Healthcare, Ethics, & Postmodernism | Philosophy Tube

[@n.l.g.6401]

If you've got limited enough resources that you have to start deciding who lives and who dies, it's probably time to start investing more in your healthcare system.

[@BenTajer89]

I agree with the broader points of this video, and your comment, but as it stands, we still can't spend transplant organs into existence. He also ignores that when transplant surgeons make these decisions it's not a value judgement, they typically decide to give the organ to the recipient who has the best chance of getting the most lasting use out of that organ. An alcoholic who is on the liver transplant waiting list, but continues drinking (and many people do this), has a high likelihood of destroying that organ within a relatively short period of time (and this sometimes happens). This doesn't just deprioritize people who have conditions associated with "Personal Responsibility" - it deprioritizes the the elderly and those with other terminal conditions like cancer. When faced with a decision between a patient who will probably keep an organ for 15+ years (young, non-alcoholic, non-smoker), and someone who might not make 5 (elderly, smoker, alcoholic, with metastases elsewhere in the body), the health care providers will opt for the more utilitarian 15+ year choice. That said, we could always increase funding to scientific research...

[@m0thdm]

Thank you for saying this. Although it seems such a simple bit of common sense. Not so common at all

[@Nazareadain]

... Ok. How are you planning on investing in GETTING MORE ORGANS?

[@m0thdm]

@@Nazareadain WAT

[@juozsx]

You will always have to decide on this, money doesnt matter. Only line will get higher. If you need a trillion dolars for saving one person, even eutopic future goverment wont give that.

[@PotatoMcWhiskey]

Keep in mind that some "risky" behaviours are heavily influenced by socioeconomic class, so vilifying and denying healthcare to smokers and obese people is thinly veiled derison for the poor.

[@Gaga4Parma]

PotatoMcWhiskey It really isn't...and in the NHS already does breathalyser for smokers for example awaiting surgery. This type of thinking only continues to exacerbate an already swelling issue with people being selfish and ignorant about their health.

[@PotatoMcWhiskey]

Its entirely possible for someone to be selfish and ignorant about their health, and for them to exist in a society/situation that predisposes them towards acting in a selfish and ignorant manner about their health. Not only that, but denying important healthcare to people who suffer from these "undesirable" behaviors might actually cost society more in the long term. Also, it seems entirely arbitrary what "undesirable" behaviors discrimination is justified against. Promiscuity is a voluntary behavior(lets assume) that increases the rate of STI transfer in society, requiring people to prove chastity before they were treated would be downright silly and counterproductive, because if they weren't chaste then denying them treatment simply increases the number of people who need treatment. Seemingly we have made an arbitrary exception for this "understandable" and "acceptable" "vice", but people who struggle to eat healthy food or quit smoking are simply up shits creek without a paddle.

[@n.l.g.6401]

Gaga4Parma Wealthy people have the means to access effective weight loss and smoking secession programs. Poor people do not. The problem remains. Please watch the video again.

[@sonicpsycho13]

In some places tobacco is still relatively cheap and nicotine is an appetite suppressant, so people will use tobacco as a means to save money on food, which they may need for their family. There's also the fact that some have been smoking, an addictive drug, for decades, long before the negative effects have been well known. Obesity is even worse with nutritional information being so mixed up and confusing. Not to mention that the least healthful foods tend to be the cheapest.

[@SemiIocon]

Yeah, smoking is a poor people behaviour, at large. At least in my country. Having the resources to be health conscious is a privilege in itself.

[@stefanlamb1179]

If you combine a healthcare system based on personal responsibility with a society that conflates wealth with success, you basically end up with healthcare for the rich.

[@decepticonne]

Killing the lower class would only lead to the creation of a new lower-class amongst the survivors ; our societies can't function without the existence of poor people since they are built around the dynamic of oppression.

[@TimeHopMonk]

*cough* america *cough*

[@katrinal353]

Jim Bananoid lmao If all poor people died, the infrastructure of your country would stop, low-skill vacancies would skyrocket, profits would collapse, other people would flood those vacancies because of demand, only for high-skilled jobs to go back up, only for all of them to go back down soon after the massive downsizing of the jobs and economy, while the divide between the rich and poor, ironically, becomes even bigger, because the same wealth still goes to the rich, while the new poor become just as poor as the previous, and the economy would slowly wither for years or even decades to come.

[@rachelb.684]

flblbl Kill everyone, so there will be no lower class.

[@boyo-shook3891]

Oh, so America?

[@GothLamb]

I want to say thank you for mentioning the fact that fatness isn't something within an individual's control. I am disabled, and many of the medications I need to survive have the side-effect of weight gain. Often when I see new doctors, they assume I am disabled because I am fat and try to take me off my meds thinking that if they do that I will lose weight and thus be magically cured. Every time I've agreed to this treatment plan, I've ended up in the hospital, close to death and people STILL act like if I could just lose weight all my problems would be solved. Thin people very, very rarely stand up for fat folks and it made my day to see you do so, Olly. Hope you feel better soon!

[@luisandrade2254]

It is though not always but most of the time

[@mindymycelia]

​@@luisandrade2254 were you lost? did you mean to comment here? the person you responded to literally almost died, MORE THAN ONCE, without necessity, and it was specifically BECAUSE of people like you, which why you come across like a confused toddler. why are you here? ..did you even watch this video?

[@sonicpsycho13]

The first thing I thought of with voluntary responsibility was voluntary military service, like we have in the US. With a few exceptions, military service is completely voluntary. Therefore, couldn't one argue that any medical condition incurred as a result of one's voluntary enlistment into the military falls into the same scenario?

[@commandershepard6875]

That's a good point, though the idea of us treating our injured/sick military service people any *worse* than we already do is upsetting. But I'd wager that, under such a strict mindset, they would get thrown to the bottom of the pile. After all "they knew what they were getting into". Would the same go for policemen? Or Firemen? Doctors have high rates of suicide and depression. Do they themselves get thrown to the bottom of the list because the jobs they are in are high-risk jobs? I think you bringing up the military almost proves that the "well they knew what they were getting into" isn't really some rational look at numbers, and more of people being morally against fat people and smokers. Because, press those same people that would happily reject the fat person about the military, and I doubt they'd so easily deny care.

[@yurona5155]

Oh, you cannot imagine how I would love to see some younger member of the Freedom Caucus argue this point in front of Congress. Imagine the faces...;)

[@Crispman_777]

That's *such* a good counterpoint.

[@ElVindicto]

Playing Right-Wing Devil's Advocate here but couldn't it be argued that the voluntary act of enlisting in military service is like signing a sort of social contract wherein part of the deal of taking on the increased corporal (pun) risk of being in the armed services is that the military itself has an obligation to provide healthcare for any injuries sustained in the line of duty? I'm not sure where that would leave injured service-people in the hierarchy of 'who gets treated first' but it could, philosophically speaking, bestow upon them the right to be treated at all at least, right? - I don't actually think thats bulletproof or especially logically sound but I feel like it provides an argumentative trap door for personal responsibility folks, am I wrong?

[@Crispman_777]

Frank Anthony Overton Jr. I mean, I can't see that doing recruitment any favours so it's probably unlikely that'll happen lol.

[@Toremneon]

Also if you are fat, you are way more likely to get pushed to stop a tram to save other people.

[@sonicpsycho13]

But how do you push such a heavy individual? Can I set up a lever and fulcrum?

[@oaxacachaka]

They are biological heros

[@LimeyLassen]

T H E N E E D S O F T H E M A N Y

[@HeyJudie]

@@sonicpsycho13 I practice by pushing all the largest people I know as hard as I can whenever I see them

[@sonicpsycho13]

@@LimeyLassen the one outweighs the many.

