And that will happen soon since a huge percentage of Medicare payments (about 70%) are made to individuals in their last few months on this earth. Since medical care is getting more expensive and people are living longer the result is obvious: difficult moral/value decisions will have to be made in increasing numbers.
What kind of legal case will be made for a man needing a kidney transplant and the family across the street is seeking the same procedure for a retarded child that needs the same procedure?
There are a few more facts needed here to make a good decision (legal or moral) but if virtually all things were equal and the man had a family depending upon him for support, both morally and economically it would make sense for him to receive the transplant.
It will all come down to dollars and cents since moral sense is no longer involved.
I don't believe so. These decisions must involve both elements. Medical care is not unlimited and/or free. You seem to be saying that to be totally fair and moral, everyone should receive the medical care they need no matter what the circumstances. But since everyone cannot receive the medical care they need, to be fair no one should get it. That won't happen so the process will be necessarily unfair. Difficult value decisions must be made in this life and it is very important who makes those decisions. I am in favor of those most closely involved to make the decisions - like the family along with the treating physician. You seem to want a particular religious view (your interpretation of "sanctity of life") to dictate what medical decisions are made for others. That is not what our constitution prescribes.
In scenario one, you agree with me that the economics rule the day.
In scenario two, you agree with me that the economics rule the day.
Then, you follow up by postulating that morality MUST enter the equation. Too late, my friend. You've already purchased the critter in question - now you must live with it.
I am NOT saying that all people should receive the care they want. Not at all. I am saying that if the state decides, ALL decisions, ultimately, will be economic decisions and to hell with humanity.
You argue that the family unit should make decisions. Too bad, friend. The family will be the last to be consulted. The state will make it's choice base on the the economic value of the patient at hand.
A case in point...
My sister-in-law is British. Her father retired from the Clark shoe factory about a decade ago. He began experiencing chest pains and in 1997 he had a doozy just before Thanksgiving (our holiday). He goes into the hospital. They send him home with a handfull of anti-biotics assuming that he has some sort of thoracic infection. Even though they knew his mother and brother died of cardiac failure, they don't hook him up to an EKG.
He dies within 24 hours.
Point is, he dies in spite of blanket care. Fact is, health care under socialized medicine is palliative care for the 'ECONOMICALLY WORTHLESS' element (i.e., retired).
You say "Difficult value decisions must be made in this life and it is very important who makes those decisions."
I agree.
Where we disagree is at the point where the ability of the individual still has the right to make that decision. Looking at Europe, we see that right eroding. Looking at the mechanics of ethical rights, we also see the same kind of erosion.
As far as I am concerned, religion has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of life. Economics and distorted politics has everything to do with it. For these reasons, I continue to stand against this entire bloody mess.