comments

chris,

I think you were able to link very well how what we learned in the past unit directly connects to what we learned in this unit. you also were able to bring it together in a sortof overarching theme which i liked. what id like to see you improve on a bit is to see if you can carry this into something deeper, that maybe we havent discussed yet in class. something much easier said than done of coarse but i think you can do it, in this one for instance it seemed like you were about to get to something really big but it didnt go the distance.

hope this helped
john
-------------------------------------------------

John,
I think you talk about a few different things here that refer to some of the topics we covered in class and probably one of the biggest. I like how at the end of your post you start talking a bit about specifics in contrast to the beginning when you kind of show what you learned over the course of the unit. I think the best line you had in your post is when you say "Many of us think with the right medical care one will overcome their illness or they can just “fight it” when usually the ill person is blowing through tons of medical bills and isn’t giving herself a pleasurable experience." Because it is something that I agree with a lot and it is really well said. Something I think you could have done which many people including myself could have done was refer to a document or something we watched in class. All in all interesting.

Thoughts following illness & dying unit

Nightmarish industrial atrocities in our practices surrounding illness and dying  are how shielded many of us are about the reality of it. Many of us think with the right medical care one will overcome their illness or they can just “fight it” when usually the ill person is blowing through tons of medical bills and isn’t giving herself a pleasurable experience. A government funded home hospice would reduce medical costs across the board and make the experience of dying more comforting (I for one would rather die at home then in a hospital). I think when I loved one in my family is dying and I am in the position to make a responsible decision I would like them in their final stages to be at home rather than in a hospital bed where many other strangers have died. It seems that these industrial atrocities could be combated through popular opinion if people were educated on the matter. However the people holding the strings like Monsanto, Tyson, and Medical insurers don’t want these alternatives passed in congress because it would be a set-back for their industry and they would lose a lot of money and their prestige.

Epicurus and Still Life's at the MET

For my project I decided to explore Epicurus’s philosophy in the context of Western culture. I used the information gathered from class via our discussions and based off the reading by Irvin Yalom which summarized much of Epicurus’s philosophies. As a class guided by the text Staring at the Sun by Irvin Yalom , we discussed how Epicurus “view was that life pleasure and pain are so important to human existence that all our actions are governed by seeking pleasure and trying to avoid pain” (www.spring.org.uk). It would follow that in culture, all of the feel good work of art; still lifes for example, will never show pain in any way.

A Basket of Flowers by Jan Brueghel shows dead pedals around a basket of beautifully arranged flowers. When I viewed this at the Metropolitan Museum of Art it seemed out of place for the very reason that it showed these dead pedals on the table which the basket sits atop. This was because when one goes to the museum to view art, much of it is to see the sheer beauty of it; when someone expects a still life it is most commonly of a beautiful vase of flowers or bowl of fresh fruit. This is in accordance to how Western societies would like to view the world, with an absence of death and pain and to have esthetically pleasing images and “happier” images bloated and done over and over again to give this illusion that a flower is this beauty and only that, and fruit by nature are fresh and ripe; in short, to avoid death by highlighting the peak of beauty in a flower’s life. This view is not only distorted but keeps us ignorant, for the few things we can know with certainty about life is that it will come to an end, so rather if we should embrace that these articles of nature will die. Interestingly the couple of still lifes I saw that showed in a very subtle way the passing of life, (referring back to A Basket of Flowers) the pedals that lay dead around the basket were still as bright and vibrant as those painted within the basket. Giving the viewer a false sense of reality about death, similarly to how in a cheesy movie they have the favorite grandparent or hero die by simply saying a few last words and shutting her eyes—as though when someone passes it is peaceful and other than the actual death they looked completely healthy. When in reality the person will most likely look withered and skeletal like, will very possibly ramble about nonsense and most notably lose control of their sphincter releasing the bowels of the last meal they ate. When viewing this at the Met I was able to discuss these aspects that these paintings showed and more importantly didn’t show with a friend who came along with me who is equally enthused about art. The discussions that took place were interesting as I was able to view many of the works at the Met (and later the Whitney Museum) with an illness & dying lens and compare it to my friend who enjoyed the works for the esthetics and the disciplined skill that went into each work.