[@littlekeegs8805]

omg he's doing the ContraPoints thing, slowing down phrases he uses, I love it

[@PhilosophyTube]

It's a really useful way of showing that something is a framing device and other frames are possible

[@littlekeegs8805]

Cool that a simple slowing down of words can express that.

[@muddyerbbine6254]

@@littlekeegs8805 indeed, a good reason why Ben Shepario speaks like a god damned race car, its the only way to make it look like he knows what he's talking about

[@dummyaccount.k]

@@PhilosophyTube oh well, i always thought it was tryna say that something was a stupid idea that youre arguing against

[@lbdeuce]

It’s patronizing.

[@athomassen3980]

The image of Olly with that stuffed chimpanzee is so cute, I haven't even finished the video and this already made my day

[@delve_]

Olly is big crush.

[@graciethebelle]

The thing about being fat is, it's not always a fat person's fault that they're fat. If you were raised in a poor household where you had to eat a lot of cheap foods that are high in carbs and low in all other nutrients (pasta, rice, breads, ect.) because your family could not afford to buy "healthy" foods that are often much more expensive than the "unhealthy" foods. In that situation guess what, you're gonna gain weight. People with binge eating disorders are often times overweight and need treatment to manage the disorder. People with depression won't have the energy to go out and exercise, and they'll often times eat foods that are easy to make and high in carbs/sugar because sugar is addictive and people with depression are more susceptible to that particular addiction because sugar triggers releases of dopamine (what makes you happy), so really in a way, it's a form of unintentional self medication. And guess what! People with depression will usually need medical attention to manage their condition in order to lose weight and become "healthy". I was raised in a family that was lower in economic class and we didn't always eat very well. I was considered overweight When I was 7 and it never got any better. When I was 18 I had spiralled into anxiety so deeply that I stopped eating because my stomach was constantly in knots. I went from 250 Lbs. To 190 Lbs. In like 6 months and I felt *horrible*. All while everyone was congratulating me on my weight loss, telling me how good I looked, how I must be getting so healthy, to keep it up! When I didn't want anyone to even look at me because I didn't want my body to be an object for people to judge. I was always shaking and eating was something I dreaded because I was constantly nauseous and I was always tired to the point of feeling faint. Once I got medication for my anxiety, I was able to eat again and (much to my own disappointment) I gained all the weight back. Cause I could eat again and the food I usually have access too isn't very healthy. So yeah. Discriminating against someone due to weight is pretty gross.

[@MorganChaos]

I just want to echo the thing you said about it feeling really gross to be congratulated on weight loss that you weren't trying to get. I recently went on ADHD meds for the first time. I don't track my weight, but I've lost two pant sizes (at least -- even the 16s are feeling a tad loose) and a t-shirt size, so probably somewhere in the range of 20-30 lbs in 6 months. Anytime someone reacts positively, the very first thing I say is "It's from a med I'm on, I didn't really do anything. Mostly it's annoying that I have to buy new clothes." Fortunately, most of the people in my life are astute enough to pick up this cue that it's not something to praise or treat as an accomplishment. (Although I did appreciate what my MIL did, which was pull my husband aside and say "does D have anything that fits anymore?? Do you guys need some extra money for clothes?" lmao. We were fine but this is the kind of totally neutral practical consideration that I dream of fat people one day receiving. I think she did help him buy me a new wedding ring because, of all things, I've also dropped about 1.5 ring sizes.)

[@aphexboiz5035]

"Warning: Postmodernism Ahead" Jordan Peterson fans: *SCREECH*

[@GreyFox474]

God Dammit Olly! I saw this video in my sub box then YT auto play kicked in and long story short, now I sit here with 12 open tabs of your videos and each of them has at least 2 other videos that I still want to watch. Love your chanel.

[@NightmareMasterclass]

Heal the sick. Tax the rich.

[@timeaesnyx]

Nightmare Masterclass bravo!

[@HxH2011DRA]

#JustDoIt

[@Korgull6669]

Nightmare Masterclass But then the rich could just fuck off to somewhere they aren't taxed, and then every liberal could smugly go "Neener neener neener, I told you so" It should, in fact, go: Heal the sick, seize the means to produce wealth so that it can be distributed among the masses. Taxing the rich still gives the rich all the power, the point is to take the power from them entirely.

[@liftistswoletariat7184]

Heal the sick, eat the rich and feed the poor

[@petersmythe6462]

Heal the sick, get rid of the rich.

[@scrunglenut6222]

I live in america and I'm a pretty chunky dude, as I have been since I was young. The amount of doctors in my area who have attempted to blame my weight on all of my medical problems is astounding. I had a surgeon once complain to my dad about an appendectomy when I was 15, shaming my father for letting me get so fat, claiming that it made the surgery too hard. I've been shamed by doctor after doctor-- even though, since then, I've been diagnosed with CPTSD, which is basically the biggest reason I'm overweight. Yet.... doctors still tend to think of my weight as a choice and responsibility, and look down on me for being the way I am. I was almost denied getting my mind-and-therefore-life saving top surgery because of my weight. There are reasons that people are obese besides sloth and gluttony. I didn't choose to be traumatized at a young age, and the complexies as to why people are obese completely negates the whole "personal responsibility" reasoning completely. PS: get well soon buddy! : D

[@JustRutland]

@Wamuu, what if the only way to make him not get social anxiety and make him happy was to give him an extra snack? That way he would not end up a sociopath? Maybe him getting fat was the reason he did not get to be sociopathic, etc

[@scrunglenut6222]

People with ptsd are at a high risk of obesity because their bodies are at a constant level of attack and stress, making their digestive tracts and nutrient absorption irregular. Currently I am too disgusted with myself and my memories to eat, so I have been only living on a diet of two replacement meal shakes a day. Do not assume I overeat. Eating makes me feel sick.

[@sydneyrica1802]

scrunglenüt I have PCOS and my hormone levels lead me to gain weight even when I eat normal levels of food. It’s awful. I could take medication or be on a very strict diet, so I choose the diet.

[@sydneyrica1802]

scrunglenüt I just saw your second comment. That makes sense. So it is your hormone levels that lead to weight gain in PTSD.

[@scrunglenut6222]

Yes, more and more research is going into how certain hormones cause obesity, and imbalances usually lead to things like a lack of fat or too much. Body chemistry is much more of a factor in the shape of your body than diet-- though diet does still does play a role, I won't discount that. It's just only a small part of the picture. TLDR: like most things in life, it is infinitely more complex than X AMOUNT OF CALORIES GO IN, UNIVERSAL RESULTS FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON

[@Peter]

oh yes, yes indeed

[@fsce8599]

ok

[@cannibale101]

indeed

[@maryanne1830]

Wouldn't voluntary responsibility mean that cigarette companies should pay for smoking related illness because they made decisions that put lots of people in harms way?

[@alexwhiting5881]

i understand your belief but no as voluntary responsibility says that it is induvidial choices and the individual doesnt have to by Ciggerates from the compnay the company is just giving them a choice.

[@user-ko7lz3kr1d]

@@alexwhiting5881 The point is the company doesn't have to sell the cigarettes. It was the choice of the founders and executives of the companies to sell that product, so extending the logic of voluntary responsibility certainly must include the choices made by the cigarette companies.

[@SamraK64]

@@alexwhiting5881 Aggressively advertising for decades, including viciously hidden advertising, denying for as long as possible the health consequences of smoking, and then actively minimizing them, lobbying every big country's government around the whole world, corrupting politicians (every single one of the main political parties competing in Germany is being partly financed by lobbies from the tobacco industry) Seems like a bit more than "just giving a choice" to people.

