Angry Doctor

Friday, December 16, 2005

Can die but cannot fall sick?

You know how people always say: "In Singapore, you can die, but you cannot afford to fall sick."?

Maybe we can take a leaf from this town in Brazil?

Bonus Bogus Story

Singapore -

Parliament is debating a new bill to impose a fine on Singaporeans for preventable deaths.

If passed, the new law will exact a fine of S$10,000 from the family of a person who dies from a preventable cause, such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, or a poorly-controlled chronic illness.

The bill is mooted after a review of the principle causes of death by the Ministry of Health. The review found that death from cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack and stroke account for 28.6% of all deaths.

"As cardiovascular deaths are the result of poorly-controlled chronic illnesses like hypertension and diabetes, we hope that this law will encourage Singaporeans to take their health more seriously," said the Minister for Health.

"If Singaporeans can be made to be personally accountable for their health, this law would have served its purpose."

The leader of opposition in the house expressed his disagreement to the proposed law.

"Even the most well-controlled diabetes patient must die some day. How can we hope to distinguish between people who died from neglecting their health, and those who died despite their best efforts?" asked the angry doctor.

The minister assured parliament that his ministry will come up with detailed instructions and guidelines for classifying preventable deaths.

Parliament will continue the debate today.



  • Hmm...going back to our debate about fat, smoking, alcoholic etc doctors.....

    I think the first step is to start the law for these jokers!

    Fine doctors $100,000 if they die of "preventable" illnesses. And then see how well this "law" lowers deaths from stroke and heart attacks. If the doctors themselves can't save themselves then what hope do lay people have?

    I'm betting that most doctors have no clue about preventive medicine. For one this has nothing to do with taking drugs, so pharmas don't spend any money educating doctors. Secondly, having gone to various CME's on "prevention of XYZ disease" the message from the "specialists" on prevention seems to be to treat hypertension, treat diabetes, treat existing conditions.

    That is secondary prevention at best. And again it is using drugs, drugs and more drugs.

    What happened to REAL solid well planned lifestyle modifications? Nutrition?

    Put the challenge to doctors first. See if they can deliver, otherwise it's unfair to the lay people.

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 10:12 am  

  • The difference between a third world, third rate piranha infested republic and our first world country is very apparent in the quality and management overall of our healthcare services.

    In the said jungle country, health care services are free so the population just WANT to get sick and get a warm bed in the hospital. In our well managed system, even for class C you have to pay and it is not cheap either. So if you want to get sick and stay, well be prepared to come up with a damn good story for the social welfare people or your family may need to see Ah Long and ask for advance.

    I concur with what our government is doing. A welfare state will definitely bankrupt the country. We need co payment so the population can in a way, avoid utilizing health services and stay healthy.

    I concur also with what the doc from DOWN UNDER said about making an example out of stupid doctors. A fine in fact is abit of a slap on the wrist. If these doctors have a death wish, let their dreams be fulfilled, send them on their journey to the happy hunting ground without further delay......

    Lastly, I've known obese womanizing smokers living to the ripe old age of ninety, hale and hearty and satisfied that their lives were meaningful, qualitative and fulfilling. By contrast, I've also known young idealistic puritans who never smoked a butt in all their life but who were cut down before they reached the age of 30 by of all things, lung cancer! As the saying goes, Man proposes, God disposes!

    My personal motto?

    Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst!

    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 12:00 pm  

  • How is it possible to classify deaths as preventable and nonpreventable??

    It is never an absolute rule that one can prevent HF,DM, MI etc with healthy lifestyle. Im not saying we can all gorge and be couch potatoes. ok, they can list "familial causes of diseases" among the exclusion criteria. But still, this idea/debate/thought is silly.And ridiculous.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, At December 16, 2005 3:10 pm  

  • Between the sublime and the ridiculous is but one step.

    Most of the stuff I post on ARE ridiculous.

    Reducing things to a ridiculous level makes us look at them carefully rather than take them for granted.

    If we know that diabetes causes heart attacks which in turn cause death, if we know how diabetes can be prevented and controlled, then how can we say we can't tell if a death was preventable or not?

    If we cannot tell if a death is due to (say) diabetes and diabetes alone, then what meaning do the 'principal cuases of death' have? Why prevent or treat diabetes then?

    By Blogger angry doc, At December 16, 2005 3:27 pm  

  • Ah! Here is where things get even further muddled.

    As far as diabetes in concerned, have we really been treating diabetes? Or have we only been trying to keep fires under control but yet allow them to feed on fuel unmonitored?

    Is diabetes truly preventable? Or is it really possibly controlled and if well controlled thus undetected and hence "prevented"?

    What is the cause of diabetes?

    There are many questions still to be answered.

    But I would say this.

    Western medicine has had upteen years to treat and cure chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes. Yet with all the variety of drugs, the rates of such diseases continue to rise, and the related mortality rates continue to stay at highly respectable levels. It means Western medicine has had its chance and failed miserably.

    Remember my quotation on the NHS 2004?

    "The NHS 2004 also found that the proportion of known hypertensives
    with good blood pressure control (BP <140/90 mmHg) was 49.5%,
    while the proportion among those on treatment was 52.9%"

    It's time to re-evaluate our approach.

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 3:39 pm  

  • Ha,

    Debating until the sun comes down and can never agree on anything.

    That's what I mean about the medical profession.

    Now I hear that eating more fibre may not prevent colon cancer.

    damn doctors. I've been chewing foul smelling celery, crunching on corn cobs, biting into more oranges, apples, papayas and assorted high fibre stuff and now they tell me that it's useless.

