Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:49:48 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

>>What - Clark doesn't know the literature, or where to look?  Since
>>he'd have to go to the library to chase the cite, he can look in the
>>obvious places and find it himself.
>
>Since -T. works in the library of a medical school, -T. knows quite
>well not only _where_ to get the relevant information - he knows that
>-andy is full of bovine fecal matter.

Order of magnitude = factor of 10.  The "recent" harvard study numbers
are some 90k/year through medical "misadventure", but I'm not going to
quibble about the difference between 10 and 30.

>>It places the number in perspective.  3,000 deaths doesn't justify
>>doing much to a population of 250 million people.  Suppose we value
>>those lives at $1M each, that's $3B, which is basically pocket change.
>>If we can't save those lives for less than $1M, we shouldn't try.  If
>>those people choose their fate, we shouldn't try.  (Consider it
>>another form of slow suicide.)
>
>Then I guess we should close the Trauma Centers to all the idiots who
>shoot themselves, their friends, their enemies, their spouses, their farm
>animals (often same as spouse for NRA members) etc?

I see that T has a new whipping boy.

How much will T spend to save a life?  $10M?  $100M?  We don't have to
guess - we can look at how T spends his money.  Once we do, we get to
ask "why should `society' pay more to save people than they'd spend
themselves?"  I realize that medical types think that someone should
pay them $100M/life, but it's not their money.

>I mean, since it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of gunshot
>death victims _know_ the person who shot them (and often it's the victim's
>own gun) then it's the same as your convoluted 'social program' for
>smokers...yeah, kinda like the idea...reducing the enrollment of the
>NRA by attrition....

Except that NRA members are underrepresented in the murdering population.

The fact that murderers know their victims is about as interesting as
the fact that both murderers and victims breath.  It would be
surprising if murderers didn't murder people they know.  After all,
being a murderer doesn't mean that you don't know people and
acquaintance does provide both motive and opportunity for those so
inclined.  (Interestingly enough, the most common thing said by people
right before they were shot in the 50s and 60s was "go ahead, shoot
me" according to Wolfgang.  Criminal acquaintance and behavior has its
consequences.)

BTW - T is also lying with his "often it's victim's own gun" claim.

>While we're at it - might as well do away with all malpractice claims...
>I mean, the people had a _choice_ - they didn't _have_ to go to the
>doctor...

Does T object to letting people negotiate their contracts?  Some
people might well choose to deal with a "I refuse to accept any
responsibility for my acts" doctor.  One can make a different decision
without insisting that others do likewise.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU