8mm
Posted on 06/20/2008 6:10:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
This is murder, there is no other term to describe it.
Pro-Life Ping
Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If it were my child murdered, that "intensivist" would not have walked out of the room after making a comment like that.
If they're going to withhold treatment because of a cost-benefit analysis, they should admit that's what they're doing, rather than hide that as though there's something wrong with it and then do it anyway.
The story takes place in Ontario, Canada, where supposedly everyone has the same level of “free” healthcare.
They’re not allowed to pay out of pocket for the surgery. It’s illegal.
Why is it okay to deny this particular patient the surgery that was prescribed by her doctor? As if I can’t guess.
Þ
Not yet; only if we socialize health care.
As someone who worked at a county hospital, there are some things about this story that make me suspect there are some big parts being left out of the parent's version.
Canada
“Canada”
Hmmm...well that makes sense. Now the entire article makes sense.
But if care is futile or virtually futile, we really can't afford to offer it to everyone. As medical technology advances, we're getting to the point where we can artificially extend even terminally ill people's lives short amounts, but at significant cost. I don't think denying care like this is really comparable to far more “proactive” approaches like euthanasia—which instead of letting nature run its course artificially interrupt that course.
Medical advances do a tremendous amount of good, but the additional options they offer are not free, and the rationing dilemmas they help create are something we'll have to deal with.
However I have no opinion on this particular case if the doctor did in fact prescribe the surgery—I got the impression the doctors all agreed surgery was futile.
When the Canadian people had socialized medicine forced upon them and along with it a massive tax bill, there was no caveat about what would and would not be paid for. The "selling point" of socialized medicine is that everything is paid for. And yet here you are suggesting that the rules should be changed.
As medical technology advances, we're getting to the point where we can artificially extend even terminally ill people's lives short amounts, but at significant cost.
Yes, and like ALL TECHNOLOGY, once it becomes more common, the cost drops dramatically. However, there MUST be some expense up front to pay for the R&D. When I bought my first DVD player ten years ago it was nearly $1000, today I could buy a better one for less than $50. When Lasik was first introduced it cost nearly $20K, now it's around $2000.
Every year or so there is a mine collapse in the United States where a handful of miners are trapped underground. The chances of their survival is often bleak and rescue efforts could easily be described as "virtually futile;" however, NOBODY questions the millions of dollars spent trying to save them.
So, I reject outright ANY claim that ANY lifesaving methods be denied ANYBODY because of cost. This is the United States of America (granted this case is about Canada, but their standard of living is similar to ours), we are not some third world cesspool, we have the resources to do ANYTHING we set our minds to and the ONLY thing that will stand in our way is people with defeatists attitudes whining about how "it costs too much and what if it doesn't work."
I agree.
This is certainly true for some technologies and developments, but less true for others. Many--especially invasive surgeries--will always remain labor-intensive and thus very expensive.
This is the United States of America (granted this case is about Canada, but their standard of living is similar to ours), we are not some third world cesspool, we have the resources to do ANYTHING we set our minds to and the ONLY thing that will stand in our way is people with defeatists attitudes whining about how "it costs too much and what if it doesn't work."
Who will pay for it? I would rather pay $2000 for insurance that does not cover care that is clearly futile (even if it would extend my life a short period) than $4000 for insurance that covers anything they can possibly attempt.
If you would prefer to spend more for the better insurance that is your choice. But neither the hospital nor the government should ever be forced to bear that cost.
If they're going to withhold treatment because of a cost-benefit analysis, they should admit that's what they're doing, rather than hide that as though there's something wrong with it and then do it anyway.
I was born with Cerebral Palsy. The docs said that I would never speak, sit up without assistance, walk or become potty trained. I was a "vegetable" in their professional opinion. The "experts" recommended that I be placed in a home. They told my mother, "You can always have other children." I couldn't swallow and didn't even cry for the first three months of my life. "Rag doll" is the term used to describe my beginnings.
And yet I'm here. College educated, married, mother of two. And yes, I'm potty trained. Many people, outside of my family, depend on me.
So what's the potential of a human being? Can anyone know? What's a human life worth? At what point does the cost/benefit analysis say that it's OK to kill someone who has committed no crime other than being born?
If there's breath, there's hope. Never give up. Fight, fight, fight.
Well said.
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.