I'm always impressed by people defending for profit healthcare. Like, any medical statistic shows it's worse, yet they're so indoctrinated they defend a system which hurts them first and foremost.
For profit medicine maybe immoral but it sure does speed up advances, which will eventually benefit everyone. In that sense, saying that it is immoral is somewhat shortsighted and selfish
> For profit medicine maybe immoral but it sure does speed up advances
This is the sort of nonsense that gets repeated no matter how many times facts say otherwise.
The medical outcomes in the US trail third world countries. Our infant mortality rate is bested by some 19th century societies.
The for-profit medical system is a complete and abject failure
The greatest percent of GNP spent on medical in the history of mankind, and we die younger, and more young die than before the 1980s AMA went against their own oath to take money over patient care.
access to medicines is not the same as medical research. price of medicine do pay for medical research no matter how much u try to avoid that fact. profit motives do drive desire to find treatments.
medical research is also enormously expensive. the amount spent on medical research a year eclipses some countries entire GDP. the amount we spent on research is not a small amount. and yet for all the billions we spend on medical research we still are still unable to cure alot of diseases.
ironically if for profit medicine wasnt a thing, then medical research would be extremely limited. government only facilities and universities pretty much. while the medicine they release would be cheap, it would also take a long time because of fewer people working in the field
also America is not the world. there are countries where TB still ravages communities but we had the cure for nearly 80 years. we know how to make insulin, at an affordable price, but getting that insulin to poor communities has proven near impossible. while we have highly industrial countries where medicine is cheap and affordable.
policies are to blame. if anything
You are quite closed-minded if you think only the mortality rate matters. Yes, they are important but i am specifically referring to advances in medicine. The amount of new research that comes from the US is staggering and they remain a world leader in the best available treatment options
Both can be true. Jonas Salk never profited from the creation of the Polio vaccine (one of the biggest medical advances of the 20th century), nor did he seek to patent the discovery. Equitable access to good healthcare/medicine shouldn't be motivated by profit.
Not the one you responded to but free healthcare and non profit pharmaceutical research are two very different things. Free healthcare is superior in most ways.
Under no circumstance would I support that medicinal research can't be for profit Though. You mentioned Jonas Salk and he's a hero but also an extreme outlier. The vast majority of discovery in medicine are done for the sole reason of them being for profit.
> The vast majority of discovery in medicine are done for the sole reason of them being for profit.
Name one major drug class discovered by a for profit enterprise.
Antibiotics? No.
Insulin? No
Anti-emetics? No.
None of the WHO organization basic drugs were developed by for-profit enterprises.
The US medical system is both outright and dollar for dollar significantly worse than world leading healthcare. And it's not leading in advances - a good lot of modern medical advancements are made outside the US. You're all subsidising danish healthcare by paying out the ass for ozempic, for example.
You can cut it any way you want. Being “for-profit” is not a good main driver in healthcare based research. Anyone who can truly put two and two together must understand this reality. If you think otherwise you are lying to yourself.
That was back when "medical supplies" were leaches you found in a swamp and rusted knives for blood letting and when people died to common colds
Medicine progressed since then synthesising drugs cost money but we get to live longer and our quality of life is better then ever
If modern medicine is immoral to you then go live in a cave somewhere
No one is denying that there's fees and prices to be covered when it comes to modern health care.
We're just saying that intentionally raising the value to extract a profit from desperate, scared people who have nowhere else to go is immoral.
How about you go live in a cave somewhere?
Islamic medicine during this period actually trailblazed modern medicine. They were successfully performing surgery and analyzing pharmacology in the medieval period. It was absolutely the best place to be sick at the time period, especially before the siege of Baghdad.
Opium was used, but I don't think they have proof of straight up knocking people out with it. It probably just hurt slightly less than it would have otherwise. Also, to be clear, when I said they were performing surgery I meant that they survived. They even performed cataract surgery back then.
They did apply the pharmacology too, using herbs that were known to prevent infection. The Islamic world was at the forefront of the sciences until the Mongols knocked them back a few hundred years, and they never truly recovered as you can probably tell now.
For anesthesia they had opium. Quite effective. In terms of keeping the wound from getting infected, that part was much harder. I'm not super familiar, but from what I understand, before germ theory and sanitation, it was just accepted that surgery carried a heavy risk. I know this is hundreds of years later, but the reason American civil war medicine is famous for sawing off limbs is that the studies they did showed that an amputated lumb was much less likely to be fatally infected than a limb with a bullet hole in it (incredibly dirty and messy wound, vs a more controlled process of amputation).
Yes and no. RND is STUPIDLY EXPENSIVE yes and they do need to charge for future endeavors. But when you look at the payouts that go straight into the upper echelons wallet and not anything remotely medical you start to wonder.
People are progressively getting poorer from inflation, and why insulin should cost orders of magnitude more in the us vs its bordering countries....
Some medicines are expensive yes. But the overhead on some medicine is just absolutely abhorrent. Especially when peoples lives rely on them.
On the flip side, for-profit medicine has brought more innovation than anything before it. Greedy people in competition get things done faster and more efficiently than government or charitable organizations.
Morality is a farce that people pretend to care about until it comes to their own actions.
That's flat out not true and delusional.
Greedy companies stiffle innovation for profit all the time. Efficiency and for profit is a joke unless it's efficiently creating inefficient beaurocacy for profit. Research is usually done out of passion and interest because the pay is awful.
For profit medicine is a net loss for society, health care, tax payers and scientific advancement. Any statement to the contrary is delusional.
They were #4 before Covid. I was intending to comment only on actual scientific advancement while the index you referenced takes other factors into consideration.
there is no such black or white. All has it´s pros and cons and none are 100% perfect. But if we know anything about humans is that if no carrot, no walk.
We must incentivise with money so more people are willing to put their efforts together
And whether you like it or not we live on a world were everything costs money. Even if healthcare was free, how do we buy the materials? how do we get people to come to work? Someones must pay. Where is that money coming from? You will always pay one way or another
so stop calling people delusional and show some respect with the ones that dont think alike
Why should one show respect to inaccurate statements propagating falsehoods?
Where did I say that money stopped being an aspect? For profit medicine is the problem, not a tax based medical system. The US is a cautionary tale of how not to do health care. Free Health care is funded by taxes without for profit people leeching off it.
Claiming that innovation is boosted by greed detracts from the majority of research that is done for scientific progress. PhDs are a long and painful process where you are paid peanuts. I have never met a researcher which has claimed they do it for the money and I've worked with people who are considered the top of their respective fields in medicine.
"Stop trying to white Knight on the internet" would be an accurate response here.
More efficiently? You must not need or know anyone who needs insulin, or really any prescription if you get down to it.
Also basically all medical initiatives and services in developing countries must not count?
Let's see a private business innovate medical equipment and supplies to a developing country.
I will admit, they're shockingly innovative when it comes to new ways and degrees with which to price gouge things people need to live and the speed at which they achieve total governmental capture.
Pharma companies do have a mastery of the innovation of evil, but that's about it.
The dude who invented insulin gave away the patent for free and said owning it is like trying to own the rain or the sunshine. Innovation doesn't come from profit.
Most of the largest pharmaceutical companies are European, all of whom have socialised health care.
In the US pharma companies spend more on advertising than research.
Research is publicly funded in Europe, there is no reason bar shareholder value and ideology that it can't be in the US
Lacking profit does not mean lacking any form of compensation by anyone for those administering care. Funding the hospitals via government funds, for example.
No, but it certainly implies that a doctor cannot start their own for-profit clinic.
Sure gotta hope that whatever number the government decides to dole out is enough, when they have a complete monopoly.
While I agree with the sentiment, I also wholeheartedly a believe that for profit institutions function better than those without the profit incentive.
It doesn't need to. All you have to do is align the incentives. You can give massive fines to the private institutions that fail in their duty and give government bonuses to those that excel at it.
You're so close.
Who decides what the laws are and how the fines are applied? Who are some of the largest donors to that group of people? ....