[@eee-113]

@maryanne great point! ‘voluntary responsibility’ often refers to individuals, however, so the idea of extending this principle to companies often goes overlooked. and although there are many many many precedents of consumers suing corporations for payouts, what you’re saying here is slightly different - corporations shouldn’t have to break a law or misrepresent themselves or hide crucial information (all things cigarette companies have done) in order to be culpable for the deaths of their customers. the very product they sell would make them responsible for paying, through the fact that they chose to sell cigarettes knowing their inherent danger to the human body

[@cannibale101]

You might enjoy the movie Thank you for smoking

[@Raiggonaxes]

"Healing the sick and helping people is a good thing to do" A simple, highly ideological statement that I couldn't agree with more.

[@handsbasic]

Great video! Small nitpick: I want to say that in a lot of places, HIV/AIDS can be passed down through birth because the medical / birthing infrastructure isn't there to prevent it. Not every person with AIDS chose it. This is an especially pernicious problem in poorer countries in Africa.

[@xzonia1]

Thank you for making this! I am so tired of people judging me for being overweight. I was normal weight most of my life (underweight for a time as a child, though) until my thyroid died. Then I gained 200 pounds over 5 years until my medication levels were finally increased enough that I stopped gaining weight. I hope one day to lose the weight, but I get so tired of people, including some doctors, telling me that me being overweight is "my fault." I do not overeat, and I certainly didn't choose this. More people who are overweight are blameless than the average person suspects. Many medical conditions cause weight gain, and they are not overeating. Also, I agree that people should receive medical care regardless of why they have the medical condition they have because that's the right thing to do. I hate that it's so expensive in the U.S. I also hate that there are homeless people in the U.S. We should be spending more money on housing for our destitute citizens and less on the industrial military complex here in the U.S.

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I think part of the reason fat people get so much abuse from the right is that the existence of fatness is in conflict with the ideas that 1. all individuals act rationally and selfishly, and 2. all individuals have meaningful control over all aspects of their lives. If we assume that obesity presents a significant risk of harm to long term health and quality of life, and we observe that obese people exist, those two core assumptions of neoliberal and conservative philosophies cannot both be true. Something has to give, and people on the right need it to be the existence of fat people. If I try to put myself in the headspace of someone on the right, the fact that fat people exist at all makes my head hurt. Maybe that is a factor in some of the abuse fat people get appearing as attempts to convince them that being fat is not in their rational self interest, either because it presents long-term health risks, or because it makes them sexually unattractive (and we assume that everyone wants sex). If it is explained to fat people that being fat is not in their rational self-interest, then the assumptions of neoliberal and conservative philosophy would predict that the fat people would then choose not to be fat. I also see attempts to convince fat people that fatness is something they do realistically have control over through diet and exercise. Again that is an attempt to assert that the assumptions of neoliberal and conservative philosophy accurately reflect real life. (Disclaimer: I am not and never have been fat, so I do not have first hand experience of being abused as a fat person. I am commenting on what I have observed happening but it is likely that I am seeing an incomplete picture.)

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

Yes, that's true, thank you for pointing that out. What I put forward can't explain all fatphobia, just some of the way it manifests on the right. Do progressives and liberals tend to use the same "arguments" as I described people on the right using, or do they say different things?

[@KuraIthys]

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I have a hard time seeing it from that perspective since I consider both of the listed ideas entirely flawed. 1. nobody acts rationally, nor are people entirely selfish. Any rational behaviour people exhibit is conditional and limited, and I struggle to think of a single example of a person that is so monumentally selfish that they NEVER consider others at all. 2. this is self-evidently not just false, but so monumentally false as to be almost laughable. It doesn't take much of an understanding of cause and effect to realise that for this to be accurate would require that individuals have near unlimited control over their environment. In a practical sense while an individual can of course take actions, those actions do not happen in a vacuum, and they are not truly 'free' decisions in that you can choose to do literally anything you like. Your available choices are ALWAYS constrained by factors outside your control. What those factors are can vary wildly, but they're always there. Still, that's neither here nor there in terms of the idea that people are fat due to their own choices. But it is truly hard for me to understand how anyone can really believe these two points are valid...

[@ヴァリ-z3e]

@@KuraIthys "1. nobody acts rationally," =/ Nice computer, who made it?

[@vwertix1662]

@@hazelnotxyz you dont go to the gym to lose weight, you lose weight with your diet, if you eat less calories than you use you will lose weight.

[@kaydenl6836]

@Interrogate It because “fatphobia” doesn’t exist. Obesity is a huge hindrance and not a good thing. Why do we believe in healthcare for all? Because health is important, and everyone deserves to be healthy. So why would we encourage people to *not* be healthy? Weight is one of those issues that leans more towards personal responsibility once you have access to education. I cannot blame someone for being ignorant when they do not know they are ignorant, but if you have been presented with the education and help, and deny it, that I can blame you for. This is an issue that cannot be fixed through solely systemic means, people still exist now and are dying *now* with the ability to stop it. Unlike “just open a business”, losing weight doesn’t take away opportunities or exploit others, nor is it something that is illogically impossible for the vast majority of people. It also is not as hard or complicated as people think, and that’s thanks to a lack of nutritional education. But when you’re told, for free, “heres the basics and how you can make it work for you” and still refuse to do it, that falls on you. That does not mean you deserve to die, absolutely not. Just don’t expect people to not call you willfully ignorant when you are

[@robertbaillargeon3683]

The KZbin channel Heathcare Triage does a pretty good job talking about the actual tradeoffs involved in allocating resources.

[@AjeyPandey216]

Healthcare Triage is just great in general

[@Moonfoote]

"Here is why the personal responsibility principle fails on its merits. And if you admit your prejudice against 'freeloaders' is essentially aesthetic, here's a better aesthetic take." A knockout video once again Olly; congratulations.

[@jedigecko06]

Noah Liebmiller - Yup

[@IamMissPronounced]

@@nickmagrick7702 no one said "throw responsibility out the window". How about looking at responsibility from a different angle instead of assuming people want a society free from it?

[@roryokane5907]

Speaking as a junior doctor in the NHS, I just want to say: THANK YOU. This is why we do what we do.

[@megantaylor2871]

Let’s say we have four patients with elbow injuries and we all need physical therapy 1. Me, a woman with a chronic and congenital arthritis 2. An older person who worked a low-wage job in a factory and got a repetitive strain injury 3. A teenager with a sports injury 4. A young adult who got drunk, fell off a roof, and hurt themselves I may be the least responsible for my condition, but I do genuinely want the other three people to be treated. Assigning “responsibility” isn’t incredibly important to me when there are human beings in pain. If that meant I could only be seen once a month instead of four times a month so that everyone could get therapy, so be it. As it is, I live in the US and I’m not getting anything anyway.

[@Mataulemetru]

Steal the lungs of the bourgeoisie!

[@frechjo]

Seize the means of respiration!

[@shayneoneill1506]

grease up the guillotine! Its time for revolutionary tracheal praxis!

[@eliasapollo4131]

Nice profile picture mate

[@eliasapollo4131]

@SteppenWolff100 CONSUME THE CONSUMER

[@DiaJasin]

@SteppenWolff100 in real life: "proceeds to eat out the rich"

[@SomeRandomG33k]

People talking about "choice" & "choices" a lot as if that is the most imporrant thing reminds me how say, "It is your choice to participate in Capitalism. You could just live out in the woods." So you are saying it is a choice to live or die!?! 🤷‍♂️

[@timeaesnyx]

SomeRandomGeek I'm not sure there is a wood to hide in, so yea, stupid question.

[@timeaesnyx]

SomeRandomGeek i don't feel like I made myself clear, so I agree with you.

