5 ms·

How about the burden on an already overwhelmed medical system because doctors are focusing on nonhealth related distractions.

• jerf 17y ago
  The "already-overwhelmed" medical system in Russia? Paid for out of pocket (I assume, the article doesn't say but I have never heard of an insurance that would pay for that)? (Besides, the laws of economics tend to ensure that supply will match demand when the market is left alone. If we weren't working so hard to disconnect all the market forces that go into causing that Econ 101 result, maybe our system would be less "overwhelmed". The food I purchased today did not take food out of your mouth; the medical services this woman purchased don't have to take medical services from you.)
  • pj 17y ago
    The supply may match demand if the supply of doctors weren't limited by the AMA. And I wasn't speaking only of Russia, I was speaking in general and especially about the U.S. I'm not arguing that we should stop the practice, just offering some legitimate reasons to limit this kind of practice. It is true though, that if more doctors are performing non-health related procedures, there are fewer doctors to do health related issues. The question is: How much should doctors be doing to make people better than normal, or intentionally abnormal versus doing things to make people not abnormal? Plastic surgeons are already limited in what they can do. This article for instance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/11/health.lifeandhealth http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/11/health.lifeand... which talks about wings, horns, tails and the like, "If the medical-ethics board allowed it..."
    • jerf 17y ago
      "It is true though, that if more doctors are performing non-health related procedures, there are fewer doctors to do health related issues." No, that's only true instantaneously. It's not true across a time span where the number of doctors can adjust to market conditions.