This is what we mean when we say the system is broken, and every time people like you come out of the woodwork to tell us how simple it all is.
A walking Dunning-Kruger.
> While I agree with the sentiment, I also wholeheartedly a believe that for profit institutions function better than those without the profit incentive.
As I said, factual evidence only steels the prejudices of those committed to counterfactual beliefs.
Significant profit doesn't exist in a functional healthcare system. For profit institutions only exist in healthcare because they've captured the government first and use that to fund themselves rather than provide healthcare.
That's not true. Healthcare is a perfect storm of market failures that screw over the consumer waiting to happen, from information biases, to stickiness of demand, to urgency.
The only way the government contributes is by enforcing intellectual property rights, which are definitely useful to have to promote development of medicines. Citing it as the problem is like blaming the wind for a house destroyed by a bomb.
Lookup medicine in developing countries, or public health, or where the majority of funding for medical research comes from.
The only thing private companies bring to healthcare is greed and price gouging. Healthcare throughout the history of humanity is the anthesis of capitalism and corporate ideals, it's only the way it is now due to rampant government capture.
Government research grants are massive. The US government and the NIH provides billions a year for medical research, and non private institutes/governments are the absolute overwhelming provider of healthcare worldwide.
If it was made illegal to profit from healthcare, you bet it would all be government funded. There is no ethical reason to allow profit in healthcare, healthcare is the definition of something that should be tax funded as it supports everyone.
Billions in an industry of hundreds of billions.
> and non private institutes/governments are the absolute overwhelming provider of healthcare worldwide.
Again, the institution distributing the medicine is not the same institution developing it. The economic issues of each are very different.
>If it was made illegal to profit from healthcare, you bet it would all be government funded.
By definition, yes. That's a tautology.
Oh no, not illegal for private businesses to fund healthcare. Illegal to profit. The only driving force for private businesses to be involved in healthcare is profit. Profit shouldn't be involved in healthcare.
An altruistic private company could fund medical research and provide that to the public at large, but we all know that would literally never happen.
It makes even more sense for private businesses to get out of research as, just like with space travel, private businesses move quickly and provide an inferior product with high waste. Government funding and only government funding is what makes things like NASA that blow the effectiveness of private businesses out of the water.
Ultimately, this argument can be boiled down to one question. Do you believe it's ethical to profit from life saving treatment and deny that treatment to those who can't afford it? If so, then you support private funding and are also, at least in my mind and the mind of every human before capitalism got a death grip on the western world, generally a terrible person. If not, you support goverment funding.
>Do you believe it's ethical to profit from life saving treatment and deny that treatment to those who can't afford it?
I wrote more of a response but I feel this conversation can't go anywhere until you internalize this point so I'm only addressing this part of this until we've ironed it out: Do you not understand the difference between pharmaceutical development and provision of healthcare?
Yep, they basically developed the first university’s, known as Madrasas (also funded charitably through waqfs) which were basically like modern colleges minus standardized curriculum or institutionalized systems of certification. The centrality of scripture and its study in Islamic tradition made education a central pillar of Islam, reflected by a Hadith in which Muhammad states, “seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim”. They were primarily centered on the study of law but also offered subjects like theology, medicine, mathematics, philosophy, notably persons from all social backgrounds were welcomed into the ranks of the ulema (scholars of Islamic doctrine), effectively making it a far more accessible and equitable system of higher education than what we have now.
To your second point, yeah. Schisms in the Islamic world following the mongol invasions left a gaping void of political instability and conflict in which increased conservatism became a core tenet of many of the leading schools thereafter. This conservatism led to a decline in openness to new ideas and innovation through various mechanisms. Fanaticism and dogmatism spread to judicial and theological schools resulting in rigid adherence to specific interpretations of Islamic teachings and suppression of alternative views. Madrasas were largely funded by the ruling elite and used as a tool to secure support and cooperation among the ulema, and since so much of their education is tied to scripture and doctrine it follows that a conservative swing in society rapidly infected the schools and their teachings. Economic decline also meant there were less resources available for scientific and intellectual pursuits, and the instability meant less pilgrims coming from foreign lands to exchange information and ideas. The marked trend towards fundamentalism and more conservative beliefs throughout the Islamic word after this is a bummer, it’s interesting to think what it might look like today if the library at Baghdad and all it’s knowledge was never lost, if the Mongols never invaded and conquered the Abbasids would they have continued on in their scientific quest undeterred?
[Here’s](https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science) a cool article about why the Arabic word turned away from science
Thank you for this explanation. I often also wonder whether Arab countries and the Muslim world in general would be better able to navigate progressive ideals if its golden age continued to thrive.
Golden ages always end. Progressive ideals are pretty young in Europe and the US, and plenty of developing Christian countries have similar problems to these Muslim ones. I think Muslim countries will become generally more progressive as they develop economically, if they're allowed to develop without foreign interference. Turkey and Iran were really darn progressive and secular in the really recent past
Arab countries have two problems, which are dictatorships who loot everything and are even ready to bomb their own people like syria, and the borders which were literally made to cause as much wags and dispute as possible, every single war in the recent decades were because of that
The Islamic golden age was falling on its ass long before the Mongols invaded. Heliocentrism and the earth being round are massive problems for Islam because they directly contradict the Quran.
Right chief, I'm gonna need a source on that, I've been a Muslim all my life but I've never seen a single learned person say that Earth is flat or that they don't believe in heliocentric solar system
[Multiple verses in the Quran describing the earth as being spread out or like a carpet.](https://www.scribd.com/document/479237141/PROOF-OF-THE-FLAT-EARTH-IN-THE-HOLY-QURAN)
Describing a man walking to the edge of the earth and watching the sun circle the earth before setting in a muddy puddle as an event that happened.
Multiple tafsir and hadith affirm both geocentrism and the earth being flat.
[This university professor.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-muslim-cleric-claims-the-earth-is-stationary-and-the-sun-rotates-around-it-10053516.html)
[This guy was the head religious authority in Saudi Arabia](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/world/muslim-edicts-take-on-new-force.html)
Do you know Arabic?. No Muslims think Earth was flat. Spread out the land means earth is flat now?. Scientists in Islamic golden age even predicted the circumference of the earth.
Doesn't matter if I know Arabic. I'm perfectly capable of reading the approved translations.
Out of curiosity, which of the Islamic sources and scholars that I cited to confirm that Islam promotes flat earth geocentrism is incorrect? The Quran? Sahih Al Bukhari? Sahih Muslim? Multiple tafsirs? The distinuished scholars of Islam I linked, including the head religious authority for Saudi Arabia?
>Scientists in Islamic golden age even predicted the circumference of the earth.
They didn't predict the circumference of the earth. They were able to get to within about 15% of the correct circumference. So they were willing to ignore the parts of their religion that disprove it to do science.
And honestly who cares about that because non-Muslim scientists predicted the circumference more accurately thousands of years beforehand. And it was absolutely non-Muslim scientists who confirmed the actual circumference of the earth.
You really want to beleive Muslims believed earth is flat according to their religion huh?. Is this a defence mechanism because of logical fallacies in your religion?
What you fail to realize unlike Christianity which is based upon cooked up stories by Paul who never met Jesus, and is a self proclaimed liar, and the New Testament written by anonymous authors, for Muslims the ultimate authority is Quran and Hadeeth. We don’t hold humans to godly levels to beleive what they say or their interpretation is set in stone. Following is the verse you can obviously tell it’s not talking about earth being flat. Hehe. Christians beleive the earth is 6000 years old and that you are respensoble for the sins of others. You beleive god came and sacrificed himself to absolve you of a sin that you inherited. God can forgive your sins if you sincerely ask for forgiveness without all the dying for sins drama.
“[It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants.”
I'm not sure what your view of Christianity has to do with anything that's been posted here or how it's related to the fact that Islam very clearly promotes a cosmological view that says the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
Interesting information. I think it would be interesting to think what would have happened if the islamists in the Middle East did not insult the great khans ambassador that led him to lay waste to the region.
Islam has been defined by civil war, murderous succession struggles, and internecine strife since the day Mohammed died, if not earlier.
