TaN: As in or with most, if not all, passages or verses of the Holy Scriptures, there is only one essence but there may be countless interpretations. Interpretations are situational and, because of this, interpretations are specific to the situation thereby giving rise to different and sometimes conflicting interpretations. However, interpretations are mostly superficial and tend to be one dimensional. But if the fundamental or essence is taken, conflicts and contradictions will always be reconciled.
Take the case of the Scriptural passage (Matthew 25:29 or Luke 19:26 or Mark 4:25, KJV): For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. One interpretation is that if one has plenty of problems, more problems will be heaped on him, whereas if one has very few problems, there will even be less. This could be that having lots of problems would imply that one is incapable of solving or resolving the problems so other future problems will just add up before the old ones could be disposed of, but having few problems imply that one is able to handle them so problems are almost certainly cleared up as soon as they arise.
Or, in the case of money, the saying is that money begets more money, so people with lots of money (and invest it or use it wisely) tend to acquire more money better and faster than those without it and people with less have greater difficulty (as explain in the Parable of the Talents). Or, in the case of friends, people with lots of friends tend to attract more (probably because people like to be around people who are popular or have lots of friends) while people with few friends give the impression that they are either not friendly or that there is some quality that people find unappealing or unlikeable.
Another Scriptural passage is (Matthew 20:16 or Luke 13:30 or Mark 10:31, KJV): So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
TaN: I reiterate my previous contention: Healthcare should be on a (community) salary basis to ensure medical ethics and devotion to duty or sworn oath — i.e., to care for the sick and infirmed. At the present set-up, it does not make sense to think that a person whose livelihood or income depends entirely — and this goes with pharmaceutical companies and allopathic medicine enterprises — on people becoming and staying sick or diseased will want to have all people healthy and well. This would be self-defeating or detrimental to one’s (economic or financial) interest.
To ensure that healthcare professionals, especially and specifically physicians (mind you, not doctors), are serious and “dedicated” to their chosen career, the arrangement of drawing their salary (solely or exclusively) not from and by keeping their patients healthy and strong instead of from and by keeping them dependent on their toxic and side effect-laden pharmaceuticals and fees should strictly be observed and enforced.
To keep people ignorant on how they can get well and stay healthy is to take advantage of their weakness — “weakness” being their ignorance and inability to keep themselves healthy, that they do not know how to protect themselves against a physician’s opportunistic and predatory practice — is not only unethical but downright cowardly. It has been said that “Anyone who takes advantage of the weakness of another is called a coward.”
What most conventional and mainstream physicians are doing in their practice of their profession runs smack contrary and contradictory to their sworn and sacred Hippocratic oath of: not doing harm to their patients, which is primary, fundamental, and quintessential. Prescribing — and even justifying the prescription when patients make inquiries — harmful chemical pharmaceuticals is an abomination and inexcusable. And it is compounded by the physicians’ inability or unwillingness to explain to patients how the latter can avoid future recurrences or relapses and stay in health. It is simply disgusting and despicable.
Finally, if we make the salary of the physician dependent entirely on the restoration and continued health and well-being of patients, it will surely “encourage” the former to be more concerned and conscientious of patient issues and health because, at the present set-up, the physician gets paid regardless of whether the patient becomes well or not. It is a no-lose situation as far as the physician is concerned.
With the proposed compensation plan for physicians, the probability is very high that there will be better service, less neglected patients, and more lasting health for the community. More physicians will be truer and more faithful to their oath — even if it is “by force of circumstance”.
As to the pharmaceutical companies, this is a totally different issue and may be taken up in a future TaN.
TaN: Eating out and paying for the ambience is getting out of hand. Moreover, only “permanent” decorations are truly appreciable and truly environmentally-sustainable and environmentally ethical.
Looking at the photographs from last Sunday’s magazine regarding the lavish and elaborate preparations at the presidential palace for its VIP guests during the recent APEC meet made me see how much damage can be done to the environment just to decorate and create an ambiance to impress people. Imagine the environmental damage done — the castrated and butchered living plants that lined and decorated the hallways and dining halls that will be discarded at day’s end into the garbage pile. It would have been better to have the venue out in the garden where the plants remain alive after the event.
I understand the need to show hospitality and appreciation for the honored guests but there are better and environmentally-sustainable ways to achieve the same effect without doing so much damage.
I also know that I have maintained that only man have rights — there are no such “animals” as environment, animal, and especially corporate rights — but it has been said by one Leo Buscaglia that “Only the weak are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong.” Applied to non-humans, how we treat the environment for the purpose of petty things or reasons is a terrible travesty of the finite or limited resources on things that possess no ability to defend itself (so-called environmental rights) — another way of interpreting “weak” is not being able to defend itself.
Going back to the original statement, it is nice to have nice surroundings when we eat but not to the extent that we do heavy damage or injury to the environment. “Damage or injury to the environment” is defined as unnecessary taking from the environment resulting in loss of life and for purposes of trivial pursuits or superficial and non-essential reasons.