Why not get the maximum number of people medically trained?

[Brickjectivity]

Hi, friends of RF. Just thought I would toss it out there, so we'd have one more topic to kick around that was in the 'Ethics' category.

Most of us live in countries with some state sponsored education or public education. It seems it would be possible to require or heavily sponsor all students to learn some medicine and to encourage or sponsor free ongoing training. Why not do so? It seems we make excuses for not doing so, directing funds to other areas which are less important. Surely we could increase general health for all and increase the progress of medical research by doing so, and doesn't it seem unethical not to?

Why not get the maximum number of people medically trained? Isn't it lazy or negligent not to?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm firmly of the opinion that all school systems should teach the Heimlich maneuver as a basic part of education. Such a simple yet essential and potentially life-saving procedure.

 

[Orbit]

Hi, friends of RF. Just thought I would toss it out there, so we'd have one more topic to kick around that was in the 'Ethics' category.

Most of us live in countries with some state sponsored education or public education. It seems it would be possible to require or heavily sponsor all students to learn some medicine and to encourage or sponsor free ongoing training. Why not do so? It seems we make excuses for not doing so, directing funds to other areas which are less important. Surely we could increase general health for all and increase the progress of medical research by doing so, and doesn't it seem unethical not to?

Why not get the maximum number of people medically trained? Isn't it lazy or negligent not to?

Not all are cut out for a medical career. Most medical stuff makes me want to throw up, for example.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Basic first aid should be part of the curriculum, in my opinion...repeated yearly or more frequently...

 

[Valjean]

Hi, friends of RF. Just thought I would toss it out there, so we'd have one more topic to kick around that was in the 'Ethics' category.

Most of us live in countries with some state sponsored education or public education. It seems it would be possible to require or heavily sponsor all students to learn some medicine and to encourage or sponsor free ongoing training. Why not do so? It seems we make excuses for not doing so, directing funds to other areas which are less important. Surely we could increase general health for all and increase the progress of medical research by doing so, and doesn't it seem unethical not to?

Why not get the maximum number of people medically trained? Isn't it lazy or negligent not to?

Heresy!
The American healthcare system's prime directive is not promoting public health, individual health, or any public benefit. Healthcare, here, is a business, and is run as such.
Training more medical professionals might increase competition; even drive down costs. From a Neoliberal perspective, this would be not only counter-productive, but a threat to corporate dominance. It would be immoral, by the economic philosophy of Neoliberalism

 

[Erebus]

Hi, friends of RF. Just thought I would toss it out there, so we'd have one more topic to kick around that was in the 'Ethics' category.

Most of us live in countries with some state sponsored education or public education. It seems it would be possible to require or heavily sponsor all students to learn some medicine and to encourage or sponsor free ongoing training. Why not do so? It seems we make excuses for not doing so, directing funds to other areas which are less important. Surely we could increase general health for all and increase the progress of medical research by doing so, and doesn't it seem unethical not to?

Why not get the maximum number of people medically trained? Isn't it lazy or negligent not to?

This is actually a damn good idea in my opinion. While not everybody is going to be able to become a doctor or surgeon, giving students a basic knowledge of first aid should be as doable as teaching them to read.

I don't know if it's still the case but when I was at school, classes were separated by ability. Somebody who struggled with mathematics for example would be taught more basic lessons than somebody with a better understanding. Students could move up to more advanced classes if they started to outpace their current one. Perhaps a similar system could work with medicine.


I know that this is in the ethics section of the forum but I honestly think it's just plain sensible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi, friends of RF. Just thought I would toss it out there, so we'd have one more topic to kick around that was in the 'Ethics' category.

Most of us live in countries with some state sponsored education or public education. It seems it would be possible to require or heavily sponsor all students to learn some medicine and to encourage or sponsor free ongoing training. Why not do so? It seems we make excuses for not doing so, directing funds to other areas which are less important. Surely we could increase general health for all and increase the progress of medical research by doing so, and doesn't it seem unethical not to?

Why not get the maximum number of people medically trained? Isn't it lazy or negligent not to?

Here in Ontario, the provincial government will effectively erase a new doctor's student loan debt if they work in an underserved community (or anywhere in the province in a specialty where there's a shortage of doctors) for 5 years.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here in Ontario, the provincial government will effectively erase a new doctor's student loan debt if they work in an underserved community (or anywhere in the province in a specialty where there's a shortage of doctors) for 5 years.

That sounds like a very good and practical program.

There was a comedy show here in the US in which a young doctor got his medical degree sponsored by a slightly similar program, however rather than a loan forgiveness program it was more like a program of indentured servitude. His degree had been paid for and he must therefore work wherever he was sent. He got sent to work for five years in an isolated (and weird) town in Alaska, and he tried to get out of it for at least the first few episodes. That town also had certain paranormal properties. That was the beginning of the show.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That sounds like a very good and practical program.

There was a comedy show here in the US in which a young doctor got his medical degree sponsored by a slightly similar program, however rather than a loan forgiveness program it was more like a program of indentured servitude. His degree had been paid for and he must therefore work wherever he was sent. He got sent to work for five years in an isolated (and weird) town in Alaska, and he tried to get out of it for at least the first few episodes. That town also had certain paranormal properties. That was the beginning of the show.

Northern Exposure? I used to watch that show religiously.

The Ontario approach also has an advantage (at least for taxpayers and people needing medical services) over simply paying the tuition up front: they don't need to worry about "wasting" money on people who don't complete their MD program. In Ontario, you need to have your degree to get into the program.

 

[Vitality]

Idk about training laymen on specific medical treatment, but first aid and CPR absolutely ought to be taught in every school. Sometimes knowing what not to do is just as important as knowing what to do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Or institute hiring quotas but don't ask me how that's ever a good idea.