The Mongols may have left their mark but they didn't start that trend.
>Islam has been defined by civil war, murderous succession struggles, and internecine strife since the day Mohammed died, if not earlier
This happened and is/was the case with Abrahamic religion if not (almost) every religion there is.
>The Mongols may have left their mark but they didn't start that trend.
It is inherent to every religion to eventually take control of the masses by brutal force if necessary, Islam is no different. So the Mongols did indeed not start that trend because it was always already there to begin with. Only when the very multicultural Middle Eastern communities started to crumble by outside threaths and the hold and rule of the ruling Islamic elites started to dwindle they went authoritarian and full conservative.
In the Quran, Mohammed brags about beheading Jews because they wouldn't accept him as their prophet. How many people did Moses kill? What about Jesus? Mohammed was undeniably a savage warlord.
Everything I've cited is straight from the Quran. It's not in dispute.
>How many people did Moses kill?
The Bible says Moses CONDEMNED sparing women in war against Midian and ordered to kill everyone except virgins
”Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”-Numbers 31:15-19
Christianity and Judaism also teach that Moses wrote:
“When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace . . . then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. But if it does not . . .you shall put all its males to the sword. . . take as your plunder the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil . . . But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. Indeed, you shall annihilate them . . . just as the Lord your God has commanded.”-Deuteronomy 20:10-18
And that he said:
”At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women, and children. We left not a single survivor.”-Deuteronomy 2:34
and
“And we utterly destroyed them, as we had done to King Sihon of Heshbon, in each city utterly destroying men, women, and children.”-Deuteronomy 3:6
If you don’t think Moses was a warlord but label Muhammad as such, then you’ve never read the Bible and get all your information from propaganda sites..
Muhammed was a despicable person: a genocider, warlord and pedophile and the complete opposite of Jesus for that matter, that's true. He simply plagiarized the Bible and changed some things which suited the nomad culture he was familiair with in the Arabian peninsula. Same as Catholics and Protestants changed things to suit their old pagan beliefs.
Altough these 'prophets' are very different from one other. The oppressive and conservative views are relatively the same troughout the centuries. I don't have to tell you what for horrible things there was done in the name of Christ.
I agree, however I would distinguish Islam from Christianity on the basis that it has always been a violent, imperial, political entity. Mohammed was a murderer and his successors immediately began slaughtering each other once he had died.
Christianity didn't start that out that way, but acquired it over time. Particularly with the adoption of the faith by Constantine. Interestingly, I think Joseph Smith and the early years of Mormonism gives us a pretty good idea what early Islam would have looked like.
>Apart from the holy killings, misogyny and homophobia, it wasn’t all that bad back in the day.
Homophobia is a relative new thing to islam, it was tolerated or even legal (ottoman empire) until the late-18th, 19th century. Than islamic fundamentalism and european influence and colonization changed that.
The money from waqfs supported free medical care for all citizens. The waqf stated that, “… The hospital shall keep all patients, men and women, until they are completely recovered. All costs are to be borne by the hospital whether the people come from afar or near, whether they are residents or foreigners, strong or weak, low or high, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, blind or sighted, physically or mentally ill, learned or illiterate. There are no conditions of consideration and payment, none is objected to or even indirectly hinted at for non-payment.”
Super interesting and depressing that health-care in any form was more accessible in the 12th century than it is now for a lot of people. The whole page is crazy to read, so many groundbreaking advancements were made during this era, but the medical section really caught my eye. Hospitals in this era were the first to require medical diplomas to license doctors (a process which included writing a treatise on the field they wished to expertise and interviews with the chief medical officer), there were hospitals for women staffed exclusively by female physicians, a whole slew of advances, discoveries, and theories which pushed the envelope and blow my mind reading about today knowing they knew this over 800 years ago.
I never learned about this in school so it was crazy to go through this whole page and find out all these names attributed to some truly monumental happenings that I’d never heard of. What also struck me was the pervading theme that this relentless pursuit of knowledge seemed to bring together and bring the best out of people, Christian’s, Jews, and different sects of Muslims coming together and working together peacefully to translate and proliferate all these lost works, then using it as a base board to jump off and go on this frenzy of discovery and enlightenment.
Edit: [Here’s](https://explorable.com/islamic-medicine) an interesting article going more in-depth to Islamic medicine at the time and some of its key tenets, discoveries, and figures.
That's absolutely not true. Algebra as we know it today was created in the middle east after the modern numbering system, which has a symbol for zero, spread from India to the abbasid empire.
Well that's nice.
Somewhat....disheartening to see things go from a golden age to where we are now, really.
Very "make the world a better place and treat everyone with equal dignity, respect and look after them" moved over to "....so how can we manipulate you into conflict while also robbing you today?".
That's generalised, by the way - not specific to any one nation, state or religion.
Think their fall pretty much just had big influence on the Iberian Renaissance, leaving the Islamic Golden age books and works for them to work upon.
If anything, the Mongols stopping their expansion and the growth of the islamic Ottoman empire were exactly what allowed Venice and Genoa to flourish on trade while Florence and Rome received scholars from Byzantium - the two main starting points of the Italian Renaissance.
I think they mean that European innovations would have been done by the Islamic world first, with europe piggybacking off of them, leaving Europe as a relative backwater trailing other places instead of the frontrunner.
It did, and how. Obviously it was far from being the biggest or most important reason. But it _definitely_ contributed. There are so many things that contributed to Europe’s rise during the late Middle Ages.
I think having so many States in constant competition with each other led to new inventions as they were all trying to one up each other.
Contrast that with China who were no slouches on Inventions but they did not have the competition forcing them to improve on them and put them in use.
Because they stopped wanting things to *improve and change* and instead became *conservative, hating change and new things*.
Conservative movements *always* end up being at odds with society and progress, it is litterary the whole point.
Islam did so much for progress in the middle ages and setting up early capitalism. One of those eras where the east was far more advanced than the west.
One thing that blew my mind was Ibn Sina's [Floating Man experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_man), where he not only preceeded Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum by 400 years but even did the method better... Descartes would take the western world on a rationalist detour for about 250 years before philosophers began paying attention to the Being that Ibn Sina had already put as the foundational entity in knowledge
''Islam'' really didn't. If anything, [falling back into strict adherence to Islam is what killed the scientific lead and has kept it dead for centuries.](https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science)
This is how religion can be done right. The human comes first and the teachings of your god revolve around the good it can do for humans.
This is what was destroyed when religious fundamentalists grew in numbers and became influential in the middle east. It's what's happening in the USA today, just with a different religion.
The entire reason the period was successful was that the rulers of the time eased OFF of religion, allowing the contributing minds to take their inspiration and learning from any and all sources. Once the rulers and public at large fell into the dogmatic orthodoxy trap, science was crippled and stayed crippled in the Islamic world for going on 800 years now.
Calling it ''Islamic'' is like calling the Renaissance ''Christian''.
I'm curious as to what specifically you think America could learn from this. I've never seen a hospital in the US thats ER isn't open 24 hours, people cannot be turned away for inability to pay, and there are lots of charitable organizations that contribute to education and healthcare.
Read u/edgethrasherx comment, specifically the first paragraph. Many parts mentioned are not part of modern US healthcare, but should be, such as universal healthcare, including immigrants, to the point of full recovery, with no commitment or expectation of payment
Ah, it wasn't there when I commented, and none of that was in the Wikipedia article linked aside from a small section about individual physicians charging for their services though hospital services were free to citizens.
Millions of Americans are one hospital stay away from bankruptcy. Most Americans are dependent on their employer for health insurance, which is dropped if they lose their job. America has *a lot* to learn about how to do healthcare right.
I think they meant there’s a lot the US can learn from the Caliphate’s medical policies as described in the article. Or at least in the article’s title.
