At 19:40 09-01-2003 -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote:
I think that at the heart of the problem is that when the so-called "bottom-line" is so heavily emphasized (as it has been since the advent of HMOs), the family *cannot be sure* any more that the doctor is telling them the truth when s/he says "that Mama or Papa is*dying*, and all we can do is prolong that process - not bring them back to a life": perhaps they really just mean "Mama/Papa is 70+ and though s/he was in good health for a person of that age before the heart attack, someone of that age can't make any useful (financial) contribution to society, so we might as well let them die and 'decrease the surplus population'."I think that in most cases people would trust doctors to do what's best for the patient, not what's best for the "bottom line". But if you don't trust the doctor and/or disagree with his opinion, you could of course always go for a second opinion.
Personally, I think that no decent doctor would ever let a decision about treatment be based on the possible contribution (or lack thereof) their patient could still make to society.
Jeroen "Do no harm" van Baardwijk
LEGAL NOTICE:
By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
