Live data from Hacker News

How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

archive.cancerworld.net

271–280 of 300 posts

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#271

Today's medicine is focused to treat the diseases, refusing to admit that people at 70-80 years old die not from disease, but from the old age. Everybody but a few enthusiasts refuse to treat ageing instead of cancer or heart diseases. People in general refuse to treat ageing as a disease, thinking it is something natural. I would not want a couple more miserable years on earth, I want a few million years of a health…

Just yesterday there was an article on Hacker News attacking Bezos for having the pride and selfishness to attempt to cure aging: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28440348 "Be fine with dying of old age or else you're a villain" is this weird, fundamental, Christian part of our common mythos/ethics/stories. The evil villain seeks immortality. The kindly old witch or wizard or Pope dies peacefully because it is ri…

From its earliest days, following the edicts of Jesus, Christianity encouraged its devotees to tend the sick. Priests were often also physicians. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey, while pagan religions seldom offered help to the infirm, the early Christians were willing to nurse the sick and take food to them, notably during the smallpox epidemic of AD 165-180 and the measles outbreak of around AD 250; "In nursing the sick and dying, regardless of religion, the Christians won friends and sympathisers".[6]

Following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, leading to an expansion of the provision of care. Among the earliest were those built ca. 370 by St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), by Saint Fabiola in Rome ca. 390, and by the physician-priest Saint Sampson (d. 530) in Constantinople, Called the Basiliad, St. Basil's hospital resembled a city, and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[7] There was a separate section for lepers.[8] Eventually construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun.

Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals after the end of the persecution of the early church.[9] Ancient church leaders like St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) emphasized medicine as an aid to the provision of hospitality.[10] 12th century Roman Catholic orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites have long lived in religious communities that work for the care of the sick.[11]

Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[12] Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[13]

Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-functional while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor, or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick.

When and where the first hospital was established is a matter of dispute. According to some authorities (e.g. Ratzinger, p. 141), St. Zoticus built one at Constantinople during the reign of Constantine, but this has been denied (cf. Uhlhorn, I, 319). But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues (Soxomen, V, 16). As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. A splendid instance of this comprehensive charity is found in the work of St. Ephraem who, during the plague at Edessa (375), provided 300 beds for the sufferers. But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools. St. Gregory of Nazianzus was deeply impressed by the extent and efficiency of this institution which he calls "an easy ascent to heaven" and which he describes enthusiastically (Or. 39, "In laudem Basilii"; Or. fun. "In Basil.", P.G., XXXVI, 578-579).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nursing

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#272

To me, this reveals the Christian roots of modern medicine. To me, these weeds are to be uprooted: Christians willingly inflict suffering unto others, as they believe it is the natural state of human being and must be increased in servitude of their God, especially near death.

From its earliest days, following the edicts of Jesus, Christianity encouraged its devotees to tend the sick. Priests were often also physicians. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey, while pagan religions seldom offered help to the infirm, the early Christians were willing to nurse the sick and take food to them, notably during the smallpox epidemic of AD 165-180 and the measles outbreak of around AD 250; "In nursing the sick and dying, regardless of religion, the Christians won friends and sympathisers".[6]

Following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, leading to an expansion of the provision of care. Among the earliest were those built ca. 370 by St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), by Saint Fabiola in Rome ca. 390, and by the physician-priest Saint Sampson (d. 530) in Constantinople, Called the Basiliad, St. Basil's hospital resembled a city, and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[7] There was a separate section for lepers.[8] Eventually construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun.

Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals after the end of the persecution of the early church.[9] Ancient church leaders like St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) emphasized medicine as an aid to the provision of hospitality.[10] 12th century Roman Catholic orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites have long lived in religious communities that work for the care of the sick.[11]

Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[12] Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[13]

Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-functional while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor, or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick.

When and where the first hospital was established is a matter of dispute. According to some authorities (e.g. Ratzinger, p. 141), St. Zoticus built one at Constantinople during the reign of Constantine, but this has been denied (cf. Uhlhorn, I, 319). But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues (Soxomen, V, 16). As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. A splendid instance of this comprehensive charity is found in the work of St. Ephraem who, during the plague at Edessa (375), provided 300 beds for the sufferers. But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools. St. Gregory of Nazianzus was deeply impressed by the extent and efficiency of this institution which he calls "an easy ascent to heaven" and which he describes enthusiastically (Or. 39, "In laudem Basilii"; Or. fun. "In Basil.", P.G., XXXVI, 578-579).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nursing

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ordinary people aren't as familiar with death, and don't have a wide range of responses to it because society hides it and pretends it doesn't exist. I relate to this so much. I had a period of staring my potential death in the face and there is nothing in modern society that prepares you for that. I was completely rudderless for a while because I had literally no social context in which death could be faced without…

Art films don't have this problem, and that's where I've had my media exposure to death. If you want to know about how hard life can get after the death of someone, I cannot recommend Blue by Kieslowsky enough.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you feel the need to slam this as “Christian?” There’s nothing in Christianity that speaks against medicine or trying to extend life. The only thing that is different for Christians is they believe death is not the final end, and thus have less reason to be afraid. They still don’t want to die. Would you be comfortable slamming other religions in the same causal way? If not, why not?

