At 01:57 PM 7/19/01, Sonja wrote:
>Alberto Monteiro schreef:
>
> > Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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....
> > >
> > What do you propose? That the g*vernment should decide, and
> > take the money away from Subject A so that Subject B survives?
>
>I'd rather suggest that subject A would be prevented to spent money
So you send armed troops into the nursing home to confiscate Grandma's
money so she doesn't waste it on prolonging her own life?
(If not, how do "you" (the government) "prevent" her from spending her own
money?)
>to take
>away resources desperatly needed for subject B.
>
> > IMHO, this is the worse solution for the long run, because
> > a society that permits those kinds of decision is
> > giving the g*vernment the power to decide on Life and Death.
>
>Which I wasn't implying.
>
> > Worse: you let the g*vernment declare that some lives [for
> > example, an old man's final 2 years of life] have a lesser
> > value than other lives.
>
>No I didn't. That is what you made of it. I simply asked the question of
>what should be done in relation to this (admittantly a bit extreme) example.
>
> > The next step might be letting the g*vernment mass-sterilize
> > individuals that carry bad genes, or place an upper limit
> > to the age of the citizens, etc
>
>I wasn't suggesting anything like that. But I could turn that question
>around and ask you if you think that the child should die because of the
>lack of resources taken away by someone with money?
>
>So to get back to the issue at hand. I simply don't have the answer if that
>is what you were thinking. And I most certainly wouldn't want to be the one
>to make life and death decisions in cases like the above or insinuate mass
>murder, genocide, mass sterilisation or anything like that. (btw that was a
>cheap shot at my motivation for this post). But considering the amount of
>resources needed for a relatively short lifespan prolongation for subject A
>(assuming that you'd be needing massive resources to do it) I'm not sure
>that subject A actually getting all those resources just because of
>availabillity of money is very fair. Then again life isn't fair now is it.
>Otoh if subject A would be some one really close to me I'd really be happy
>if money can buy those two extra years no matter the cost. See the duality
>there.
>
>I'm an advocate of 'not everything that is medically possible should be
>done'. Especially since Dan rightly stated that we cannot spend more then
>100% of the available resources. 'Triage' is a difficult enough thing to do
>as it is, and I think that life and death decisions shouldn't depend on the
>persons abillity to pay the bill.
It may sound like a "cheap shot," but what it comes down to is that if the
government makes the rules, ultimately the only way they have to enforce
them on an unwilling populace is by force. That's when you get Nazi
Germany or Communist China.
Or do you think that everyone who reaches a certain age (60? 70?) ought to
voluntarily turn over all their assets to the government and use no more
health care so it may go to those more deserving?
-- Ronn! :)