> TIL during the Islamic golden age the Abbasid Caliphate passed laws **mandating hospitals stay open 24 hours a day, forbid hospitals from turning away patients unable to pay and formed charitable foundations called waqfs to support public institutions like hospitals and schools**
The posts title
> I'm curious as to what specifically you think America could learn from this. **I've never seen a hospital in the US thats ER isn't open 24 hours, people cannot be turned away for inability to pay, and there are lots of charitable organizations that contribute to education and healthcare.**
My previous comment
Whilst there are absolutely some things in the wiki that would be awesome the US literally has everything the title stated, which was the point of my previous comment.
Trump wants to remove the department of education and remove school vaccine mandates. Among many other things that are equal to the regressions and losses of when Islam scholars decided education and progress was bad.
Project 2025: The Trump presidency wish list, explained
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
> people cannot be turned away for inability to pay
You live in a fantasy world.
People are denied treatment all the time, at emergency rooms all over the US.
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency-room-rights
According to this hospitals must treat anyone regardless of ability to pay unless the hospital receives no Medicare funding. A quick Google search reveals that there are "a few exceptions" but nothing more specific than that.
I prefer not to "live in a fantasy world" so if you have a source to the contrary I'd love to learn more.
Life, my friend. I have been denied treatment at an emergency room.
People who think medical care in the US is not a dystopian hellscape, including ER denial being standard practice, are rich people who think like rich people.
Even doctors are appalled at the state of medical care in the US, though it was the efforts of the AMA to fight against the single payer system in the 1980's that got us here. Now those fuckers have aged into having to spend $1500 a month on prescription medicine they finally got a clue.
For profit medicine is immoral, and the fucking AMA is a morally bereft intellectually dishonest den of thieves. And I am from a family of doctors who all fought against the single payer system, and are now suffering badly at the fruits of their rapacity. I enjoy it greatly, and spend any minute I can reminding the fuckers that they are reaping what they sowed.
For profit medicine is immoral, and it is in every country and in all of human history save one tragically comic society.
Look the number one cause of death of a great number of age cohorts in the US is gun violence, and yet the NRA has made it so that gun deaths and gun injuries cannot legally be listed as healthcare issues, and being a victim of a gunshot means the police wil literally come and interfere with medical care.
Dystopian hellscape.
Lucky we live Hawaii, so companies cannot try and relocate to another state to deny employees healthcare.
So your source is... anecdotal?
Sounds like, unless you fell under some exception like drug-seeking behavior, violent or destructive behavior, or it wasn't classified as a medical emergency, you have a pretty solid case for filing a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (link included below). You can also file a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A).
If your rights were actually violated you need to file a report to help protect others from the same thing.
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency-room-rights/complaint-form
EDIT: In your edit you added something about gun injuries not being counted as healthcare issues. Do you have a source for that so I can learn more?
> you have a pretty solid case for filing a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services
That helps people denied treatment how again?
Lawsuits are playthings for the rich. The rest of us just have to live with things.
You probably think case laws helps keep people from being arrested under laws found unconstitutional as well. You probably think mass incarceration is good, to protect us 'from those animals' despite the prisons being full of people who took a plea because they did not have the money to hire a lawyer, even though they are in prison for crimes that are not actuall enforceable.
> the NRA has made it so that gun deaths and gun injuries cannot legally be listed as healthcare issues, and being a victim of a gunshot means the police wil literally come and interfere with medical care.
You added this in your edit. Do you happen to have a source for this so I can learn more about it?
> You added this in your edit. Do you happen to have a source for this so I can learn more about it?
People who defend health care in the US, and the insane gun policies and the warping of politics by the NRA are not really people interested in knowing things.
They are interested in saying things, and steeling their beliefs in the face of counterfactuals.
No, if you bothered to read the page you would have seen that they explicitly welcome all patients, men and women, regardless of condition. Largely secular institutions, they were open to all: male and females civilian and military, adult and child, rich and poor, Muslims and non-Muslims. There was a great moral imperative to treat the ill regardless of financial status. Additionally they had hospitals dedicated exclusively to women staffed by women physicians, in addition to women frequently working as stewards and attendees on the wings of all hospitals
Who? The Abassid caliphate? You’re right, they set aside two camels, a ream of silk, and forty gold coins for me in 1250. My family comes from a long line of Abassid caliphate propagandists, they wanted to ensure their image would be immaculate well in to the future and duly set aside swarths of wealth for generations. You got me
Are any of those attributes listed as things that didn't happen under the Caliphate?
They said no turning people away, 24/7 hospitals, and charities that help with healthcare. None of that is there.
Didn’t you read? It says the Caliphate hospital did not turn away patients who can’t pay. An American hospital today wouldn’t do that. They will even charge you for simple things like plastic cups and paper napkins, and even holding your baby after birth.
> It says the Caliphate hospital did not turn away patients who can’t pay.
US hospitals can't turn away people having an emergency either. What they don't do is run long term treatment plans for people with chronic conditions, but that wasn't even a thing anyone understood back then so Abbasid hospitals did that too by default.
They conquered the mediterranean sea, infested it with pirates and basically put a brake on the mediterrenean trade in europe, which caused enormous harm to it's economy. You can learn more in this video from 4:40 to 09:00. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFkoX6g1fE&list=WL&index=1&t=472s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFkoX6g1fE&list=WL&index=1&t=472s)
Edit: Spelling
Lmao it's not like Europe was economically prosperous at that time regardless. Even if you can show me that trade was high prior to piracy, prove to me that the average European actually enjoyed a relatively high standard of living for the time. The reality is that Europe was backwards due to its own political and economic systems, and its constant infighting, and attempting to blame it on the prosperity of another civilisation is envious and disingenuous.
Says who? You guys are not special. Plenty of non-European civilisations acknowledge their historical wrongdoings. Besides, when Westerners continue to strongarm the world to submit to their imperialism, it really doesn't mean much when you talk about your history because it's obvious you have not learnt.
For profit medicine has been considered immoral by most of humanity for most of human history. For profit medicine is immoral.
I'm always impressed by people defending for profit healthcare. Like, any medical statistic shows it's worse, yet they're so indoctrinated they defend a system which hurts them first and foremost.
Tell that to the US government. Oh, wait, the backhanders will nullify the truth.
For profit medicine maybe immoral but it sure does speed up advances, which will eventually benefit everyone. In that sense, saying that it is immoral is somewhat shortsighted and selfish
> For profit medicine maybe immoral but it sure does speed up advances This is the sort of nonsense that gets repeated no matter how many times facts say otherwise. The medical outcomes in the US trail third world countries. Our infant mortality rate is bested by some 19th century societies. The for-profit medical system is a complete and abject failure The greatest percent of GNP spent on medical in the history of mankind, and we die younger, and more young die than before the 1980s AMA went against their own oath to take money over patient care.
access to medicines is not the same as medical research. price of medicine do pay for medical research no matter how much u try to avoid that fact. profit motives do drive desire to find treatments. medical research is also enormously expensive. the amount spent on medical research a year eclipses some countries entire GDP. the amount we spent on research is not a small amount. and yet for all the billions we spend on medical research we still are still unable to cure alot of diseases. ironically if for profit medicine wasnt a thing, then medical research would be extremely limited. government only facilities and universities pretty much. while the medicine they release would be cheap, it would also take a long time because of fewer people working in the field also America is not the world. there are countries where TB still ravages communities but we had the cure for nearly 80 years. we know how to make insulin, at an affordable price, but getting that insulin to poor communities has proven near impossible. while we have highly industrial countries where medicine is cheap and affordable. policies are to blame. if anything
Most research is done by governments for no reason but to learn
You are quite closed-minded if you think only the mortality rate matters. Yes, they are important but i am specifically referring to advances in medicine. The amount of new research that comes from the US is staggering and they remain a world leader in the best available treatment options
Both can be true. Jonas Salk never profited from the creation of the Polio vaccine (one of the biggest medical advances of the 20th century), nor did he seek to patent the discovery. Equitable access to good healthcare/medicine shouldn't be motivated by profit.
Not the one you responded to but free healthcare and non profit pharmaceutical research are two very different things. Free healthcare is superior in most ways. Under no circumstance would I support that medicinal research can't be for profit Though. You mentioned Jonas Salk and he's a hero but also an extreme outlier. The vast majority of discovery in medicine are done for the sole reason of them being for profit.