[@decepticonne]

"[under consumerism,] the consumer is sovereign in a jungle of ugliness, where he has been imposed the freedom of choice"

[@thejackanapes5866]

SomeRandomGeek Humans are largely incoherent idiots. "Choice" cannot be a contra-causal experience. None of us is in control in an uncaused, magical, self-caused way. The conscious state is helplessly dragged along by aversions and attractions. Deliberations is nothing more than awareness of prefrontal cortex modulating limbic response to stimulus in the environment. There's nothing particularly wrong with capitalism in and of itself. It's how it's implemented, and of course, we Humans suck at that too. We're like a dumb bunch of apes keen on twiddling one face of a Rubik's cube in one direction in the desperate, stupid faith that it will eventually solve the cube. That's us and our dumbass monkey brained, retributive bloodlust might makes right societies.

[@whodoobucrew2960]

@Albert Whisker there are a fair number of hermits in the Pacific northwest. Not sure who owns the land, but i know it is not the guys setting up a makeshift home in the middle of the woods

[@actuallyclaudia]

i think also, regarding the idea that a smoker has lung cancer because they smoke is also a fairly narrow understanding of how people get sick. you can get lung cancer from passive smoking. you can get lung cancer from your parent smoking while you were in the womb. you can get it from not smoking at all. the way people have gotten to this point as an actual frame of reference for "solving" the healthcare problems (in first world countries) is a natural progression of the neoliberalism. the idea that we have so much responsibility and choice, especially economically, that my tax money goes directly to someones individual treatment is a poor understanding of social healthcare. maybe if the government and mainstream news outlets didn't blame the obese on why healthcare's sources are limited instead of just... funding healthcare through long term budgets and fairer progressive tax reforms.... we would not be having this argument?

[@kaydenl6836]

Almost 90% of lung cancer is from smoking yourself. Not the best example for your argument mate

[@TalysAlankil]

Applied example: do I deserve assistance for dying of thirst over watching a video featuring Olly in bed and in a bathrobe, and WINKING, or am I responsible for watching a video he made in the first place?

[@SomeoneBeginingWithI]

I think this is a case where reasonable application of personal responsibility would require the use of content warnings, which personal responsibility enthusiasts seem to dislike (unless I am mistaken). If Ollie had included a warning "contains beds and bathrobes, may cause thirst" at the start, you could have chosen to stop watching, and if you hadn't your death by thirst would be your own responsibility because you chose to continue watching even when you knew the risks. But with no warning, you cannot reasonably be expected to predict the thirst-inducing content. Most PhilosophyTube videos don't carry such a high risk of thirst, though the average thirst risk does seem to be increasing over the last few videos which might be something to keep an eye on if you survive this one. A personal responsibility extremist might suggest that you don't watch youtube at all ever under any circumstances in case it makes you thirsty, but I don't think that is a reasonable standard to hold people to.

[@Derlaid]

I can't imagine how bad deserving/undeserving could get as genetic testing grows increasingly popular. I have a rare mutation that almost guarantees I will get stomach cancer, so I will have to have my stomach removed. No one can blame me for being the world's shittiest X-man, but if health resources become scarcer will that distinction change? I worry that it might.

[@timeaesnyx]

Derlaid my bigger fear for people like yourself, me, and several of my friends is "designer babies," which as far as I can tell is eugenics.

[@Pfhorrest]

Individuals choosing what kind of children to have is a vastly different thing than eliminating those people that some group in power don't want from gene pool. It's on par to the difference between choosing whether or how many children to have, and sterilizing "undesirable" populations.

[@timeaesnyx]

Pfhorrest on a large enough scale, the difference ceases to matter.

[@Pfhorrest]

The difference is entirely in the means, and that never ceases to matter. The ends are irrelevant so long as they're not being forced on anyone. The difference will never cease to matter between the human gene pool changing because a bunch of individuals wanted their contributions to it to change, and the human gene pool changing because some subset of people forcibly eliminated the contributions of others from it. The ends -- the human gene pool changing -- are the same either way, but those ends are value-neutral. The means of reaching them are where moral judgements are relevant.

[@timeaesnyx]

Pfhorrest personally, I don't make a complete distinction between means and ends.

[@lisahayes3648]

Interesting discussion (as always) reminds me of a study done recently on how differently Drs responded to pain felt by men & women. Men’s pain was acknowledged and medicated while women were often believed to be exaggerating, whining or hysterical and therefore given no pain relief. Another looked at how differently men & women who suffered heart attacks were treated - women were often sent home, some to die there, while men were treated aggressively with medication & surgical procedures. The result of this is that statistically women are far more likely to die of a heart attack than men - here in Australia anyway. Personally, when I was hospitalised for self harming the Drs very clearly communicated to me their disgust & that I was wasting their time when they could be spending it on “more deserving” patients. The value judgement that mental illness is not a legitimate illness is fairly pervasive. Love your work Olly ❤️

[@CardboardLegs]

Though I agree healing the sick is a good thing to do, I think you could have phrased that a bit better. As someone who is chronically ill, I am sick a lot and that does suck, but do be mindful of assuming that just because a person has a condition they have to be miserable. Sure, they may be, but that is also a limiting perspective about disabled people. We can be sad, but also we can live fulfilling lives and have a disability. I know it's a small point in the video, but it is a widely held ableist belief that just because you're disabled/chronically ill etc you must be miserable and phrases like "you only have your health" are unhelpful to those of us who don't but who's lives still matter and are rewarding.

[@creshiell]

CardboardLegs fair enough, but I have seen people who were fine, strong and happy with their chronic illness (pain) but they finally found their cure or their thing that managed the symptoms down to like zero and realized that there's happy and then happy AND unburdened, and the second one is the one that the average person is referring to when they say just "happy" idk if I explained that well

[@CardboardLegs]

creshiell I get what you mean! but assuming that those of us who are sick are miserable and using the phrase "all you have is your health" is something a lot of us who are disabled encounter a lot even if it's a throwaway comment. There's a huge stereotype that disability and sickness means you're reduced to just that and you can't ever be really happy if you have that, like you suggested we're 'burdened'. There's always the risk there won't be a cure or something to get symptoms to near zero for many of us, and that's a reality we have to live with and operate within. So yeah, some could be 'unburdened' with this but many wont ever be and can still be happy and fulfilled.

[@inne_rzeczy]

"try not to directly execute our citisens", well, that's well said! :D

[@spinakker14]

The Bad Girl could you elaborate that? I'm not that familiar with the UK

[@spinakker14]

The Bad Girl damn, that's sad If you can't post links then just tell me a couple of sources and I'll look them up

[@timothymclean]

There seem to be some missing comments, but considering recent events in my home country, it's not hard to imagine what it might look like when a state fails to not execute its citizens.

[@dominickatalanos2875]

Appreciate this video, really enjoyed it! I did have a bit of an issue with the real world example used for the UK- patients with BMI above 30 are asked to lose weight before surgery. Having worked with anaesthetists on cases like this, it is my understanding that is the uncertainty of anaesthetic affect and the practicalities of the surgery itself that drives surgeons and anaesthetists to ask people with high BMI to lose weight before surgery. And once again, *before* surgery. They are still offered the surgery, just asked to try and lose weight first to make the surgery easier and genuinely less risky. Just a small point, but I’ve seen some of the articles quoted at the start and they are usually quite sensationalist

[@knottyqueen8004]

You're lying in bed talking about ethics, healthcare, and Michel Foucault - WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO TO ME? 🤤😍

[@RabidGerbilInAFish]

I find it entertaining that I was shown an ad from a conservative PAC about how we shouldn't force health insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions

[@uyaratful]

Dat burn! Ollie, you are one cheeky philosophy educator.

[@blardyhell3095]

Gurl im going for my med interview tomorrow and this was actually a very different perspective that i’m grateful to have!

[@isa0ber]

capitalism is savage

[@Squalidarity]

Ah yes, because genocide has never, ever happened under capitalism. Just ask the Native Americans. Or the people of Nanjing. Or the Armenians. Or the Australian Aborigine. Or the Indonesians. Or the Cambodians. Or the Kurds.

