3 ms·
> You can. For every health condition, there are a wide range of options varying in cost, efficacy, risk, time and pain. Broadly speaking: if you experience di
by jakelazaroff 6y ago
> You can. For every health condition, there are a wide range of options varying in cost, efficacy, risk, time and pain.
Broadly speaking: if you experience dire medical trauma — say you have a heart attack or get in a bad car accident — you need emergency care or you’ll probably die. If you have cancer, you need to treat it or you’ll die. If a vital organ stops working, you need to find a functional replacement or you’ll die.
You may have multiple options for treatment, or you may not. But for many health conditions, the choice is ultimately binary: treat your ailment or die. That sounds to me like a service that cannot be substituted.
- WalterBright 6y agoCancer, for example, has many treatment options available. So does a heart attack. Besides, emergency conditions (being transported to the hospital in dire condition in an ambulance) are not at all where the vast bulk of health care is.
- chii 6y ago> has many treatment options available is there one that's cheap? Can i buy an aspirin pill for cancer? A substitute is not the same as options - a substitute implies lower cost but does the same job. Chicken is a substitute for beef (which is generally more expensive). Therefore, beef cannot become _too_ much more expensive than chicken, as people will just opt to buy the chicken. But if you have cancer, and each treatment still costs thousands per visit/session, then they are not substitutes.
- nickpp 6y agoYes, the cancer treatments vary in price. Even more so if you take the associated care into consideration: you can have a customized, personally adjusted treatment costing many times more than the (same ingredients) basic protocol.
- WalterBright 6y agoFor cancer, your options are: 1. radiation 2. chemo 3. surgery 4. some combination of the above All have their pluses and minuses. Sometimes people with terminal cancer opt for no treatment, as they'd rather enjoy a shorter time than have a painful longer time. The notion there is no choice is simply incorrect.
- MauranKilom 6y agoGenerally, only a pretty specific mix of these will yield a beneficial result. There are inoperable tumors, there are patients that will not withstand chemotherapy, and radiotherapy of a tumor too close to a critical organ will also not suffice. Usually these treatment options would be weighed by a board of experts from the different medical fields involved, taking into account the individual patient's constraints. I don't really see how you come to the conclusion that there is much of a choice for a cancer patient. It's not like you can tell the tumor board "I want surgery" when that's not a clinically viable option. And it's also not like any of these options is particularly affordable - any of them will easily bankrupt someone living from paycheck to paycheck. Heck, the MRI scan alone can. It's still pretty binary between "get reasonable treatment costing tens of thousands or die", as the other poster pointed out.
- WalterBright 6y ago> I don't really see how you come to the conclusion that there is much of a choice for a cancer patient. Because I know several people who've had dire cancers, and they all had choices and made choices among the treatment options.
- tetrometal 6y agoIndeed. Additionally, CAR-T therapy and vaccines are peeking over the horizon.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]