst fearing all the possible harms and dangers is one not worth living. The purpose of life is happiness and this is reflected by the fact that some individuals play dangerous sports, smoke, drink alcohol; which is essentially trading longevity for enjoyment.



    However, it can also be argued that having good health and living a considerably long life is paramount in one being able to do things that they are truly passionate about. Thus, it can be argued that nothing is more important than one's health as without it, Malala wouldn't have been able to continue to fight for what she believes in. Only when one lives would they have the chance to do things that they want to do. Excellent. I can’t find any criticisms for this paragraph.



    Ultimately, whether or not Chancellor's statement can be agreed upon would be dependent on the reason for which the individual is risking their health and life for. If it was for a worthy cause such as supporting children's rights to education or for the liberalisation of oppressed groups, it would be revered by the masses. However, acts done in exchange for a person's life which bring more harm than good, such as the suicide bombers, should be condemned and prevented as nothing about it is attractive to the general public. Powerful ending. Did you do this in the time-limit? I can’t say much other than it’s a really good essay.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    If anybody could critique the essay, it would be much appreciated!


    People are getting older and with the advancement of medicine they are becoming more expensive to treat. Old people should not be treated in NHS.



    Explain the argument behind the statement. What assumptions does it make? Argue, to the contrary, that older people are entitled to treatment on the NHS.



    With the recent revolutionary developments in medicine in the past decades, people are dying less from acute diseases and are consequently living to an older age. However, while we are not dying, we are unable to escape from the grasp of diseases. Most old people have at least a chronic illness and is causing a heavy burden on the NHS. Considering that the NHS is underfunded as it is, old people should not be entitled to free treatment in the NHS.



    On first glance, there seems to be some merits in the author’s argument. With NHS being underfunded, there is a need to ration this limited resource. From an utilitarian’s point of view, the elderly who no longer contribute to the economy, should be preferentially sacrificed.



    However, the author is assuming that active contribution to NHS is necessary for entitlement to the service. This is untrue and goes against a founding principle of the NHS: Healthcare is a right. Rationing or prioritization should only be based on clinical considerations. Furthermore, the author also assumes that the elderly would be more expensive to treat than people of other age groups. This may be true as they are generally weaker physically but that is not necessary. Providing vaccines to elderly could protect them from some of the more common illnesses that used to plague them. By encouraging them to keep fit via community exercise programmes or providing elderly friendly exercise facilities could also help. If enough preventative measures are taken, the elderly need not be a bigger burden on the healthcare system and should be entitled to treatments.



    Ultimately, the elderly has contributed significantly to the building of the society. Without their contributions, we would not have our current standards of living. It would be callous of us to ignore or condemn them simply because they are less able to contribute today. In fact, it would even harm the United Kingdom as it would become a less attractive society for skilled immigrants to migrate to. Who would want to live in a society where you would be denied of help when you need it most?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.