[@isa0ber]

o geez can y'all go debate somewhere else? i can't deactivate notifications for this and am not interested in your hot takes

[@FlunderingChipper]

There are videos here on KZbin addressing your claims, Nic. Go look 'em up.

[@oaxacachaka]

fruityrumpusAssholefactory when were Native Americans subject to genocide?

[@intellectualfilms4883]

fruityrumpusAssholefactory this happened because of captialism or because of some racial prejudice? Captialism is an economic system that lifted 800 million Chinese out of poverty-- made Japan and South Korea wealthy and competitive in the global market and generally improved the living standards of more people than any other system.

[@anastasiagreen666]

as an overweight person i would really appreciate not being subject to mockery or medical negligence just for existing

[@deanmorgan3093]

I’m so happy you’ve started looking into fat studies! If I can make a recommendation for a specific reading, Biopolitics and the ‘Obesity Epidemic’ edited by Jan Wright and Valerie Harwood is a fantastic book that, as its title suggests, aims to apply Foucault’s biopolitics to fatness.

[@kaihoyen945]

I truly understood how big is the difference between me and my family world views when we talked about taxes They say "junkies are useless and they take our tax money for they're health care even though the are responsible for their own problems" basically 'i don't want to pay for another person's problem if they caused it' and i said i would be happy to give as much money as needed if it means there will be no people suffering from curable situations and they looked at me like I'm crazy

[@AspelShuyin]

I feel like the "fatness=laziness" thing could be more in depth. I'm fat, and I'm lazy, and my fatness in all likelihood comes from my laziness. But my "laziness" stems from capitalism, alienation, and untreated depression. Not to mention the increased availability of greasy, high carb foods making it much easier to *be* fat in the first place, especially if you're poor. Personal responsibility isn't what's made me fat, because even the responsible choices I could take were only the ones determined by my environment.

[@pepesilvia5936]

@@thotslayer9914 it's much more difficult to be healthy when you are poor. Healthier foods, like fresh produce are usually much more expensive than processed alternatives. There's also the phenomenon of what are termed food deserts, in urban areas - essentially neighborhoods where there are no grocery stores that sell a variety of fresh produce within walking distance. Since many poor folks don't have their own vehicles, this can be a serious barrier to accessing healthy food. Furthermore, a lot of poor people don't have a kitchen where they can store and prepare healthier foods, most of which require preparation. Along similar lines, many poor people may be overworked, having low paying jobs (frequently two or more part time jobs which may meaning working well over forty hours a week, but still not being entitled to the time-and-a-half that's accorded to workers who work more than forty hours a week at a single job), having long commutes, long hours and other non-work-related responsibilities (child and elder care), so they may not have adequate time to consistently prepare healthy meals even if they do have access to a kitchen.

[@TheChickenRiceBowl]

@@thotslayer9914 You've got to be kidding me. There's no way you're that pampered.

[@tf7602]

I mean, I'm lazy too, but I'm not fat. Nobody would just accuse me of being lazy because of the way I look, even though I am. I also don't exercise for shit. The reason I can eat healthily is definitely because I have enough money to do so easily and because my family had enough money to provide a healthy diet growing up. Even the different amount and the difference of presentation of healthy and unhealthy food in a shop for organic food and the general discounter is staggering. I once tried to find a yogurt without sugar at Lidl, spoiler alert, I didn't find any. Edit: it is of course possible to eat a healthy diet on a budget, but that requires planning, knowledge, budgeting skills and time investment. It is possible, but the majority will always go with the easier option or the more familiar option. That's how people work when looked at as a whole. Make it easy to be unhealthy and a lot of people will be unhealthy.

[@IamMissPronounced]

@@thotslayer9914 I'd love to see you eat a perfectly balanced diet while living off of food donations and eating in shelters. The poor have limited choices, if any at all.

[@An_Amazing_Login5036]

ogogo ogpgpg it sounds like america. If you’d call america a first-world country is debatable.

[@somepixelynerd]

The idea of letting personal moral disapproval decide medical triage is absolutely frightening.

[@bramatthews2]

hi Ollie. you encouraged me to pick up a philosophy course at the university of Cape Town (in between my incredibly busy commerce course) thanks for being inspiring :)

[@marieugorek5917]

Another problem with holding people personally responsible for their adverse healthcare outcomes is that medical knowledge just isn't very complete. I spent thirty years in therapy using modalities which did not have lasting benefits and, indeed, ended up resulting in some long-term adverse effects because (a) when I was struggling socially and emotionally in middle school, it was virtually impossible to get a diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorders unless one was 18 or older or had been hospitalized for SI, (b) at the time I was struggling socially and emotionally in preschool through my early 20s, individuals couldn't be diagnosed with either ADHD or autism without first eliminating the other as a possible diagnosis, (c) it was also "well-established" that hyperverbal high-IQ females able to pass their classes were not evaluated for ADHD OR autism at all, because that autism was a condition of mostly-males with low IQ involving extreme speech delays -- high-masking social expert autistic ADHDers, particularly those who were AFAB and socialized female, weren't diagnosible until I was in my late 30s, (d) the seasonal cycling depression/seasonal affective disorder my mother and I had identified by my mid-teens could not be diagnosed until I was in my mid 30s, when the guidelines were loosened to allow diagnosis with one fewer symptom observed, BECAUSE I could not get that last diagnostic point required BECAUSE I was -- as an undiagnosed autistic -- interpreting the question too literally and therefore gave a false answer to the question the psychiatrists were trying to ask. During all that time, myost of my providers, all of my insurers, and myself believed that my mental health and ability to cope with the onslaught of adulting skills I didn't know how to learn was because I just wasn't trying hard enough. Oh. And it was also assumed that I was overweight because I didn't have the willpoower to exercise regularly. Once I was diagnosed with hypermobile Ehler's Danlos Syndrome, it became clear that I DID have the willpower to exercise regularly once I was taught how to exercise in a way that didn't cause me to constantly injure myself. In one year, the autism, ADHD, and hEDS were diagnosed. Within the next 12 months I was at my ideal weight and building muscle mass and balance to make up for wobbly joints, I no longer met criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder, episodic depression was gone EXCEPT for seasonal depression well-controlled with light therapy and vitamin D supplements... and all of the GI issues I didn't even mention above had also cleared up. Basically, for 30 years, all of my adverse health outcomes were assumed to be because I was not taking personal responsibility, but all along it was conditions which existed but which science was not yet ready to recognize. Guess what those 30 years got me? A case of cPTSD which a therapist who usually worked with combat veterans with PTSD said was so substantial she wasn't sure how I'd coped. That's what holding people "personally responsible" for their adverse health outcomes gets you. It is the opposite of efficiency.

[@Torthrodhel]

THANKYOU for saying "except for all those people for whom it actually isn't free".

[@GurenSuzuki]

20 minutes of video flew in an istant. It made me think, and rethink, a lot of assumptions, and also cleared many doubts I had (whilst giving me even more questions). Great great great video, thanks for all the hard work you do to provide such quality content.

[@positivedisintegration]

oh my god, that wink 😍

[@spacegay9309]

This man knows what he's doing to us

[@jamesthompson8084]

"Why not? Its addictive and it feels great" You've convinced me to pick up smoking again... think that was the point of this video

[@jphanson]

waking up to a pt upload. awesome

[@jasminekelley1015]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for talking about fatphobia. There isn't enough acknowledgement of the issue on Left Tube, and as a lefty who's currently in treatment for an eating disorder, I sometimes feel a little bit invisible when other types of oppression get so much more air time. It means a lot just to hear you acknowledge it.

[@ATLevi-qw2su]

Healthcare? Sick vid!

[@whitherwhence]

Take your Like and sod off

[@Theo_Caro]

This comment, which I read voluntarily, makes me ill.

