Posted on 07/02/2011 1:10:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
The so-called “duty to die” has been quietly discussed in bioethics for more than a decade. Now, a major British Medical Association leader proposed an implicit duty to die by stating that terminally ill people may have to be denied life-extending treatments due to the costs of their care. From the Scotsman story:
THE leader of Scotland’s doctors has questioned whether society can afford to pay thousands of pounds to keep terminally-ill people alive for weeks or months when health service budgets are under unprecedented strain. Dr Brian Keighley, chairman of the British Medical Association Scotland, said in some cases tens of thousands of pounds were spent on drugs to extend cancer patients’ lives for relatively short periods.
Speaking ahead of his organisation’s annual meeting, the GP said the country had to debate the merits of these kinds of aggressive treatments and the effects they had on the NHS budget. But he stressed any decision had to be made at a society level, rather than being left to doctors.
He’s right about the last part. Doctors should not decide which patients live and which don’t live. But you have to ask yourselves what kind of a society would we become if we decided that when one needs care the most, it will be denied because of the cost (and, let’s face it, their lack of current productivity).
If we (this matter involves far more than the UK) are going to have a “conversation” about which treatments not to fund, I suggest we start with non elective procedures and treatments, i.e. those that are required to preserve life or treat serious illnesses and injuries. We should also reduce over utilization by requiring patients to pay deductibles and co-pays (via means testing). Better that people pay for part or more (depending on where you live) of your own care than throw the most sick and disabled among us out of the life boat. At the very least, those who need care most should not be the first ones denied it.
And this is exactly what the utilitarian socialists who comprise the culture of death want.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
What an old outdated concept. Bring on Obamacare and the death squads. /s
If they had left the money in the hands of its rightful owners, it wouldn't be their decision.
That's why they wanted to take over health care.
That's why they wanted to take over health care.
Precisely!
Socialized medicine has ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT SOCIALISM and that means killing people for the "collective good."
They want death. I say give it to them.
The socialist ideology is a death-cult. A shame it’s followers couldn’t learn to enjoy life. However, if they feel the need to exit early; who am I to prevent them from doing so . . .
When we decide it's the taxpayers' job to pay for maximum possible health, we are on an unavoidable collision course that must lead to the downfall of the civilization that assigns that job to taxpayers.
The United States is on such a course today. The cost of taxpayer maintenance of maximum possible health for all citizens will consume us.
If we take the taxpayer out of the equation, the decision will be made by God and Mother Nature, and that is the only fair way to handle such things. People can take responsibility for their own health with such things as savings and actuarial tables.
When we each have done all we can or choose, we must put the rest in the hands of God.
The duty to die will exist very soon. The only real question remaining being: What particular demographic will have the duty imposed upon them?
Of course, after abortion's line is crossed infanticide and "duty to die" are inevitable also.
Call it what you will. I call it evil.
I swear, a week ago I went to bed in a normal world and woke up in Logan’s Run. Where’s Harold Camping when you need him?
Soylent Green.
Just my opinion, but possession of a law degree should put someone at the front of the disposable line. And I suspect folks with medical degrees would be fine with that too.
As I recall, the NHS will not provide dialysis to patients over the age of 50. But what the hell, at least it’s “free.”
“they” don’t want death, they want death for others.
Kavorkian didn’t kill himself, he died normally.
Once you get the idea someone should die, the idea spreads,
In Belgium, they’re taking organs from euthanasia victims and in Holland they’re killing people with early dementia and babies and children, none of whom can “ask” for being killed.
and the bad news: It’s easy for a doctor or nurse to kill and get away with it, so most deaths are never even reported.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.