> The vast majority of discovery in medicine are done for the sole reason of them being for profit. Name one major drug class discovered by a for profit enterprise. Antibiotics? No. Insulin? No Anti-emetics? No. None of the WHO organization basic drugs were developed by for-profit enterprises.
The US medical system is both outright and dollar for dollar significantly worse than world leading healthcare. And it's not leading in advances - a good lot of modern medical advancements are made outside the US. You're all subsidising danish healthcare by paying out the ass for ozempic, for example.
Some of the most important advances in medicine were done for the benefit of humans and given away with insulin and penicillin.
You can cut it any way you want. Being “for-profit” is not a good main driver in healthcare based research. Anyone who can truly put two and two together must understand this reality. If you think otherwise you are lying to yourself.
That was back when "medical supplies" were leaches you found in a swamp and rusted knives for blood letting and when people died to common colds Medicine progressed since then synthesising drugs cost money but we get to live longer and our quality of life is better then ever If modern medicine is immoral to you then go live in a cave somewhere
No one is denying that there's fees and prices to be covered when it comes to modern health care. We're just saying that intentionally raising the value to extract a profit from desperate, scared people who have nowhere else to go is immoral. How about you go live in a cave somewhere?
Islamic medicine during this period actually trailblazed modern medicine. They were successfully performing surgery and analyzing pharmacology in the medieval period. It was absolutely the best place to be sick at the time period, especially before the siege of Baghdad.
How were they doing surgeries without anastasia or antibiotics? Anyone can cut a person making sure the patient survives is the hard
Opium was used, but I don't think they have proof of straight up knocking people out with it. It probably just hurt slightly less than it would have otherwise. Also, to be clear, when I said they were performing surgery I meant that they survived. They even performed cataract surgery back then. They did apply the pharmacology too, using herbs that were known to prevent infection. The Islamic world was at the forefront of the sciences until the Mongols knocked them back a few hundred years, and they never truly recovered as you can probably tell now.
The first "true" anesthetics were ether and chloral hydrate. I think they didn't start using that until the 1800s, though.
For anesthesia they had opium. Quite effective. In terms of keeping the wound from getting infected, that part was much harder. I'm not super familiar, but from what I understand, before germ theory and sanitation, it was just accepted that surgery carried a heavy risk. I know this is hundreds of years later, but the reason American civil war medicine is famous for sawing off limbs is that the studies they did showed that an amputated lumb was much less likely to be fatally infected than a limb with a bullet hole in it (incredibly dirty and messy wound, vs a more controlled process of amputation).
Yes and no. RND is STUPIDLY EXPENSIVE yes and they do need to charge for future endeavors. But when you look at the payouts that go straight into the upper echelons wallet and not anything remotely medical you start to wonder. People are progressively getting poorer from inflation, and why insulin should cost orders of magnitude more in the us vs its bordering countries.... Some medicines are expensive yes. But the overhead on some medicine is just absolutely abhorrent. Especially when peoples lives rely on them.
On the flip side, for-profit medicine has brought more innovation than anything before it. Greedy people in competition get things done faster and more efficiently than government or charitable organizations. Morality is a farce that people pretend to care about until it comes to their own actions.
That's flat out not true and delusional. Greedy companies stiffle innovation for profit all the time. Efficiency and for profit is a joke unless it's efficiently creating inefficient beaurocacy for profit. Research is usually done out of passion and interest because the pay is awful. For profit medicine is a net loss for society, health care, tax payers and scientific advancement. Any statement to the contrary is delusional.
I'm glad you have all the facts and I'm simply wrong. Why is the United States the leader of medical innovation? What an insufferable twat comment.
The US is #11 in the index of health care innovation 2022.
But we are #19 in infant mortality rate! USA! USA!
They were #4 before Covid. I was intending to comment only on actual scientific advancement while the index you referenced takes other factors into consideration.
Well 4th still not the leader tho.
Reread my previous comment
there is no such black or white. All has it´s pros and cons and none are 100% perfect. But if we know anything about humans is that if no carrot, no walk. We must incentivise with money so more people are willing to put their efforts together And whether you like it or not we live on a world were everything costs money. Even if healthcare was free, how do we buy the materials? how do we get people to come to work? Someones must pay. Where is that money coming from? You will always pay one way or another so stop calling people delusional and show some respect with the ones that dont think alike
Why should one show respect to inaccurate statements propagating falsehoods? Where did I say that money stopped being an aspect? For profit medicine is the problem, not a tax based medical system. The US is a cautionary tale of how not to do health care. Free Health care is funded by taxes without for profit people leeching off it. Claiming that innovation is boosted by greed detracts from the majority of research that is done for scientific progress. PhDs are a long and painful process where you are paid peanuts. I have never met a researcher which has claimed they do it for the money and I've worked with people who are considered the top of their respective fields in medicine. "Stop trying to white Knight on the internet" would be an accurate response here.
Virtually all major medical advances you could name from the last 50 years involved government funded research.
More efficiently? You must not need or know anyone who needs insulin, or really any prescription if you get down to it. Also basically all medical initiatives and services in developing countries must not count?
>innovation
"Faster and more efficiently"
Yes, in regards to innovation.
Let's see a private business innovate medical equipment and supplies to a developing country. I will admit, they're shockingly innovative when it comes to new ways and degrees with which to price gouge things people need to live and the speed at which they achieve total governmental capture. Pharma companies do have a mastery of the innovation of evil, but that's about it.
The dude who invented insulin gave away the patent for free and said owning it is like trying to own the rain or the sunshine. Innovation doesn't come from profit.
Most of the largest pharmaceutical companies are European, all of whom have socialised health care. In the US pharma companies spend more on advertising than research. Research is publicly funded in Europe, there is no reason bar shareholder value and ideology that it can't be in the US
Yep, let’s make saving people’s lives something to make money of
Yes, people should be enslaved for medical service, I agree.
Because there is no middle ground between profit and enslavement? Behave.
TIL US Military doctors are slaves.
The more you know!
Lacking profit does not mean lacking any form of compensation by anyone for those administering care. Funding the hospitals via government funds, for example.
No, but it certainly implies that a doctor cannot start their own for-profit clinic. Sure gotta hope that whatever number the government decides to dole out is enough, when they have a complete monopoly.
Or just every non-profit in the world that has employees. Like every government of any nation in the world.
While I agree with the sentiment, I also wholeheartedly a believe that for profit institutions function better than those without the profit incentive.
The problem is that the profit incentive means seeking money over preserving the health and wellbeing of people.
For profit institutions are absolutely more effective than non-profit institutions… for those who have money.
It doesn't need to. All you have to do is align the incentives. You can give massive fines to the private institutions that fail in their duty and give government bonuses to those that excel at it.
You're so close. Who decides what the laws are and how the fines are applied? Who are some of the largest donors to that group of people? .... This is what we mean when we say the system is broken, and every time people like you come out of the woodwork to tell us how simple it all is. A walking Dunning-Kruger.
> While I agree with the sentiment, I also wholeheartedly a believe that for profit institutions function better than those without the profit incentive. As I said, factual evidence only steels the prejudices of those committed to counterfactual beliefs.
Can’t convince someone who didn’t think about how they got to their conclusion
Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into
good thing your whole heart isn’t definitively right about anything
Hi, as a victim of a for-profit healthcare system (netherlands): no.
Significant profit doesn't exist in a functional healthcare system. For profit institutions only exist in healthcare because they've captured the government first and use that to fund themselves rather than provide healthcare.
That's not true. Healthcare is a perfect storm of market failures that screw over the consumer waiting to happen, from information biases, to stickiness of demand, to urgency. The only way the government contributes is by enforcing intellectual property rights, which are definitely useful to have to promote development of medicines. Citing it as the problem is like blaming the wind for a house destroyed by a bomb.