[@AngieSpeaks]

I've been doing a lot of research into the Victorian "Work Houses" here in the UK for a video I'm working on. It was one of the first forms of social welfare provided by the state on mass and It's insane to see how some of the classist ethos of that system has seeped into our current system. It was all about punishing the poor and dividing them into deserving, and undeserving recipients of care and assistance. There are so many parallels it's insane!

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

Watches Jordan Peterson video once. Wacth that video. 😁

[@darksaga2006]

Awesome video as always! Love the kimono. I laughed pretty hard when you said that in the UK "it comes down to smokers and fat people". Obviously, the category omitted: alcoholics.

[@AlanKlughammer]

Like so many things in life, the hard part is where to draw the line. Once you start looking at details and specific cases, the line blurs out of existence.

[@isa0ber]

since the personal biases of the government and the medical practiocioners impact who gets what type of healthcare, it's really no wonder why trans people have such a hard time getting access to anything healthcare related, especially if it's something related to transitioning.

[@BigHenFor]

isabel blebel True, but the fight must go on.

[@marketajakesova8769]

Well, I think that you can decide according to these factors: 1. Anticipated outcome (would be probably generally favorable for people from higher classes). 2. Urgency. 3. Age. 4. Drawing lots. 5. First come first serve basis (it might also favour higher classes people because they tend to have better access to preventive healthcare).

[@Nazareadain]

You're responsible for car crashes because you know the risk when you get in the car. There's one extreme. Or even when you get robbed in your own house. You're responsible because you know there's a chance, it's just unreasonable because of the cost of trying to avoid it. You're also responsible for literally anything that could happen to you, because you made the decision to keep living.

[@ragingnebula2179]

The professor who wrote Fatal Invention teaches at my university, and I got to meet her at a dinner discussion at my dormitory and pick her brain. She was absolutely brilliant. Highly recommend her work.

[@malcolmgraham8319]

I actually work as a biometric screener. I take health information (BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol, ect) as third party data for insurance companies. It isn't a question of "deserving" to be penalized, it is a question of utility; I think in philosophy, we get so wrapped up in the ought we lose sight of application/utility. I know this was mildly addressed by the smoker example. However, that argument focuses on personal responsibility, not utility. If we do want to maximize healthy outcomes, we would treat easily preventable problems. Also, if we take a stoic approach (specifically what we can change, what we can't change and what we can affect), being overweight is AT LEAST something you can affect. Also heart disease and cancer kill the most people and you are at higher risk by being 30 BMI or higher. I open to change my view and look forward to a meaningful and fruitful dialogue.

[@QualityGentry]

The science actually does not back up that weight is generally under our control. People who lose large amounts of weight almost always gain it back. Weight/body type is mostly impacted by genetics, then after that mostly by socioeconomic factors. Addtly: When we talk about utility, are we talking about cost efficiency? Time efficiency? Resource efficiency? To me the course of action with the most utility (ie healing and helping the most people) is to just. Heal and help people. If that’s not your definition of utility that’s fine, but I think the vid is trying to get us to question basic assumptions like that.

[@Ikbeneengeit]

I'd forgotten how good this channel was, saw this one video and now I'm hooked again

[@siginotmylastname3969]

I think to have a complete discussion on this it is VITAL to look at the construction of disability and disabled people as a class throughout history. The stigma against obesity and smoking, alcohol in general are all examples of how able/neurotypical people police the behaviour of anyone not in perfect health, whatever that means, and who gets to own their identity as a disabled person imo.

[@0ffirfriedman]

I think that's a really important comment and I'd like to offer my thoughts on the subject. Unfortunately I don't have much historic knowledge so maybe those thoughts and feelings miss a proper justification or examples. For context i am captioned aa disabled (legally blind) and from Israel. Anyway... When we say someone is disabled we basically trying to say this person cannot operate in soceity as regular human beings due to a physical condition which is justified (somehow). The question is now what is "justified" and what is "cannot operate". Justified means that people believe that there is nothing segnificant you can do to stop having the physical condition. For example let's say you have eye problem which can be fixed by wearing glasses but you refuse to do so, that's clearly unjustified. On the other hand let's say you don't have eyes at all, clearly justified. The interesting cases are when you can do something but it's hard or dangerous. For example obese people have a physical condition but they aren't labeled has disabled because people are concived that they are able to reverse their condition (can they I'm not really sure). Cannot operate really means how much you are being constrained by the physical condition. For example if you are deaf you will be considered disabled but if can hear but worse than the average person you might not be. All in all I feel that the main reason for the "disabled" caption from soceity is sympathy. therefore few factors that can change this presption 1. How visable you condition is. 2. How wide spread your condion is. 3. What causes your disability and if it can be fixed as discussed earlier. Finnaly I'd like to note that having the caption disabled is both benfitial and hurtful in the same time. Therefore there are groups who wants to be classified has disabled so they'll get money from the state or from donations. On the other hand there are groups who fell it's more important to be concived as regular members of soceity. There is so much more I want to say and know about this and if anyone has links for resources i'd love to have them.

[@thulyblu5486]

You first talk about disabled people as a class and then change the topic to smokers and obese people who are not considered to be disabled. The connection can't be the "policing" of behavior, since nobody "polices" disabled people for being disabled. I'm not sure where the connection is. Also if you're against "policing" behaviors, what are you doing when you criticize society and "able/neurotypical people" .... ..... ? "(...) and who gets to own their identity as a disabled person imo." I am not sure what that means to be honest. Identity is always about how OTHER people see you. It's not something an individual has complete control over, it's always society that recognizes your identity or not. If you were the only human in the universe, your identity would be 100% meaningless. So who "owns" an identity? That question doesn't really make sense to me :/

[@0ffirfriedman]

Thulyblu I think that's exactly the point, soceity choose to polcie those it find there physical condition is not a disability for example obese people. The question is why a certian thing is considered by soceity has disability and others conditions does not.

[@0ffirfriedman]

Sorry for my English I really scrwed that comment hopes it's clear.

[@thulyblu5486]

+אופיר פרידמן Oh OK, it makes more sense to me now, thanks. I guess my answer to that would have two parts: 1.Policed are those conditions that can be influenced through social pressure. You CAN get a person to eat less through shaming and thus lose weight. It doesn't always work, but there certainly are cases. You know the people doing weight loss challenges on youtube, etc... You CAN get people to stop smoking through the social stigma. Again doesn't always work, but sometimes it does -> thus shaming/judging/policing . You CAN'T get a paralyzed person to not be paralyzed anymore. This NEVER works, thus no shaming/juding/policing but the classification as "disabled". 2.Policed are those conditions that people historically believed could be influenced through behavior. These beliefs are sometimes bullshit. The closer we look at obesity the more we see that there are factors that the obese person can't influence (like hormone levels) and thus it becomes questionable to police it. getting a bit more philosophical, I think it's about free will and if it's considered to be a free will decision, it's OK to judge/police. So which decisions are based on "free will" ? In my opinion it's exactly these behaviors that CAN be influenced through judging/policing, pretty much by definition. I think that's the whole point of the concept of "free will" to influence others where they can be influenced. (I don't think free will is merely a social construct but deeply rooted in our psychology and evolved to be an innate intuition... it's important for human survival to be able to influence and to be influenced, otherwise cooperation would be impossible)

[@cassiedevereaux-smith3890]

Very timely for me.... I'm losing weight for surgery. Also, because I'm ready to. But yeah... for surgery. Also, is Jordan Peterson where all this animosity to postmodernism by people who thinks it basically means communism and transgender? Because that exploded overnight.

