Is medicine 'messing with nature'?

[XmasCrap]

Prompted by something I read earlier and a discussion at the dinner table this evening.

Do you consider medicine to be 'messing with nature'? Keeping people alive, albeit not 'well', so poor quality of life. IVF - if not allowed, people would unfortunately be childless and that would be that. Transplants, etc.

Is medicine to blame for some of the problems the NHS experiences?

Only if you treat things humans do as outside of nature, in which case everything we do messes with nature. Medicine wouldn't be alone or really even the most significant example.

There is an argument for not always extending physical life and that quality of life needs to be part of the equation, but 'messing with nature' isn't really the arguments I would use there and what makes a quality of life is a contentious issue.

There is also an argument that expectations of what medicine can and should achieve has caused some of the problems in the NHS, but again it's not about messing with nature, but priorities and the long issues there have been in how the funding works.

I think there are a lot of strands to consider and some practical, some philosophical. An awful lot of medicine, for example, is harnessing the power of nature. I have a close friend whose degree is in natural medicine and is a qualified prescriber and she can kill and cure in equal measure, just using her garden. As others have said, we are inordinately privileged to have medicine and medical procedure and certainly, many of us wouldn't be here without modern medicine. I know my granny (born 1888) watched half of her 16 siblings die from now preventable or treatable illnesses and she used to tell me how lucky I was to be born 100 years later than her. She lived to over 100 and was privileged to watch the changes which allowed lives to be saved in ever more brilliant ways.

Equally, is there an argument that we do too much? To save and create life? Possibly. I know when my beloved grandma died a couple of years ago, had my dad been able to request it, there's every chance he would have begged them to keep her going but the consultant was a firm, fair woman who had already suggested that they move to not treating future infections and illness. I don't think her family or individual prescribers would have made that decision for a mobile patient who was eating and drinking and probably could have been supported to continue for months, maybe a couple of years. As it was, not giving antibiotics when she developed a cold which turned to pneumonia meant that she died a very good death which she knew was coming and from the point of deciding not to treat, she lived 3 weeks. The consultant knew she was approaching end of life and had probably seen it countless times, Could we see it? No. My Dad kept saying "but she's well, she is still well". Well yes she was I suppose. But her body was also ready to die. I can see it now, with hindsight and being with her at the end and through those last days, I learned a lot about medicine and its power and purpose.

I don't know where I sit on IVF and surrogacy in all its forms. There are some real ethical and moral tangles that I am privileged to not have to consider. In fact, our wider family has been lucky to benefit from growing through IVF and thank goodness. But I'm not naïve. Not all creation of life is equal.

Without modern medicine many of us would not have survived childhood. Just the basics of vaccinations and antibiotics.

My DDs had Scarlet fever a couple of years ago. Before ABs, the death rate was 20%. They just missed a couple of days of school. It was seen as a curiosity more than anything.

Modern medicine means my DH leads a normal life by taking a couple of pills a day. He can even still be in the Army Instead of potentially be bedbound without them.

I do think we sometimes need to assess the morality of what we do though.

I’m really grateful nature is messed with, DS would be blind without it for example.

Nope.

Since medicine is a product of the capacity of humans to think and constantly find ways to improve their lives.

What's unnatural about using the brain that nature gave you?

This is a very tactless thread given how many MNers use this site who have terminal diseases and disabilities.

It depends what you mean by “nature”. Human beings are animals and we are part of nature. We have evolved and developed certain skills and knowledge. This has allowed us to utilise materials and substances to treat disease, injury, pain etc.

When an ape uses a rock or a stick as a tool, we consider that to just be part of nature. We are a more sophisticated species but essentially doing the same thing. Where it gets murky for human beings is that we have the cognitive ability to consider ethical and moral implications.

I've seen medicine used to great effect, but also used which led to massive suffering.

The trick is being wise enough to know what the likely outcomes are and acting accordingly.

Luckily for all those against funding IVF we only get 1 NHS try here.

What about illnesses or injuries caused by lifestyle - eg smoking, alcohol, obesity, drug taking, extreme sports - perhaps all these people should be left without medical intervention?

There are many conditions that are easily treated and kept under control but would be fatal without any intervention - types of epilepsy, asthma, diabetes to name a few. Should these people not be alive?

