----- Original Message -----
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: R&D Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
> >
> <serious>
> I believe you can't treat health care - and everything
> related to Life & Death - by the cool methods of
> economical [ok, ok] science. Or maybe you can - if
> you add *a very important long term*: the fact that
> treating human lifes as numbers will add a callousness
> to *all* relations in the society that will possibly
> be disruptive of the social order in the future.
Well, I'm trying to use numbers to show that we are facing very difficult
decisions. We have the resources to take very extraordinary measures to
preserve some peoples lives, but we don't have the resources to do it for
everyone. Even if every person worked building medical equipment, or as
physicisans, or nurses, or med techs, there would be some procedures that we
could not offer to everyone.
Cost is a way of expressing this. I have a father who is 85 and failing and
we have to face how to handle his death. My sister specializes in
geriatrics, and we've discussed the medical ethics of death and dying at
some length. We've come to an understanding of "no extrodinary methods" for
our folks in our family, partially because we have family members involved
in that part of the medical community.
>
> For example, let's admit as fact what the numbers from
> the USA seem to prove: that the crime rate decreases
> when abortion is legalized.
Ah, the crime rate is much higher now than in the 40s-60s.
So, let's imagine that you
> are the legislators of another country, and you want to
> discuss this. The first approximation would be: "yes,
> legalize it, because in 18 years we will have a
> lesser crime rate." However, what may happen in 50 or
> even 100 years? Will the value attached to human life
> become so low that the crime rate will increase again?
>
I'm not trying to devalue human life. But, we cannot devote more than 100%
of our resources to medicine. We have to make cost based life and death
decisions. We can either do it up front or hide how we do it. But, we now
have procedures that, if used for everyone, would require more than the
total resources of the world. So, how can we not make cost based decisions.
The way to humanize it is for families to talk about this. Where do I draw
the line on my children spending resources that will help my grandchildren's
lives on prolonging my life? It has to be somewhere, because it is possible
to impoverish them totally to keep me alive for just another few months.
I think the Catholic churches position on letting people die but no aided
suicides is about right on this issue.
Dan M.
