Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
>
>>> 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 to take
>away resources desperatly needed for subject B.
>
How? By putting A in prison? BTW, preventing someone from
spending money the way someone wants to *is* taking the money
away - because money only exists when you have the right to
spend it, otherwise it's wastepaper.
>> 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.
>
Then you still have to explain how can you "take" the money
from A to save B.
>> 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.
>
My answer? Don't do **anything** !!! This is a very sad case, but
there's nothing that can be done - and the obvious solution causes
more harm than good *in the long run*.
>> 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?
>
I say yes. If I were the Evil Overlord, and if I had to rule in this case,
I would let the kid die.
>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
>
Neither would I. And that's why we delegate those functions to a bunch
of amoral jerks :-/
>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 know that. And if subject B were *my* kids I would probably try
all means - even illicit - to take the money from subject A to save
subject B O:-)
>I'm an advocate of 'not everything that is medically possible should be
>done'.
>
Neither am I, but I also don't want the g*vernment to be the judge
for this.
>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.
>
Let me give an example. My wife - as everybody knows - is a pediatrician,
and she sometimes is faced with situations like the above, where Subject A
and Subject B are on the threshold of death but there is only one resource
that can be used to save *one* of them - and this is one of the few
things that can really upset her at work.
Alberto Monteiro