Well, particularly early Christianity hero-worshipped martyrs, and seeing as how death brought about union with Christ, there is no tradition of prizing life in the body above death.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475405.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad we can't ask unwanted babies if they would rather have been born into a bad life. This isn't directed at you, but I have had countless conversations about this very topic. The detriments are greatly overstated. I've found usually people are talking of these things outside looking in in an ideological vacuum, and not an experiential one. Let's take societal outcomes for african americans, as an example. What p…

If society wants more babies, the path is easy: provide financial help for couples and single mothers. The way it currently is, abortion is very attractive.

It’s not just about money, raising children well is time expensive, hence why most couples who have a choice stop a 2-3.

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And being responsible for getting pregnant shouldn't be automatically punished with being forced to risk your health and life for benefit of human that is not you. Why not? Those are the stakes of sex and we all know it going in. I'm a man, but I know that if I accidentally get a woman pregnant one of the consequences will be being forced to monetarily support the resulting child. She knows going in that pregnancy…

> Why not? Because getting pregnant is not a crime so it shouldn't be punished. > Those are the stakes of sex and we all know it going in. You can say that about crimes as well. Knowing the stakes doesn't mean that something that follows is not a punishment. And we should be punishing only crimes. And we shouldn't be using corporal punishments at all. > I'm a man, but I know that if I accidentally get a woman pregnan…

to add points to this:

> getting pregnant is not a crime

neither is signing a contract, but you can be penalised for breaking one. Neither is joining the army, but you can be punished for deserting. You are suggesting that if it's not a crime to take on a responsibility, you can't be punished for betraying it - that doesn't follow to me.

> you don't have to take it with you from the hospital. If you did, you voluntarily assumed the rights of a parent

why don't you assume the potential consequence of bringing a pregnancy to full term by voluntarily having sex, and not aborting in early terms?

> you still can't compel other human to risk her health and life

No, but you can penalise them. Can you not penalise members of the army for deserting? Yes, because they took on that responsibility. Who takes on the responsibility for a strangers kidney problems?

> if your child needs a kidney to survive you are not obliged to provide it

you aren't responsible for such a condition.

> yet if somebody needs a uterus

because you put them there? Can I lock you in a cage and claim no responsibility in getting you out?

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since we are arguing about what the law should be, some(thing/one) being "legally a non-person entity" would be circular. At what point is a person a person? "at birth" seems arbitrary.

> At what point is a person a person? "at birth" seems arbitrary All lines dividing up creation into named categories and entities are arbitrary. That one is arbitrary is not an argument against it and in favor of a different (and equally arbitrary) one.

Can you explain what you mean? Are zygote, embryos, foetus and various categorisations of foetal development arbitrary? Or do you mean "arbitrary" specifically in terms of personhood (i.e. there might be a clearly distinguishable stage where the heart starts beating, but this bears no obvious relationship to personhood)

> That one is arbitrary is not an argument against it and in favor of a different (and equally arbitrary) one.

True, but that's not my aim. I am instead attacking the notion of personhood, which was a dependency of your own argument, not mine. If there are no meaningful indicators of personhood, the only way to avoid aborting a person is to set a limit at a point where a foetus is still likely to be a non-person, because detailed gauges of personhood are otherwise unavailable.

I think a better direction for this argument would be to burden you with the question; why aren't we allowed to terminate once a child is born? pre-empting the argument "but then there are no health risks / autonomy considerations" - does that mean all abortions are done for purely health-risk reasons?

Re: How Doctors die. It’s not like the rest of us (2016)

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's a little different - I'm not responsible for someone needing a kidney, but a person who becomes pregnant is (in most cases) responsible for that. That doesn't mean anyone should be "forced to carrying pregnancy to term", but it also doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for not doing so.

if you decide to for example continually give blood to another person to keep them alive, you are allowed at any point to revoke your consent for this procedure even if it makes the other person die. it doesnt matter that the women entered the pregnancy knowing the consequences, she is allowed to revoke the babies privilege to use her body whenever she wants.

Jesus Christ "revoke the babies privilege"

When did that baby consent to being conceived?

Post reply on HN