[@whatever9097]

My issue with personal responsibility is how do you determine personal responsibility? For example: if go somewhere without my blood clotting medicine and get injured and loose a lot of blood, is it my fault for not bringing my medicine? Or does it depend on how I was injured? If I was in a car accident without an immediately clear cause do I have to wait for a blood transfusion/medicine because it could be my fault? Or would none of this apply in the first place because my bleeding disorder is genetic? What if someone has cancer, how do you determine if it was purely genetic, genetic and environmental, environmental and lifestyle etc? If someone works with radiation/radioactive material is getting cancer their fault because of their job? If we’re going to talk about addiction related disease, do we look into the persons background? Substance abuse has strong ties to mental illness and past trauma so do we take away responsibility in those cases? Or is it the person’s fault for not getting mental health treatment earlier? What if someone can’t get a vaccine for a disease because of an allergy? Is it still their fault for not getting the vaccine?

[@TheRogueVocaloid]

The secondary problem that ends up happening is that once you start considering some problems to be "voluntary" then other problems also end up falling into the "voluntary" category, with regulators and medical facilities bending over backwards to justify how you deserve to be sick. It also turns sickness into another measure of Goodness, where if you're sick you're Bad and if you're healthy you're Good. Thus you end up with many disabled people (like myself) being looked at as subhuman in spite of our disabilities being completely out of our control. In addition to this, there's a media landscape that only focuses on a select few easy-to-market (whether negatively or positively) disabilities that often portrays even those disabilities quite badly, which leaves the general public being so misinformed that every attempt to shorthand an explanation of one's disability to an outsider invariably gets compared to the (misrepresented) disabilities they've seen before in media. For instance, I have an autoimmune disease, and when I tell someone this it usually leads to them assuming I have something like AIDS. I don't have AIDS, I have chronic eosinophilic pneumonia and have to have my immune system suppressed so it doesn't eat my lungs, which is *quite the difference*. But people assuming I have AIDS or even assuming that all autoimmune diseases are Caused By Something Controllable because of AIDS being the only disease they really know anything about is an assumption that colors perceptions and leads people to believe I'm responsible for my own condition. Which in turn can get me denied coverage or healthcare or respect or jobs or benefits BECAUSE of this perception. This isn't a topic that just harms smokers and fat people. And it is wrong that it harms them, yes, absolutely. But the fact that it doesn't even save anyone outside of that demographic is, to me, what makes it a farcical idea to begin with. It leads to people assuming that heart conditions directly correlate with eating habits, or that diabetes and cancer have no genetic components, or telling a grieving mother whose child has microcephaly that her child would have been fine if she'd just worn bug spray to ward off the mosquitoes that gave her that Zika virus. The problem is that it can be applied to literally anything, and will be, because the emphasis is put on saying No to people instead of saying Yes to everyone. Even when people make mistakes, they deserve the chance to learn from them instead of just ending up dead or severely debilitated because of them. Because if we don't accept that, then we have to be okay with the idea that we're vilifying people who've made no mistakes too (which should be Wrong according to this doctrine, but apparently isn't seen as being as high of a priority as just letting the smokers die). Resist. >:U

[@bbqseitan7106]

As an inspiring nutritionist i do believe in a level of personal responsibility when it comes to your own personal health. BUT. BUT. BUT. I do believe helthcare is a human right. You can do both.

[@RenTheBarbarian]

13:55 That wink did things to me.

[@robertstuckey6407]

I saw Foucault on the thumbnail. I got ready to be depressed.

[@sydneyrica1802]

Robert Stuckey All the emotions of my junior year Political Philosophy and Power came flooding back. It’s sad when we recognize the face and immediately feel depressed. LOL

[@CezarPrado]

12:04-12:41 - I would add that, for Foucault, biopolitics is one face of the coin of biopower, which has the disciplines as the other face.. The discplines act in the individual level, and the biopolitics in the populational level, but both are intrinsically binded with each other - both are part of "biopower" or "the power on life" (so there is still a power being exercised upon the individual). See "History of Sexuality I - The Will to Knowledge", Chap. 5, paragraphs 5-6 (in fact, the whole chapter talks about biopower); it would be cool a video about this subject more in detail. Thanks for the video!

[@daisychains6866]

I made my "choice" to start smoking at age 6 bc as a so called "intellectually gifted" kid who also happened to be trans, I didn't have many friends in my age and wanted to appear older. When you're addicted to any substance at that age, it's really hard to quit. It took me more than 20 years and now I have asthma and get deprioritized. (And don't get me started on how all trans people are treated when applying for medical transition if your insurance is covering that at all.) I've also been raised as a vegetarian and became vegan years before I stopped smoking but that doesn't give my any benefit in the healthcare system.

[@kevinhengehold4387]

It's interesting that the studies of "who should get healthcare?" mostly focus on smoking and obesity - two things associated with lower-income people because (in the US, at least) managing stress with cigarettes is a lot easier than getting a psychiatrist to prescribe something if you don't have health insurance, and, due to irrational agriculture subsidies, a cheeseburger costs less than a head of broccoli. So - is this just a polite way of sneaking eugenics back into popular discussion?

[@astolat2262]

I don't know, though, if I had one set of lungs and two patients, a smoker and a Jemima, I'd definitely give the lungs to Jemima.

[@AzureScorch]

I was kind of (silently) on the fence on this issue but i think you've convinced me here.

[@MrAhYesh]

I have an exam on Postmodernism later today so thanks

[@annamuller1666]

8:00 this reminds me of a study where people had to distribute pain medication to people on photos, and did not seem to deem people who were depicted in a sexualized way (not sure if it was straight up pornographic) as worthy of pain relief as the others. So denial of medical treatment seems to be a thing concerning all groups that are objectified/ dehumanized.

[@lyadmilo]

Thank you for saying Latinx! Just a little thing, it is pronounced lateenex, not latincks :) Also, when speaking about systemic power inequalities with regards to the chronically ill, it is generally frowned upon to say things like "no matter what else is good in your life, if you're sick, you are going to be miserable." Yes, most people don't like being sick but there is an implicit value statement being made there about the worthiness of a sick life. Also it creates a divide between the sick-for-nows and the chronically ill, as well as being kinda totalizing/"you are your illness"-y. I am sick and I am happy. I am not happy to be sick, but I am sick and happy. Those are not contradictory. But overall great video as usual and thank you for engaging with disability studies and using your platform.

[@PhilosophyTube]

That's a very good point, thank you for bringing me up on it!

[@lyadmilo]

No problem! Thank you for responding!! Basically it is the division between the material and social models for looking at disability. Like trans and other lgbt identity issues for example: I'm queer, and yes I am going to be materially disadvantaged for that, but that doesn't make queerness a material bad, because it is the social models surrounding it that cause the material harm. It is a bit murkier for illness stuff obviously, not going to deny it. At a certain point, pain is pain is bad. But how much less would I struggle if on top of pain, I didn't have to worry about losing my job etc etc capitalist hellscape? I honestly cannot even conceive of how much less I would "suffer" while still being just as "sick". Thank you again, love your stuff.

[@Crispman_777]

lyadmilo Eh, I think that's more about mindset. Sure you can be sick and happy and your not going to say to a sick person "I bet your life's shit compared to a healthy person" but I don't know of a single physically ill/disabled person who wouldn't be more happy if they were completely physically fit.

[@TheWordsmythe]

FWIW, per the way you re-pronounced it is still a bit off from common use, which more or less still mirrors pronunciations of "latina" and "latino"--i.e., with the stress placed on the middle syllable.

[@nickgeffen8316]

Such a productive video, Ollie! Thanks so much. Also, that song at the end IS A LITERAL BANGER!

[@miriamquintana755]

Are you actually sick or is that a framing device? I'm assuming it's a framing device, but I'm not 100% sure. If it's not a framing device, I hope you feel better soon!

[@Bedevere]

@17:55 lets be clear that we make these choices based upon profit. We choose not to distribute spare resources because it isn't making anyone money, so we throw away food, etc.