From the trip to the museums and the reflection that followed I was able to learn that Epicurus’s

Philosophies weren’t a criticism of Western outlook on life but rather an observation. Although we avoid pain and thus avoid death by burying it with thoughts of pleasure, avoiding it is better than dwelling on the inevitable truth which for so many is impossible to overcome. For even Epicurus “taught that the point of all one’s actions was to attain pleasure” (www.iep.utm.edu), in the case of someone constantly fearing death and always thinking about it, why not instead enjoy life’s pleasures even if the may be viewed as avoiding a truth; after all they will make you happier.

                It is important to analyze through the illness & dying lens and criticizing these reflections of society in culture just as it is to criticize McDonald’s advertising through a lens critical of American food ways for one general reason, if a culture is breeding, whether intentional or not, ignorance of something that effects one in their daily lives he should criticize it. It is important to be not only aware of what you may be doing but why you are doing it, from there and only there can you ask yourself: Should I be doing this? Ignorance should never be the reason someone did something they would have otherwise not done if they were aware of what they were doing.

Reading and noting basic materials (government and immorality)

DR. DEATH & WHAT IS TABOO

How we go about our daily lives and the decisions we make are a combination of morality and logic. Things that are weird are deemed so either because they are not moral or they are not logical, and vice versa; if someone does something illogical or immoral it is weird. When something has been recognized as weird and its normal counterpart has also been recognized the norm and those who follow it are given power and those which are weird pay the price. In most modern societies the government has the majority of the power, it would follow then that they often manage what is weird and what is normal in many cases. For example it is weird to be homicidal, thus people who commit homicide get arrested by the police, who are run by the government, to be taken to a judicial court, run by the government, and then they are put in a prison, run by the government. So when Jack Kevorkian was sent to prison for medically assisting people in suicide it was no surprise. He did something immoral, weird and finally illegal because it is not normal. He did this odd act in a government institution which was a medical practice, but the worst of it was that he was not actually a licensed doctor, “you were not licensed to practice medicine when you committed this offense and you hadn't been licensed for eight years” (Judge Jessica Cooper, New York Times).

Science is suppose to very much separate itself from emotion it is to be a study of high professionalism which operates purely on logic. When a hospital operated by people with a scientific degree is doing something immoral it becomes very controversial, because the basis of how the hospital takes place and the procedures that are preformed are very sacred. We have selected individuals to perform these tasks and they use their knowledge to aid those in need, so when they assist someone in their own destruction it becomes very taboo.

OVERCHARCHING FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

                Hospitals are in place to be a social institution which is available to aid any in need. When someone may think of hospitals and medicine the typical thought would be of a doctor attempting to save someone’s life at all costs, something one might see in shows like ER or House, in turns out the cost is of the patent not the doctor. “Medical bills are a leading factor in more than half of the country’s personal bankruptcies” (Landmark) “Most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners” (CNN), a scary thought. When one reflects on how this might have come to be, who might have made this decision they become stumped.  Surely no one would make medical care so outrageously priced for common people that they could lose everything just for a few individuals to make money. But it is, and it blindsided nearly an estimated one million people who had to declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses in 2009, many of whom had presumed they had medical coverage via insurance.

