At 01:12 PM 7/19/01, Sonja wrote:
>Alberto Monteiro schreef:
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> > >
> > >> <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.
> > >
> > Ok, and I am just pointing that ==maybe== using numbers
> > in the subject of human life may have hidden costs that
> > should be computed. Namely: that by using numbers in
> > this subject the society may become more callous.
>
>I do have one problem with this. Let's take two oposite and
>hypothetical cases:
>
>Subject A: A very wealthy old person needing a very complicated and
>expensive treatment to live maybe 1 or 2 years longer, gets this
>treatment because this person can pay for it. So a lot of resources
>are put into this person because of his/her money. Resources that
>cannot be used elsewhere.
>Subject B: A child needs a simple treatment that will result in a
>perfectly normal lifespan for this child that could die otherwise, but
>won't get that treatment because the no one can pay for it.
>
>And now please explain to me ethics and cost again in relation to
>death....
Since you brought up the example, we'll make you Queen for a Day*:
Which one do _you_ choose to save, and how do _you_ explain ethics and cost
to the other one and his family?
(*"Members of the studio audience, please vote by your applause for
contestant number one, contestant number two,. . ."
Yes, I'm dating myself. Talk about "loneliness in America" . . .)
-- Ronn! :)
