Murder or suicide?

[thistle]

Perhaps. I’m a little disappointed with the lack of discussion. I saw a news item on TV this morning about pharmacy companies raising rates which flies in the face of what others stated yesterday. Who is to say your premise is correct without supportive information? I’m supposed to just take your word?

Let me see then!
Neither the Civil Authorities nor the Church state it is suicide or murder!
It is too far fetched to fall into suicide or murder. I really don’t know why anyone would think that.

What’s next? Charge all the weapons manufacturers with murder because they make and sell things that kill people?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Intercat:

Perhaps. I’m a little disappointed with the lack of discussion. I saw a news item on TV this morning about pharmacy companies raising rates which flies in the face of what others stated yesterday. Who is to say your premise is correct without supportive information? I’m supposed to just take your word?

Let me see then!
Neither the Civil Authorities nor the Church state it is suicide or murder!
It is too far fetched to fall into suicide or murder. I really don’t know why anyone would think that.

What’s next? Charge all the weapons manufacturers with murder because they make and sell things that kill people?

Charging toddlers for being irrational… (can you tell what season of life I’m in?)

The whole premise that unaffordable drugs are either the “fault” of the producer or the “fault” of the patient not to procure the drug. But as you propose the idea is really, really far-fetched because the world is not as linear as the proposed topic suggest.

 

[Intercat]

That is true. Each individual situation is different. But…the knowledge that if I don’t take my medication regardless of the reason, it will result in my death has to have SOME merit as does the knowledge that if I raise my prices too high, someone will die because it’s unaffordable. In that case, the individuals with that awareness must have some ownership to the result of their actions. As do the business owners who pay $7.50/hour for minimum wage. And those who choose to take away financial aid for the poor.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

That is true. Each individual situation is different. But…the knowledge that if I don’t take my medication regardless of the reason, it will result in my death has to have SOME merit as does the knowledge that if I raise my prices too high, someone will die because it’s unaffordable. In that case, the individuals with that awareness must have some ownership to the result of their actions. As do the business owners who pay $7.50/hour for minimum wage. And those who choose to take away financial aid for the poor.

Can there be fault allowed?

Yes.

But drugs are made of components. Sometimes those components end up costing more. Companies can’t run at a loss. Raising prices is not inherently evil, even if some people die as a result. Last year or the year before the bird flu wiped out hundreds of chickens. Egg prices skyrocketed from around $1 a dozen to $3 for “normal” eggs. Organic and free-range went well north of $6. Since eggs are a part of vaccines this affected them tremendously…a major component more than doubled in cost. Americans didn’t feel the effect (because a few dollars didn’t really change things) but poor countries did. Was it “sinful” that the drug companies had to raise the price because of something outside of their control? Absolutely not.

And minimum wage is NOT supposed to be something that supports a family. When it comes to minimum wage it’s a complex issue that involves many social ills. This includes the untenable and astronomical cost of housing and “mandatory” service goods. Looking at the cost of food and clothing minimum they actually take a smaller percentage of minimum wage.

And “those who take financial aid away from the poor”. Where do you think that aid comes from? From other people who earn money. If my family was able to donate $100 to the annual food fundraiser at church and is not this year, we are not sinning. Even if we are using the $100 for something we don’t need as much as those people need food. (not excessive, just not as desperate). There is a real hubris in stating that it is unilateral with “taking away” aid to the poor. Sure, if someone steals it, it’s sinful but if someone simply stops giving to put their families need first (even if it’s less urgent) that’s not wrong.

 

[Intercat]

You misunderstood my financial aid comment. Apologies. I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about food stamps and Welfare and Medicaid. And, for that matter, Medicare and Social Security. From my perspective, there seems to be more greed at the top. From your perspective, it seems that there are rational explanations and legitimate reasons. Personally, I think there may be some of both. For those people who think only of lining their own pockets and those of other excessively rich people on the backs of the poor, I still wonder how it will go down on Judgement Day. “What you’ve done for the least of my people, you have done for me.”

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

You misunderstood my financial aid comment. Apologies. I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about food stamps and Welfare and Medicaid. And, for that matter, Medicare and Social Security. From my perspective, there seems to be more greed at the top. From your perspective, it seems that there are rational explanations and legitimate reasons. Personally, I think there may be some of both. For those people who think only of lining their own pockets and those of other excessively rich people on the backs of the poor, I still wonder how it will go down on Judgement Day. “What you’ve done for the least of my people, you have done for me.”

There is tremendous waste in government programs. People are not wrong for wanting to curtail them. Just look at what happened to food stamps in Maine and Kansas when they put in an “able-bodied no dependents must work/volunteer” clause. 75%- 80% of non-parent/non-disabled guardian food stamp recipients simply dropped off the rolls. There is a very concerning amount of waste.

