Page 10

Update item information
Title I don't know ... yet
Subject Medicine--Philosophy
Description The 44th Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator Peterson, Chase N.
Publisher Frederick William Reynolds Association
Date 1981-02-11
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1200
Source R723 .P44
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "I don't know ... yet," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6sb43q8
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-08-04
ID 320459
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 10
Description ) CHASE N. PETERSON ow to match technology with illness so that we can go beyond the assical but cynical observation that "the operation was successful ut the patient died." Finally, we are becoming aware as a profes-on, and slowly as a people, of the overwhelming importance of the nderstanding of the role of genetics and self-care in the mainte-ance of one's health. To make this point, Victor Fuchs described in is book, Who Shall Live?, the death rates for cirrhosis and lung incer and associated alcohol/tobacco intakes in Nevada as com-ared with Utah. Nevada with the greater alcohol and tobacco intake iceeded Utah by a margin of roughly three fold for men and omen over 30 years of age.13 We rely too heavily now on medicine » keep us healthy when we must carry the major role in our own ealth. The late John Knowles, former head of the Massachusetts eneral Hospital and Rockefeller Foundation, and a man not in-equently inclined to good Scotch said it this way. "The cost of sloth, uttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy, id smoking is now a national, and not an individual, responsibility, his is justified as individual freedom â€" but one man's freedom in salth is another man's shackle in taxes and insurance premiums. I *lieve the idea of a "right" to health should be replaced by the idea f an individual moral obligation to preserve one's own health â€" a ublic duty if you will. The individual then has the "right" to expect sip with information, accessible services of good quality, and inimal financial barriers." "When it is all said and done," Dr. nowles reminds us, however, "let us not forget that he who hates n, hates humanity."14 There are negative as well as positive sides to the new interest in edical art and science. Therein lies our question of the tension ;tween answers and questions. First of all, if the technological iccess of medicine has led us to expect that all problems have lswers, then, when science fails to provide an answer to a new mptom or a new anxiety, many are tempted to turn impatiently id paradoxically to the unproved, the anecdotal and the non-ience â€" a new folk art medicine if you will. We expect answers 'en if science cannot provide them. Some also seem to turn to 3n-science out of fear of the very science we worship, fear of its :moteness and coldness, fear of its known occasional side effects, ar of its presumed intrusion into our bodies. We also fear for the ncertainty of the non-answer and we run the risk of mis-applying kh and 19th Century warnings about quackery to an era when we, fact, do have proven medicines and procedures. Such is a mis-:ading of history analogous to an observation attributed to Presi-
Format application/pdf
Identifier 016-RNLT-PetersonCN_Page 10.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: I don't know ... yet by Chase N. Peterson.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320450
Reference URL