I do think there are things that are done , because we can. Rather than it being the right thing to do for that particular person. Every case must be assessed individually. I am a paediatric nurse and looked after many children who have been put through massive surgery, that they are just not robust enough to with stand. Who have then had massive complications and almost died. Or died not long afterwards. And wondered what the hell we are doing.

Everything is 'messing with nature'. The house you live in didn't spring organically from the ground, the food you eat was planted and grown by somebody, the water you drink has been sanitised and filtered before it comes out of the tap.

If humans have had the intelligence to come up with ways of fixing broken bodies and healing the sick, then it is natural, because we have been born with the brains capable of working it out.

It is thought Neanderthals "messed with nature" too.

Yes
And I'm grateful for it.

Yes

It's part of the reason the Earth is so over populated now.

Shame on you, OP.

This thread is just an amusing little thought exercise for you, because you happen to have, for now, the random gift of good health.

Does it make you feel superior to think of all those 'others' who 'won't get better'?

If ever you or your child get cancer you will be beating the doors down to get treatment and to buy extra time.

@XmasCrap

OP here, can I just point out that there's nothing ageist in my post. I mentioned keeping people alive who aren't going to get better.

I genuinely don't understand why that happens. We don't (usually) allow animals to suffer but do with humans?

Maybe there's another discussion in here for assisted dying, or possibly that's messing with nature' too?

At what point do we stop trying to keep people alive? When it might only give them another few days? Weeks? Years?

@Elphame

Yes

It's part of the reason the Earth is so over populated now.

Condoms are kinder than lack of medicine. And anyway, medicine includes palliative care - pain relief, sedatives, etc.

There are some amazing advances in medicine and I’m very grateful to the scientific inventions that have kept us safe. I would have probably died in childbirth without it, I have relatives who are dependent on advanced anti-psychotics.

But… I do think there are some ethical considerations around some of the interventions with very premature babies and with those at the end of their lives and questions linked to ‘just because we can, should we?’

The problem with this line of thought is then who gets to decide who is and who isn't valuable. Or better put who should and shouldn't be saved. That whole 'just because we can doesn't mean we should' line of thought is just one stop away from eugenics.

OP out of interest how do you feel about abortion?

That's often something started as interfering with nature (aka playing god).

Are you ok with it? Disagree? Ok in some circs?

Could be argued (not by me, but this is a theoretical conversation) that quality of life of babies born into certain situations is vv likely to be less than optimal statistically. Due to a huge number of factors. Including medical research for eg prevalence of diabetes when older, possibility hereditary illnesses. In fact, statistically some groups are more likely to die younger, be obese, generally unhealthy etc.

How would you feel about sparing a life statistically likely to be shortened for medical reasons stemming from parents situation?

And then of course there's conditions identified/ high likelihood of baby having, found during pregnancy.

Can of worms.

Your OP I think was all over the place-

A. The idea of medicine interfering with nature is interesting and many thought through posts I enjoyed reading, you've not engaged with that part of your OP.

B. Your examples of medicine (treatments) that interfere with nature v random - transplants and IVF- really would like to know why you chose those two things, but not replied.

C. The bit about medicine meaning NHS struggling is so obviously trying to get at what you actually want to discuss without saying it out loud. That's obvious now, and has just meant posters answering your OP in good faith but you were never interested in talking about what you posted in OP which frankly is frustrating.

D. The claim no ageism when clearly the vast majority of people who get ill and aren't going to get 'better' are elderly, you say going to die anyway even if treated. That clearly irl means elderly and getting frail etc.

E. Blocking beds is a massive dodgy thing to say. IRL loads of people die in hosp, while receiving various drugs, interventions to make their last deterioration to death as comfortable as possible. I gave two examples from my own family. What you would do with those situations in practice. In order to 'free up beds'. No response.

F. You mention assisted death but say oh that's another thread. Bringing it up says something though.

G. You haven't said what your personal approach would be to deciding who gets treatment of certain types/ gets a hosp bed and who doesn't.

H. And what you would do with those people instead if not allowed in hosp.

I. If you want to talk about refusing certain people admission to hosp, not treating various illnesses/ conditions, 'letting people go' who are not going to 'get better' ie die is what I think you mean. And poss euthanasia.