Yes, there are rich and selfish people–but there are also rich and generous people. There is a man who is extremely wealthy. He and his friend and their wives have a large yacht sailboat and every summer they do a trip that goes from Flordia to Nova Scotia. All the people they hire are at-risk young people who have graduated from HS and want to go to college but cannot afford it. They pay these 10 or so young people very well.

Now…this man and his friend could give all their extra money to the poor–but they are allowed to be rich and enjoy what they have earned.

I grew up very poor. I always thought rich people were evil. However, because I went to college I got a much more balanced perspective. People with money aren’t typically running around hoarding it. Most need it to maintain their lifestyle (ie a businessman who needs nice suits) and most are pretty good at giving to charity and being involved in their community. Many of the women running NPO’s as volunteers or on a cheap salary were wives of men who made tons of money.

 

[Zaccheus]

That is true. Each individual situation is different. But…the knowledge that if I don’t take my medication regardless of the reason, it will result in my death has to have SOME merit as does the knowledge that if I raise my prices too high, someone will die because it’s unaffordable. In that case, the individuals with that awareness must have some ownership to the result of their actions. As do the business owners who pay $7.50/hour for minimum wage. And those who choose to take away financial aid for the poor.

There is a very big difference between choosing not to take my meds and being too poor to buy the meds.

 

[Intercat]

Understood. But, do these men need $3,000 suits or their wives $10,000 handbags? Again, what would Jesus think?We’re on a Catholic site. How would He feel about the rich and poor? Should we not emulate Him?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Understood. But, do these men need $3,000 suits or their wives $10,000 handbags? Again, what would Jesus think?We’re on a Catholic site. How would He feel about the rich and poor? Should we not emulate Him?

It’s their business. And people make and benefit from the sale of luxury goods…people who are not wealthy. People have $1,000 dinners of fine food. The people who benefit most are the waitstaff, the fishmonger, etc. Speaking of which, I had a friend who was a fishmonger. He didn’t make his money selling to Granny, he made his money selling to diplomats and extremely high-end restaurants. Even in the 80’s some of these fish fetched over a grand. Because he had high-end clients, he could sell fish to “regular” people for extremely fair prices. So what is better in your opinion? Should those rich people never indulge and, therefore, drive the cost up because the fishmonger had to make a living wage on what only average people “should” spend on food?

It’s an industry…maybe not one people understand, but not one that can be simply dismissed as wrong. From the teenager who can pay his way to college by caddying for the rich, to the waitress who is able to support her family on tips because she works in a nice place, to the small-time tailor and dry cleaner who supports himself cleaning luxury suits…simply looking at the price tag and crying “unrestrained evil oppulance” is not seeing the whole picture of economy.

 

[Intercat]

Never said there wasn’t. But if there is a choice between buying life-saving meds and paying for something else, is that something else more important than the medication? Honestly, although there have been plenty of opinions, I haven’t seen one that justifies NOT buying those meds under any circumstance. Which brings me back to part of my original question. If you don’t buy meds that you know will save your life, but spend that money on something else, is it suicide? I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m really looking for an answer. When it first came to me, I was just curious. Now, I really want to know. As I get older and more financially destitute, and if I choose to spend my money on groceries vs meds that will save my life, and I KNOW these meds will save my life, but I choose the groceries. If I die, is that suicide?

 

[Intercat]

Point taken. I’m not an economist. Maybe if I had been more of one, I’d be better off today. I know we’re all only human, but one thing that drives me to distraction is waste. Of any kind. I see opulence as inherently wasteful. Resources, monetarily, human lives. I don’t expect all to share my views, but I wish this wasn’t such a “throw-away” society.

 

[Intercat]

I realize we aren’t all Einsteins. Maybe because I take responsibility for being my own advocate in terms of my health, my assumption is that everyone else does, as well. BUT, being in the position of either/or, I don’t know what I would choose. I would hope I never find myself in that position, but one never knows. I see stories all the time of people who can’t afford their cancer medication because it’s outrageously priced and are doomed to death. That is not a choice. It’s a travesty and one of the reasons I posted this question in the first place. Maybe in this life, the people responsible for these individuals being unable to afford these astronomically priced meds won’t face judgement, but I would hope they do in the next.

 

[Intercat]

Things in the Church have changed over the years. Vatican II, for example. I spoke with an elderly woman the other day about the mother/newborn discussion, and her teaching was the same as mine. Things change over time. If it doesn’t affect you, you don’t necessarilly realize it.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Point taken. I’m not an economist. Maybe if I had been more of one, I’d be better off today. I know we’re all only human, but one thing that drives me to distraction is waste. Of any kind. I see opulence as inherently wasteful. Resources, monetarily, human lives. I don’t expect all to share my views, but I wish this wasn’t such a “throw-away” society.