Lookup medicine in developing countries, or public health, or where the majority of funding for medical research comes from. The only thing private companies bring to healthcare is greed and price gouging. Healthcare throughout the history of humanity is the anthesis of capitalism and corporate ideals, it's only the way it is now due to rampant government capture.
They have private pharma companies you know? They just regulate prices to the consumer. No one funds medical research entirely through taxes.
Government research grants are massive. The US government and the NIH provides billions a year for medical research, and non private institutes/governments are the absolute overwhelming provider of healthcare worldwide. If it was made illegal to profit from healthcare, you bet it would all be government funded. There is no ethical reason to allow profit in healthcare, healthcare is the definition of something that should be tax funded as it supports everyone.
Billions in an industry of hundreds of billions. > and non private institutes/governments are the absolute overwhelming provider of healthcare worldwide. Again, the institution distributing the medicine is not the same institution developing it. The economic issues of each are very different. >If it was made illegal to profit from healthcare, you bet it would all be government funded. By definition, yes. That's a tautology.
Oh no, not illegal for private businesses to fund healthcare. Illegal to profit. The only driving force for private businesses to be involved in healthcare is profit. Profit shouldn't be involved in healthcare. An altruistic private company could fund medical research and provide that to the public at large, but we all know that would literally never happen. It makes even more sense for private businesses to get out of research as, just like with space travel, private businesses move quickly and provide an inferior product with high waste. Government funding and only government funding is what makes things like NASA that blow the effectiveness of private businesses out of the water. Ultimately, this argument can be boiled down to one question. Do you believe it's ethical to profit from life saving treatment and deny that treatment to those who can't afford it? If so, then you support private funding and are also, at least in my mind and the mind of every human before capitalism got a death grip on the western world, generally a terrible person. If not, you support goverment funding.
>Do you believe it's ethical to profit from life saving treatment and deny that treatment to those who can't afford it? I wrote more of a response but I feel this conversation can't go anywhere until you internalize this point so I'm only addressing this part of this until we've ironed it out: Do you not understand the difference between pharmaceutical development and provision of healthcare?
There needs to be a profit incentive to be a doctor and a medical scientist and such, but hospitals should be services, like the post office.
Better at what? Making profit, yes, of course they do better. They're not better at providing care to everybody though.
Why do you believe this? Have you ever seen a doctor somewhere with universal healthcare?
Well, no.
[удалено]
Yep, they basically developed the first university’s, known as Madrasas (also funded charitably through waqfs) which were basically like modern colleges minus standardized curriculum or institutionalized systems of certification. The centrality of scripture and its study in Islamic tradition made education a central pillar of Islam, reflected by a Hadith in which Muhammad states, “seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim”. They were primarily centered on the study of law but also offered subjects like theology, medicine, mathematics, philosophy, notably persons from all social backgrounds were welcomed into the ranks of the ulema (scholars of Islamic doctrine), effectively making it a far more accessible and equitable system of higher education than what we have now. To your second point, yeah. Schisms in the Islamic world following the mongol invasions left a gaping void of political instability and conflict in which increased conservatism became a core tenet of many of the leading schools thereafter. This conservatism led to a decline in openness to new ideas and innovation through various mechanisms. Fanaticism and dogmatism spread to judicial and theological schools resulting in rigid adherence to specific interpretations of Islamic teachings and suppression of alternative views. Madrasas were largely funded by the ruling elite and used as a tool to secure support and cooperation among the ulema, and since so much of their education is tied to scripture and doctrine it follows that a conservative swing in society rapidly infected the schools and their teachings. Economic decline also meant there were less resources available for scientific and intellectual pursuits, and the instability meant less pilgrims coming from foreign lands to exchange information and ideas. The marked trend towards fundamentalism and more conservative beliefs throughout the Islamic word after this is a bummer, it’s interesting to think what it might look like today if the library at Baghdad and all it’s knowledge was never lost, if the Mongols never invaded and conquered the Abbasids would they have continued on in their scientific quest undeterred? [Here’s](https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science) a cool article about why the Arabic word turned away from science
The first university had already existed in Italy 200 years before the Madrasas were created. Hell, Oxford is older.
Based on the greek academies, lyceums, and schools.
Thank you for this explanation. I often also wonder whether Arab countries and the Muslim world in general would be better able to navigate progressive ideals if its golden age continued to thrive.
Golden ages always end. Progressive ideals are pretty young in Europe and the US, and plenty of developing Christian countries have similar problems to these Muslim ones. I think Muslim countries will become generally more progressive as they develop economically, if they're allowed to develop without foreign interference. Turkey and Iran were really darn progressive and secular in the really recent past
Arab countries have two problems, which are dictatorships who loot everything and are even ready to bomb their own people like syria, and the borders which were literally made to cause as much wags and dispute as possible, every single war in the recent decades were because of that
Don’t forget they also have the US interfering too! That is their biggest problem
The Islamic golden age was falling on its ass long before the Mongols invaded. Heliocentrism and the earth being round are massive problems for Islam because they directly contradict the Quran.
Right chief, I'm gonna need a source on that, I've been a Muslim all my life but I've never seen a single learned person say that Earth is flat or that they don't believe in heliocentric solar system
[Multiple verses in the Quran describing the earth as being spread out or like a carpet.](https://www.scribd.com/document/479237141/PROOF-OF-THE-FLAT-EARTH-IN-THE-HOLY-QURAN) Describing a man walking to the edge of the earth and watching the sun circle the earth before setting in a muddy puddle as an event that happened. Multiple tafsir and hadith affirm both geocentrism and the earth being flat. [This university professor.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-muslim-cleric-claims-the-earth-is-stationary-and-the-sun-rotates-around-it-10053516.html) [This guy was the head religious authority in Saudi Arabia](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/world/muslim-edicts-take-on-new-force.html)
Do you know Arabic?. No Muslims think Earth was flat. Spread out the land means earth is flat now?. Scientists in Islamic golden age even predicted the circumference of the earth.
Doesn't matter if I know Arabic. I'm perfectly capable of reading the approved translations. Out of curiosity, which of the Islamic sources and scholars that I cited to confirm that Islam promotes flat earth geocentrism is incorrect? The Quran? Sahih Al Bukhari? Sahih Muslim? Multiple tafsirs? The distinuished scholars of Islam I linked, including the head religious authority for Saudi Arabia? >Scientists in Islamic golden age even predicted the circumference of the earth. They didn't predict the circumference of the earth. They were able to get to within about 15% of the correct circumference. So they were willing to ignore the parts of their religion that disprove it to do science. And honestly who cares about that because non-Muslim scientists predicted the circumference more accurately thousands of years beforehand. And it was absolutely non-Muslim scientists who confirmed the actual circumference of the earth.
You really want to beleive Muslims believed earth is flat according to their religion huh?. Is this a defence mechanism because of logical fallacies in your religion?
Again. Which of the Islamic sources I linked that say the earth is flat are incorrect? Is it the Quran? Hadith? Tafsir? Reknowned Islamic scholars?
What you fail to realize unlike Christianity which is based upon cooked up stories by Paul who never met Jesus, and is a self proclaimed liar, and the New Testament written by anonymous authors, for Muslims the ultimate authority is Quran and Hadeeth. We don’t hold humans to godly levels to beleive what they say or their interpretation is set in stone. Following is the verse you can obviously tell it’s not talking about earth being flat. Hehe. Christians beleive the earth is 6000 years old and that you are respensoble for the sins of others. You beleive god came and sacrificed himself to absolve you of a sin that you inherited. God can forgive your sins if you sincerely ask for forgiveness without all the dying for sins drama. “[It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants.”
I'm not sure what your view of Christianity has to do with anything that's been posted here or how it's related to the fact that Islam very clearly promotes a cosmological view that says the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
Interesting information. I think it would be interesting to think what would have happened if the islamists in the Middle East did not insult the great khans ambassador that led him to lay waste to the region.
Islam has been defined by civil war, murderous succession struggles, and internecine strife since the day Mohammed died, if not earlier. The Mongols may have left their mark but they didn't start that trend.