    It's a blessing from heaven that my last gastro checkup with gastro and uroscopy just recently was clean and clear. No sign even of any polyps. Not thanks to these dumb quacks but the grace of God.

    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 4:03 pm  

  • Damn stock analysts too.

    All those darn predictions every morning never seem to be reliable.

    They'll always say, "Oh things changed. There was the unexpected 911 incident, the surprise fed announcement.... blah blah blah"

    Isn't the whole point of "predicting", foreseeing "unexpected" situtations before they occur?

    I wonder why we pay these con-men so much money?

    Yeah that's how the world works.

    So relax, doctors are just like stockbrokers too.

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 4:16 pm  

  • Aiyah Doc,

    You didn't win because you don't know how to read the code embedded in the analysis lah.

    But as far as I know, fibre is fibre.

    No two ways about it.

    Next, I predict these crooked quacks will say that lard after all is really good for you. So boys, forget about your organically fed or grown food. Eat more Macs and drink more beer.
    Like Mr. Nike says, Just Do It man.

    I have already started.


    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 4:27 pm  

  • how about punishing smokers? those that develop lung cancer at the end, their families should be fined as well. oh, and i think they should REALLY fine doctors who smoke who end up wasting bedspace. seriously! what is with the number of doctors and nurses who smoke?

    stress ah?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At December 16, 2005 4:31 pm  

  • If you compare tobacco with say heroin, what's the difference?

    They are both addictive.
    They both cause death.

    The difference is :

    Tobacco is legalised and thus affordable.
    Heroin is illegalised and thus expensive to acquire.

    What the heck man?

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 4:41 pm  

  • Oh and one more BIG difference between tobacco and heroin.

    If you smoked like CRAZY. You would never overdose. It won't kill you fast. But it will definitely kill you SLOWLY.

    SO in essence it's the perfect drug to peddle. And you make tons of money as well.

    Very smart. Very.

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 4:43 pm  

  • We are already the laughing stock of the world with our FINE city. Any more smart alecky ways to impose more fines will most definitely brand us as a nation of lunatics.

    Don't believe in the the oft repeated slogan that smoking kills you. It does not. Being unlucky does. But having said that, I've always wondered how sane men can suck obnoxious fumes into their lungs. I was told it's the nicotine and habit. Keeping your mouth busy such as chewing gum may solve the problem. Chewing gum is good for exercising facial muscles, cleaning your teeth and encouraging production of mucosa which is beneficial. I say, bring back chewing gum.

    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 4:49 pm  

  • "Don't believe in the the oft repeated slogan that smoking kills you. It does not. Being unlucky does."

    See what I mean? The marketing people in the tobacco industry have done such a wonderful job!

    And because it is extremely difficult to die from an overdose of tobacco, most fools would believe the marketing slogans!

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 5:11 pm  

  • I find it very strange.

    Yes use quacks can't come to an agreement on a lot of things including the one about fibre.

    But one of the few things that us quacks CAN come to agree unanimously is that tobacco smoking is BAD for you.

    And then we have smart geniuses who would then say "Don't believe in the the oft repeated slogan that smoking kills you. It does not. Being unlucky does."

    Simply amazing.

    So what's the point of agreeing anyway? Or for that matter coming out with "proven" ,"tried and tested", "stood the test of time" conclusions when people are just going to believe whatever they want to believe anyway?

    LMAO (I seldom do this, but in this instance I can't help it)

    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 5:16 pm  

  • OZ,

    There is a major point of difference between a nicotine addict and an heroin addict.

    The person who smokes can still make an economic contribution to society whilst the heroin dependant addict is a living zombie and a drain on the country via the destroyed family.

    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 5:18 pm  

  • Hehe,

    I just thought of some mathematical equations.

    tobacco = nicotine (according to our learned OZ.)

    doctors = hookers (also according to our learned OZ)

    Evidence based medicine = damn lies

    clinical trials = reason to sell since it is "proven" and make a killing

    medical consensus = we still don't know but meantime, yeah, we'll all tentatively agree until the time is right to repudiate.

    What the heck!

    Give me a smart stockbroker anytime. At least he is honest about his intentions and that is to make money out of suckers who aren't very literate with technical analysis.


    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 5:34 pm  

  • Uglybaldie,

    Do you remember the movie "Deep impact"?

    If you recall they let all the accountants, lawyers, stockbrokers and all humanity non contributing professions die in the event of an armageddon asteroid hitting earth situation.

    Don't you think doctors should be left to die too eh?


    By Blogger Dr Oz bloke, At December 16, 2005 5:39 pm  

  • Walio,

    OZ, now I go one more equation, no make that two to go.

    Hollywood fantasy = the gospel truth.


    doctors = Most indispensable and last to perish.

    Gimme a break man!

    Frankly, who gets to die first or last depends on who is directing the movie. You get a director who has been conned by a doc or one whose loved ones died under an incompetent scapel and the outcome could very well have been different.

    By Blogger uglybaldie, At December 16, 2005 5:48 pm  

  • i guess tt's why singapore uses cremation...couldn't the brazilians do tt too. heh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At December 17, 2005 1:02 am  

  • yah its possible to overdose because it happened to me... i had never done tobacco... and my friends convinced me to chew two packets of tobacco and smoke three cigs at the same time...i got really light headed then i turned arround and vommitted... then i kept vommitting for about two hours and it was really ad so dont go arround saying that it is almost impossible to overdocs on tobacco

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At August 07, 2007 4:51 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home