REFUSING MEDICAL COVERAGE & GOVERNMENT CARELESSNESS

                As previously stated, hospitals are in place to aid the needy; as this may be the goal it is hard to achieve it because health insurance will often not cover patients. “The intent is to maximize profits”( Lee Einer), stated by the insurance industry “hitman”, who worked for insurance industries to help deny coverage to people who are insured. Unlike Kervorkian, this was not illegal and people responsible for denying coverage were not put in jail. Based off what was stated in previous paragraphs and what we know about the role of government it sparks inquiry that these people aren’t locked up as what they are doing is immoral and weird and when things are immoral and weird they are typically illegal. It aswell sparks inquiry about the legitimacy of government, a structure in place to protect the people by way of following the norms and possessions of those people. People bought health insurance in case of a tragedy should befall them, and when an accident did come they were beside themselves unable to receive the investment they made for the very possibility that this kind of thing may happen. In our capitalist-statist structure people were not given what they paid for. Thus an illegitimate transaction took place where the consumer was not informed by the seller of the product they were receiving, and what happened? They paid, received nothing,  and finally had to pay again.

Comments

I did not write up homework 27 so my piers were unable to write anything about that piece which I did not do.
---------------------------------

Chris,

I enjoyed reading your piece as you were able to draw in my head the scene and the feelings well. Your writing is very strong when it comes to the “showing-not-telling”, a writing style which I think is fundamental yet isn’t there in many other peoples works, which can often make it boring to read. The part I really like was in the second paragraph “Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high’ said the woman in the wheel chair that smiled from ear to ear but revealed no teeth”. Clear and a powerful image, something I aspire to have in my own works. You also had a lot of insights which were directly reflective of the experience you shared.

What you need to improve on however, is your grammar and spelling. There were times where I had to read your work twice to get the meaning you originally intended stuff like ” reframe” instead of refrain. A lot of the grammatical errors probably could have been removed in a read-over/edit. To improve this I would recommend two things; to one read more, the more times you see the right spellings and the grammar used correctly the easier job you’ll have of doing it yourself. The second and easier thing I’d recommend is to write your blogs on a word document first, the computer will point out the mishaps a lot better than that silly blogger spell check.

Overall I enjoyed the piece and believe that with tinkering it can be really great. Hope this helped.

John Tabor

I liked what you said here, it was clear and backed up with evidence which you referenced earlier, "I found it interesting that these people still were willing to pay the horrendous expenses of an intensive care unit, when really it would not increase their quality of life, or length, by any significant amount" this is very much a logical, utilitarian perspective. When dealing with a loved one so close to the end it’s not easy to have a logical clear mind when the alternative can bring on such emotion hardship, and often the even mention of “pulling the plug” or bringing up the idea of not having the life saving operation is taboo. And to keep this loved one on life support the false conception is that things will go back to how they were or that the family will do all they can and pay whatever costs as long as the person stays in their lives. I agree with you, Lucas, that one should keep this open almost unbiased mind (which is impossible) and that people should treat death as a fact of life and something inevitable rather than thinking it can be avoided and avoided when the reality is, as you said, would not increase their quality of life, and probably if anything, lower it for that person and those around that person.

I also enjoyed your last paragraph very much as you explained an insight you brought up before which put me off a bit because I was prepared for that dead horse to receive another beating. But rather you kept the idea fresh by giving new reasons which I also agreed with (which is always nice to read) but never realized, in fact it was so logical and insightful that I was disappointed in myself I hadn’t thought of it before.

The only quarrel I had with your homework is your concision. The last two paragraphs were great, the first two, more specifically the second, were not in fact, it could have been gone completely. The contents of what you talked about could have been understood completely without the blunt explanation. Overall your writing is great, easy to read and interesting, it flows very well and always has at least one new insight.

Hope this helped,

John Tabor

Response to Sicko

Precis:

The freest country ever yet healthcare holds us back from being great. Millions uninsured pray no accident should befall them. But for those who are insured it is still not easy. Insurance companies try everything to not cover their client, with pre-existing conditions, pre-approvals etc. because that is the goal of insurance companies, “the intent is to maximize profit” (Lee Einer). Edgar Kaiser came up with the idea for insurance companies to become a private business with the idea that if they lower medical coverage they will increase profit. In Canada and many European countries health insurance is paid for by the government, and heroes of that country are those who spearheaded the idea. Currently there, it is a human right like shelter or food.