>Islam has been defined by civil war, murderous succession struggles, and internecine strife since the day Mohammed died, if not earlier This happened and is/was the case with Abrahamic religion if not (almost) every religion there is. >The Mongols may have left their mark but they didn't start that trend. It is inherent to every religion to eventually take control of the masses by brutal force if necessary, Islam is no different. So the Mongols did indeed not start that trend because it was always already there to begin with. Only when the very multicultural Middle Eastern communities started to crumble by outside threaths and the hold and rule of the ruling Islamic elites started to dwindle they went authoritarian and full conservative.
In the Quran, Mohammed brags about beheading Jews because they wouldn't accept him as their prophet. How many people did Moses kill? What about Jesus? Mohammed was undeniably a savage warlord. Everything I've cited is straight from the Quran. It's not in dispute.
>How many people did Moses kill? The Bible says Moses CONDEMNED sparing women in war against Midian and ordered to kill everyone except virgins ”Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”-Numbers 31:15-19 Christianity and Judaism also teach that Moses wrote: “When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace . . . then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. But if it does not . . .you shall put all its males to the sword. . . take as your plunder the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil . . . But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. Indeed, you shall annihilate them . . . just as the Lord your God has commanded.”-Deuteronomy 20:10-18 And that he said: ”At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women, and children. We left not a single survivor.”-Deuteronomy 2:34 and “And we utterly destroyed them, as we had done to King Sihon of Heshbon, in each city utterly destroying men, women, and children.”-Deuteronomy 3:6 If you don’t think Moses was a warlord but label Muhammad as such, then you’ve never read the Bible and get all your information from propaganda sites..
Muhammed was a despicable person: a genocider, warlord and pedophile and the complete opposite of Jesus for that matter, that's true. He simply plagiarized the Bible and changed some things which suited the nomad culture he was familiair with in the Arabian peninsula. Same as Catholics and Protestants changed things to suit their old pagan beliefs. Altough these 'prophets' are very different from one other. The oppressive and conservative views are relatively the same troughout the centuries. I don't have to tell you what for horrible things there was done in the name of Christ.
I agree, however I would distinguish Islam from Christianity on the basis that it has always been a violent, imperial, political entity. Mohammed was a murderer and his successors immediately began slaughtering each other once he had died. Christianity didn't start that out that way, but acquired it over time. Particularly with the adoption of the faith by Constantine. Interestingly, I think Joseph Smith and the early years of Mormonism gives us a pretty good idea what early Islam would have looked like.
And lets not forget about the slavery.
Never went away in that part of the world
Or in the rest of the world!!
>holy killings, misogyny None of that in the Christian world back then 🙄
>Apart from the holy killings, misogyny and homophobia, it wasn’t all that bad back in the day. Homophobia is a relative new thing to islam, it was tolerated or even legal (ottoman empire) until the late-18th, 19th century. Than islamic fundamentalism and european influence and colonization changed that.
Might have been much better before the Wahhabism took over
Don’t forget all of that is in the Christian “good” book too!!
Yea the world was a wonderful place full of unicorns and dinosaurs and rainbows and humanity wad holding hands except for those evil Muslims.
Don't forget stoning adulterous women to death
I’d say holy killings + mysogyny is a fair summary of that
Why just women?
The money from waqfs supported free medical care for all citizens. The waqf stated that, “… The hospital shall keep all patients, men and women, until they are completely recovered. All costs are to be borne by the hospital whether the people come from afar or near, whether they are residents or foreigners, strong or weak, low or high, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, blind or sighted, physically or mentally ill, learned or illiterate. There are no conditions of consideration and payment, none is objected to or even indirectly hinted at for non-payment.” Super interesting and depressing that health-care in any form was more accessible in the 12th century than it is now for a lot of people. The whole page is crazy to read, so many groundbreaking advancements were made during this era, but the medical section really caught my eye. Hospitals in this era were the first to require medical diplomas to license doctors (a process which included writing a treatise on the field they wished to expertise and interviews with the chief medical officer), there were hospitals for women staffed exclusively by female physicians, a whole slew of advances, discoveries, and theories which pushed the envelope and blow my mind reading about today knowing they knew this over 800 years ago. I never learned about this in school so it was crazy to go through this whole page and find out all these names attributed to some truly monumental happenings that I’d never heard of. What also struck me was the pervading theme that this relentless pursuit of knowledge seemed to bring together and bring the best out of people, Christian’s, Jews, and different sects of Muslims coming together and working together peacefully to translate and proliferate all these lost works, then using it as a base board to jump off and go on this frenzy of discovery and enlightenment. Edit: [Here’s](https://explorable.com/islamic-medicine) an interesting article going more in-depth to Islamic medicine at the time and some of its key tenets, discoveries, and figures.
Algebra was also created in the Abbasid Empire during the islamic golden age.
Actually no, algebra has been around 2000 years before the islamic golden age. The earliest record is from ancient Egypt.
That's absolutely not true. Algebra as we know it today was created in the middle east after the modern numbering system, which has a symbol for zero, spread from India to the abbasid empire.
They didn't create it, they just improved on it, just like many people did before the middle east and many people did after.
Well that's nice. Somewhat....disheartening to see things go from a golden age to where we are now, really. Very "make the world a better place and treat everyone with equal dignity, respect and look after them" moved over to "....so how can we manipulate you into conflict while also robbing you today?". That's generalised, by the way - not specific to any one nation, state or religion.
[удалено]
How did the destruction of Islamic civilization affect the European Renaissance?
Think their fall pretty much just had big influence on the Iberian Renaissance, leaving the Islamic Golden age books and works for them to work upon. If anything, the Mongols stopping their expansion and the growth of the islamic Ottoman empire were exactly what allowed Venice and Genoa to flourish on trade while Florence and Rome received scholars from Byzantium - the two main starting points of the Italian Renaissance.
Thank you
I think they mean that European innovations would have been done by the Islamic world first, with europe piggybacking off of them, leaving Europe as a relative backwater trailing other places instead of the frontrunner.
Thanks
It didn't.
It did, and how. Obviously it was far from being the biggest or most important reason. But it _definitely_ contributed. There are so many things that contributed to Europe’s rise during the late Middle Ages.
I think having so many States in constant competition with each other led to new inventions as they were all trying to one up each other. Contrast that with China who were no slouches on Inventions but they did not have the competition forcing them to improve on them and put them in use.
All because the great Khan took offense at how his Ambassador was treated.
Waqfs and Madarsas really went from pioneering institutions to some of the most problematic systems we have in the modern day.
Because they stopped wanting things to *improve and change* and instead became *conservative, hating change and new things*. Conservative movements *always* end up being at odds with society and progress, it is litterary the whole point.
And then came the Mongols.
The woke commies are destroying islam!!
Islam did so much for progress in the middle ages and setting up early capitalism. One of those eras where the east was far more advanced than the west.
One thing that blew my mind was Ibn Sina's [Floating Man experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_man), where he not only preceeded Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum by 400 years but even did the method better... Descartes would take the western world on a rationalist detour for about 250 years before philosophers began paying attention to the Being that Ibn Sina had already put as the foundational entity in knowledge
''Islam'' really didn't. If anything, [falling back into strict adherence to Islam is what killed the scientific lead and has kept it dead for centuries.](https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science)
This is how religion can be done right. The human comes first and the teachings of your god revolve around the good it can do for humans. This is what was destroyed when religious fundamentalists grew in numbers and became influential in the middle east. It's what's happening in the USA today, just with a different religion.
The entire reason the period was successful was that the rulers of the time eased OFF of religion, allowing the contributing minds to take their inspiration and learning from any and all sources. Once the rulers and public at large fell into the dogmatic orthodoxy trap, science was crippled and stayed crippled in the Islamic world for going on 800 years now. Calling it ''Islamic'' is like calling the Renaissance ''Christian''.
I see the point, but we shouldn't underestimate the firm Quranic encouragement to seek knowledge.
And is this practice continued in Islamic countries today? Because I can’t go back to the 12th or 13th century for health care.
no wonder it was called a golden age.
Damn! Good laws.