Then it's frankly cowardly and deceptive not to be upfront. It has wasted posters time thinking about the more interesting points eg if no medicine what would world be like? It has naturally upset those who have personal experience around degenerative/life shortening/need X treatment regularly to stay alive etc.
If you can't even write in a direct way what you want to talk about, instead preferring to obfuscate, hint at etc. Then really you have no business raising.
If you can't even write it straight up on an anon board, if the words make you uncomfy. Then who the hell do you think you are to invite (with an OP misleading what the real point of the thread is) others to discuss with you? Esp given you must know good chance your (v poorly disguised) views being personally relevant to some posters.

Poor show OP imo.

I hope you come back and address some of the many questions and challenges you've had on this thread.

@VladmirsPoutine

The problem with this line of thought is then who gets to decide who is and who isn't valuable. Or better put who should and shouldn't be saved. That whole 'just because we can doesn't mean we should' line of thought is just one stop away from eugenics.

I think OP things she is the right person to decide...

The consequences of these theoreticals, when real life is considered. Are invariably appalling.

I thought that's what medical ethics committees were for?

@Blossom64265

This is a question I have seriously contemplated. I would be dead without modern medicine. So would my DH. We would have no child. Our genetics would not continue. He and I are clearly physically inferior members of the species in that respect. What does it mean for the direction of human evolution that our dna is allowed to continue? He and I also happen to have other attributes that are possibly very positive. Those positive attributes would not have had an opportunity to merge and potentially evolve if we had not been saved. Perhaps our genetic contribution will play an overall positive role?

Medical intervention has allowed our species to possibly play a huge role in directing the next stages of human development without even intending to intervene.

Interesting pov. I like the thought of this, maybe evolving kind and empathetic rather than tough and hardy people.

@ShowOfHands

I think there are a lot of strands to consider and some practical, some philosophical. An awful lot of medicine, for example, is harnessing the power of nature. I have a close friend whose degree is in natural medicine and is a qualified prescriber and she can kill and cure in equal measure, just using her garden. As others have said, we are inordinately privileged to have medicine and medical procedure and certainly, many of us wouldn't be here without modern medicine. I know my granny (born 1888) watched half of her 16 siblings die from now preventable or treatable illnesses and she used to tell me how lucky I was to be born 100 years later than her. She lived to over 100 and was privileged to watch the changes which allowed lives to be saved in ever more brilliant ways.

Equally, is there an argument that we do too much? To save and create life? Possibly. I know when my beloved grandma died a couple of years ago, had my dad been able to request it, there's every chance he would have begged them to keep her going but the consultant was a firm, fair woman who had already suggested that they move to not treating future infections and illness. I don't think her family or individual prescribers would have made that decision for a mobile patient who was eating and drinking and probably could have been supported to continue for months, maybe a couple of years. As it was, not giving antibiotics when she developed a cold which turned to pneumonia meant that she died a very good death which she knew was coming and from the point of deciding not to treat, she lived 3 weeks. The consultant knew she was approaching end of life and had probably seen it countless times, Could we see it? No. My Dad kept saying "but she's well, she is still well". Well yes she was I suppose. But her body was also ready to die. I can see it now, with hindsight and being with her at the end and through those last days, I learned a lot about medicine and its power and purpose.

I don't know where I sit on IVF and surrogacy in all its forms. There are some real ethical and moral tangles that I am privileged to not have to consider. In fact, our wider family has been lucky to benefit from growing through IVF and thank goodness. But I'm not naïve. Not all creation of life is equal.

What a lovely, intelligent and nuanced post, lots of food for thought thank you

@XmasCrap

I thought that's what medical ethics committees were for?

Was that in response to me?

This is theoretical isn't it?

Your question is, or more or less is-

Why are people who are ill, not going to get better, possibly are suffering, treated for their illness. When they're going to still be ill (die?) whether treated or not.

When you are asked questions to help get into the discussion you want, eg

• What parameters are you thinking around who shouldn't get treatment

• How/where/ who in your thinking would care for those who didn't qualify for treatment etc, instead.

You say, that's a medical ethics committee consideration?

I think you're saying that you want to discuss whether treatment if ill etc should have nature run course.

But you don't want to get into who you're talking about, what would actually happen to them, where it would happen, or.. anything related to the ethics of the idea put forward in your posts.

Is that about right?