[@germenmalvado]

Such a wonderful wink

[@Synerco]

You misspelled twink

[@nyaopei6773]

he’s totally an otter

[@andrewbenner6349]

JP fan here. I loved that smirk you had during your burn. That confidence will keep you high up on the dominance hierarchy ;)

[@mchschrm]

Anyone else watching this because of debates about how hospitals should handle unvaccinated people with Covid? That's how I ended up here...

[@ryanbenson4610]

I appreciate you breaking down this philosophy for me. In general I think a smoker or alcoholic should be last in line for transplants, but continuing that thinking as you have makes me question why I feel that way. Thank you.

[@Pfhorrest]

It doesn't seem like the principle of voluntary responsibility requires such an extreme conclusion as you describe, when you get such an abstract mixture of different resources and demands that you're just talking about it in terms of funding. Yes, if the same resources (funding) that could fix a smoker's lungs could also cure someone of a congenital cancer, then those resources should be spent on the cancer patient, but the money spent on the smoker is likely not going to be enough on its own to cure even one cancer patient. So you're letting one person definitely die right now to maybe contribute a tiny fraction of the saving of many lives some time far in the future. The principle needs to be applied within the same level of triage prioritization, not across levels.

[@ryansenger408]

A study with 283 people is actually quite a reasonable sample size - this would give you roughly a 95% confidence with a margin of error of about 5%. That means the confidence in the study could range from 90%-100% accurate.

[@firdosahmed2764]

I am lucky because I am a subscribet to philosophy Tub.👍👍

[@BR34DSQUAD]

I was born with multiple psychiatric disabilities that were untreated until I was an adult. So as a result, at the age of 14 due to how I had really bad anxiety and OCD, I would self medicate with cigarettes. They worked as a substitute for SSRIs in regulating my OCD especially, which I still can't take due to how I get severe side effects. Namely the suicidal impulses. That's a condition I was born with, and yet according to these wide generalisations about smokers I somehow chose to be disabled, and somehow chose to lack access to healthcare. On top of that, scientists have discovered a predisposition for neurodivergent people to have a higher likelihood of smoking. Something which medical experts are aware of as they read these studies regularly. As such, I would argue these kinds of policies, wherein you make a wide bureaucratic sweep to completely shut out an arbitrary segment of society is based on demographic research, and social engineering. That becomes even more alarming due to how most European nations have had a past of eugenics, and the clinical removal of neurodivergent people. I have no doubt in my mind that this is a continuation of eugenics. Because I notice far too many ''coincidences'' in the politics of healthcare. The healthcare we need is always the first to be defunded, the one with the least research and resources, the one with the least developed medication. They want to set up as many obstacles as possible to kill people that they deem undesirable. Smoking correlates not just with that, but also poverty and demanding jobs often found among the lower classes. It's correlated with people who can't cope properly under capitalism or in the education system. It's basically correlated with large groups of people who have a beef with the present day state of affairs, and its status quo. And I'm not saying that they are trying to actively or deliberately exterminate anyone. I just mean that the more problems these people have, the less likely they are to be able to somehow organise for any kind of meaningful change. By putting stress, grief, physical pain, illness and financial difficulties into these people's lives, then our leaders won't be as threatened by civil rights movements that might undermine their authority. And I know it's hard to cite all encompassing studies that tie all this together, since it's not like people in my social position are allowed in universities. In fact it's a paradox since if I was in a university I'd immediately have an elevated status. But I doubt I'm the only one with these experiences, and who can't help but notice how all these petty obstacles to survival will in a lot of cases compound, and when they do a lot of innocent people are killed whilst the general public are completely unaware.

[@romuloroman]

Does she still have that red robe? It looks great on her. She was fresh out of a suicide attempt if my calculations are correct. And transformed the experience in a questioning of who deserves a public healthcare system.

[@4nna5]

I feel like not enough is being said about the impact of advertising when considering things like obesity, smoking, etc... Surely if we were so concerned about the health of others, there would be a ban (or at least some restriction upon) adverts for junk food? Let's not forget the mass marketing of smoking to both men and women in the early 20th Century - the expression 'Torches of Freedom' springs to mind here. It is a sad truth that we are much more susceptible to marketing and advertising than we wish to believe. These problems will continue as long as we are under the thumb of corporations....

[@SebastianSeanCrow]

14:02 that wink, though, that smile... I’m super gay for this philosophy nerd lol 😂

[@steampunkerella]

another top tier video from ya, olly. you just keep knocking it out of the park

[@ob7022]

Yes Ted Cruz gave us a great example of somebody who has power over human lives back in his Zodiac days

[@1950sTardigrade]

'nobody gets a penny of healthcare until every cancer patient is cured' doesn't necessarily follow from 'choosing between a volunatiarly ill person and a accidentally ill person, the first should die.' The initial thought experiment just establishes that volition is a factor, it's obviously not the only one.

[@litcrit1624]

Let's not forget that when Foucault (much as I love him) talks about public hangings and quartering and quarantines and the physical compulsion of people and spaces -- he is almost always saying, "Ah! The good ol' days!"

[@jackbarman7063]

Seems like a closely related topic to “fault” and “deserving”. Many people point to these ideas to justify policy or action, but when you dig deeper they seem to often fall apart.

[@DarthDonut777]

"It's about power managing bodies" Mmm yeah it is

[@alexgroot2508]

The only issue I find in the reasoning you present is that things like organs ready for donation are not 'scarce by choice' - there are simply too few on offer. There is a very short window where an organ can be kept alive and transplanted in the event of a donor suddenly passing away, and many people on the transplant list simply pass away because there isn't one available at the time. Organs cant really be stored in a fringe, warmed with some olive oil and plopped into any given body. Scarcity is a very real issue there that we cant just resolve by 'choosing to do better'. I suppose we could theoratically make it so that everyone is a 'donor until you specifically anounce that you are not', but that raises a lot if ethical dillemas and philosophical problems in its own right.

[@slandersir7255]

13:53 Oh my god. Wow.

[@patrickcavanaghkilmartin]

Many people that abuse substances, whether it be alcohol or heroin, benzodiazepines etc. are often trying to block out trauma of the past, abuse done to them, or self medication of an undiagnosed neurological condition, e.g. ASD, ADHD.

[@animekitty4218]

Can someone be responsible for their actions if they don't fully understand the risks and consequences of such action? So, if a person eats a dodgy burger, are they responsible for any food poisoning they get ? They can't reasonably be expected to know the consequences of this one action. And if they aren't responsible do they then deserve healthcare or not? Those who smoke are almost always aware of the consequences, but those who eat that burger aren't necessarily, despite both actions being voluntary. This was probably mentioned in the video but I was making hot chocolate whilst listening and so may have missed it >.

[@KookiesNolly]

Albert Whisker if we are talking about people who were born back in the time when the tobacco industry was lying about the consequences of smoking then yes your argument is a good one but nowadays "ignorance" is not an excuse unless you couldn't even read the inscriptions or see the images on cigarette boxes because they all explicitly say that smoking kills so you've been warned​.

[@aaronchipp-miller9608]

It seems that in multiple times of this video you can flate the idea that we ought to maximize well-being and the good of the people with the idea that sick people shouldn't get help if they were responsible for their condition. These are separate questions that need to be addressed individually if resources are scarce for a particular good then it's not a question of if the sick should get the help that they need it's a question of if that help is best distributed to one group of people versus another and perhaps I missed it or misunderstood it but I didn't feel that the video appropriately addressed that point. That being said I definitely agree with the idea that and Wealthy countries everyone should and most likely can get the medical help that they need and it really isn't a question of resource allocation at all I'm more talking about the philosophical question that was raised in the beginning of the video. Thanks for the great content I always enjoy it