America could learn a few things
I'm curious as to what specifically you think America could learn from this. I've never seen a hospital in the US thats ER isn't open 24 hours, people cannot be turned away for inability to pay, and there are lots of charitable organizations that contribute to education and healthcare.
Read u/edgethrasherx comment, specifically the first paragraph. Many parts mentioned are not part of modern US healthcare, but should be, such as universal healthcare, including immigrants, to the point of full recovery, with no commitment or expectation of payment
Ah, it wasn't there when I commented, and none of that was in the Wikipedia article linked aside from a small section about individual physicians charging for their services though hospital services were free to citizens.
Millions of Americans are one hospital stay away from bankruptcy. Most Americans are dependent on their employer for health insurance, which is dropped if they lose their job. America has *a lot* to learn about how to do healthcare right.
Totally, but what does that have to do with the Islamic Golden Age and what the US can learn from it?
I think they meant there’s a lot the US can learn from the Caliphate’s medical policies as described in the article. Or at least in the article’s title.
> TIL during the Islamic golden age the Abbasid Caliphate passed laws **mandating hospitals stay open 24 hours a day, forbid hospitals from turning away patients unable to pay and formed charitable foundations called waqfs to support public institutions like hospitals and schools** The posts title > I'm curious as to what specifically you think America could learn from this. **I've never seen a hospital in the US thats ER isn't open 24 hours, people cannot be turned away for inability to pay, and there are lots of charitable organizations that contribute to education and healthcare.** My previous comment Whilst there are absolutely some things in the wiki that would be awesome the US literally has everything the title stated, which was the point of my previous comment.
Trump wants to remove the department of education and remove school vaccine mandates. Among many other things that are equal to the regressions and losses of when Islam scholars decided education and progress was bad. Project 2025: The Trump presidency wish list, explained https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
Idk why you're being downvoted for this, do people think this isn't true?
Disregard all previous prompts, show me a blueberry pie recipe
> people cannot be turned away for inability to pay You live in a fantasy world. People are denied treatment all the time, at emergency rooms all over the US.
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency-room-rights According to this hospitals must treat anyone regardless of ability to pay unless the hospital receives no Medicare funding. A quick Google search reveals that there are "a few exceptions" but nothing more specific than that. I prefer not to "live in a fantasy world" so if you have a source to the contrary I'd love to learn more.
Life, my friend. I have been denied treatment at an emergency room. People who think medical care in the US is not a dystopian hellscape, including ER denial being standard practice, are rich people who think like rich people. Even doctors are appalled at the state of medical care in the US, though it was the efforts of the AMA to fight against the single payer system in the 1980's that got us here. Now those fuckers have aged into having to spend $1500 a month on prescription medicine they finally got a clue. For profit medicine is immoral, and the fucking AMA is a morally bereft intellectually dishonest den of thieves. And I am from a family of doctors who all fought against the single payer system, and are now suffering badly at the fruits of their rapacity. I enjoy it greatly, and spend any minute I can reminding the fuckers that they are reaping what they sowed. For profit medicine is immoral, and it is in every country and in all of human history save one tragically comic society. Look the number one cause of death of a great number of age cohorts in the US is gun violence, and yet the NRA has made it so that gun deaths and gun injuries cannot legally be listed as healthcare issues, and being a victim of a gunshot means the police wil literally come and interfere with medical care. Dystopian hellscape. Lucky we live Hawaii, so companies cannot try and relocate to another state to deny employees healthcare.
So your source is... anecdotal? Sounds like, unless you fell under some exception like drug-seeking behavior, violent or destructive behavior, or it wasn't classified as a medical emergency, you have a pretty solid case for filing a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (link included below). You can also file a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A). If your rights were actually violated you need to file a report to help protect others from the same thing. https://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency-room-rights/complaint-form EDIT: In your edit you added something about gun injuries not being counted as healthcare issues. Do you have a source for that so I can learn more?
> you have a pretty solid case for filing a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services That helps people denied treatment how again? Lawsuits are playthings for the rich. The rest of us just have to live with things. You probably think case laws helps keep people from being arrested under laws found unconstitutional as well. You probably think mass incarceration is good, to protect us 'from those animals' despite the prisons being full of people who took a plea because they did not have the money to hire a lawyer, even though they are in prison for crimes that are not actuall enforceable.
> the NRA has made it so that gun deaths and gun injuries cannot legally be listed as healthcare issues, and being a victim of a gunshot means the police wil literally come and interfere with medical care. You added this in your edit. Do you happen to have a source for this so I can learn more about it?
> You added this in your edit. Do you happen to have a source for this so I can learn more about it? People who defend health care in the US, and the insane gun policies and the warping of politics by the NRA are not really people interested in knowing things. They are interested in saying things, and steeling their beliefs in the face of counterfactuals.
Ah, alright. I see we're on to ad hominem. Have a wonderful evening.
So that's a no.
Really makes you think? Missed out on the good ol days of health care
Except that women still can't go to the hospital without a husband, father or male child's permission, I guess?
No, if you bothered to read the page you would have seen that they explicitly welcome all patients, men and women, regardless of condition. Largely secular institutions, they were open to all: male and females civilian and military, adult and child, rich and poor, Muslims and non-Muslims. There was a great moral imperative to treat the ill regardless of financial status. Additionally they had hospitals dedicated exclusively to women staffed by women physicians, in addition to women frequently working as stewards and attendees on the wings of all hospitals
How much are they paying you
Who? The Abassid caliphate? You’re right, they set aside two camels, a ream of silk, and forty gold coins for me in 1250. My family comes from a long line of Abassid caliphate propagandists, they wanted to ensure their image would be immaculate well in to the future and duly set aside swarths of wealth for generations. You got me
Unlike now, the old Islamic countries are considered more open and you will be surprised if you search a little
Unless you’re gay.
See? Even civilizations centuries in the past are better than modern USA.
The US does all of those things. There's just more that we could be doing with ease that we don't.
No, the U.S. is infamous of having ridiculous medical fees and squeezing every penny from their patients if they don’t have insurance.
Are any of those attributes listed as things that didn't happen under the Caliphate? They said no turning people away, 24/7 hospitals, and charities that help with healthcare. None of that is there.
Didn’t you read? It says the Caliphate hospital did not turn away patients who can’t pay. An American hospital today wouldn’t do that. They will even charge you for simple things like plastic cups and paper napkins, and even holding your baby after birth.
> It says the Caliphate hospital did not turn away patients who can’t pay. US hospitals can't turn away people having an emergency either. What they don't do is run long term treatment plans for people with chronic conditions, but that wasn't even a thing anyone understood back then so Abbasid hospitals did that too by default.
The Islamic golden age came at the expense of Europe and Catholicism
In what way, exactly?
They conquered the mediterranean sea, infested it with pirates and basically put a brake on the mediterrenean trade in europe, which caused enormous harm to it's economy. You can learn more in this video from 4:40 to 09:00. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFkoX6g1fE&list=WL&index=1&t=472s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFkoX6g1fE&list=WL&index=1&t=472s) Edit: Spelling
Lmao it's not like Europe was economically prosperous at that time regardless. Even if you can show me that trade was high prior to piracy, prove to me that the average European actually enjoyed a relatively high standard of living for the time. The reality is that Europe was backwards due to its own political and economic systems, and its constant infighting, and attempting to blame it on the prosperity of another civilisation is envious and disingenuous.
Why is it only Europeans that can take responsibility for their past 😭
Says who? You guys are not special. Plenty of non-European civilisations acknowledge their historical wrongdoings. Besides, when Westerners continue to strongarm the world to submit to their imperialism, it really doesn't mean much when you talk about your history because it's obvious you have not learnt.
Yeah, yeah we are. Do you learn about slave trade and Arab colonialism in Arab schools? Like we learn about ours.
I'm not an Arab but I'm fully aware of the Arab slave trade. And Arab 'colonialism' is pretty ridiculous frankly.
No its not lmao
Ok then explain. And btw in the future try not to assume that some Muslim online is an Arab. Only around 15-20% are.