One dosn’t have to be an economist. However, you have the internet at your fingertips. You can learn and grow and understand.

There is a difference between “throw away” society and opulence. Oppulance is not inherently wasteful because it can be put to good use. It’s about more than “trickle down” economics-- it’s about resources at different levels.

Let’s look at a necessary good for parents…diapers. Let’s take cloth diapering off the table for a moment especally given the drouts which drive the cost up astronomically.

Target diapers are about 10 cents a diaper. They work well–occasional leaks and blowouts, but nothing terrible. Compare that to a premium diaper–Honest–which is about 35 cents a diaper. A newborn goes through about 10 diapers a day, a toddler 5. This means that the price differential is completely significant.

The Target diapers are your cheap fare–normal chemicals and bleaching process, normal absorption polymers, etc. Honest diapers have chemical free-ink, all cotton linings, etc. It’s arguably better for the child…but to the tune of 3.5x as much? People often justify things like this but then balk at other “luxary” items.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Things in the Church have changed over the years. Vatican II, for example. I spoke with an elderly woman the other day about the mother/newborn discussion, and her teaching was the same as mine. Things change over time. If it doesn’t affect you, you don’t necessarilly realize it.

Just because two people were wrong about the same thing dosn’t make it a church teaching.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I realize we aren’t all Einsteins. Maybe because I take responsibility for being my own advocate in terms of my health, my assumption is that everyone else does, as well. BUT, being in the position of either/or, I don’t know what I would choose. I would hope I never find myself in that position, but one never knows. I see stories all the time of people who can’t afford their cancer medication because it’s outrageously priced and are doomed to death. That is not a choice. It’s a travesty and one of the reasons I posted this question in the first place. Maybe in this life, the people responsible for these individuals being unable to afford these astronomically priced meds won’t face judgement, but I would hope they do in the next.

No.

Food is a requirement.

Medicine is not.

Many of those stories are a combination between unfortunate circumstances and reality. Newly developed drugs are expensive. There’s no 2 ways about it. It’s not always a travesty…it’s just reality of being on the cutting edge of science. Not all “astronomically” priced drugs are sinful.

 

[Zaccheus]

As I get older and more financially destitute, and if I choose to spend my money on groceries vs meds that will save my life, and I KNOW these meds will save my life, but I choose the groceries. If I die, is that suicide?

No. Not buying necessities because you’re too poor to pay for them is not suicide.
If you forgo the groceries to pay for the meds and suffer from malnutrition that does not mean you chose to damage your health by failing to eat properly. Likewise if you forgo the meds to buy the food that does not mean you chose to damage your health by not taking medicine.
Poverty is not a sin.

 

[Intercat]

Interesting choice of an example since I never had children. I see your point. But what about the people who can and do buy XYZ brand for $3.50 per unit? (A bit of a stretch, probably, but for comparison sake). That’s throwing money and resources away. The Honest product does the job at a reasonable cost. And why is XYZ even in the market? Because there are people who will buy the product because it’s the most expensive, not because it’s any better. Waste…throwing out food because it has reached its “use by” date. Not using your freezer to keep food and then throwing it out because you forgot it was there, and now you don’t trust it. Going to an expensive restaurant and only eating a small portion of the meal and pitching the rest. Everyone is guilty to some degree. I certainly am. I try very hard NOT to be. Some people don’t care. They have the financed where they can just throw a out and buy new. Why does anyone NEED a Maserati?

 

[Intercat]

Not saying they are. Pricing them out of reach is. Cancer meds are necessary for life. So is food.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Interesting choice of an example since I never had children. I see your point. But what about the people who can and do buy XYZ brand for $3.50 per unit? (A bit of a stretch, probably, but for comparison sake). That’s throwing money and resources away. The Honest product does the job at a reasonable cost. And why is XYZ even in the market? Because there are people who will buy the product because it’s the most expensive, not because it’s any better. Waste…throwing out food because it has reached its “use by” date. Not using your freezer to keep food and then throwing it out because you forgot it was there, and now you don’t trust it. Going to an expensive restaurant and only eating a small portion of the meal and pitching the rest. Everyone is guilty to some degree. I certainly am. I try very hard NOT to be. Some people don’t care. They have the financed where they can just throw a out and buy new. Why does anyone NEED a Maserati?

Because they WANT a Maserati. From my understanding, sports cars drive far differently than your average Ford.

Why don’t we all drive Prius’? Well, because some people like owning a truck, even if they rarely–if ever–need a truck. Some people like owning cars with 4 wheel drive.

You are conflating wasting with luxury goods. Luxury goods aren’t waste. They are luxury goods. The poorest person in the world is capable of waste. But a rich person can have only luxury goods and have no waste. A wealthy person can, say, afford a cloth diaper service which all things equal, may cost more than disposables to that person but is way more environmentally friendly.