MasterP said:
Your grandparents weren’t wrong. They will be required to see a doctor every few years who will discuss “dying with dignity”. They may not pull the trigger immediately but all 3 of Obama’s top advisors on this healthcare package believe that the best care and procedures should be reserved for those who will benefit the longest from it and that those <10 and >50 should get the least care. <10 because anyone who needs major care that early in life will likely be a welfare case for the entirety of their lives and >50 because they stand to benefit much less from a heart operation than someone say 30.
So i understand why people are getting angry.
principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
Ezekiel Emmanuel MD
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
For those of you who don’t know, Ezekiel is one of the 3 health advisors MP mentioned. He is also being blasted as a Nazi for the above article. In it, he talks about medical precedence for people in between 10 and 50. Yet he has objections to his own hypothesis (something that many of the opponents of this seem to forget).
Basically this backs up what MasterP is saying. Well kinda, he adds his republican twang to it, but basically it’s why people are yelling at town hall meetings. Mostly old people. Baby boomers.
Yet how can one fairly allocate scarce medical interventions?
Just a first on the list basis? Or a lottery? What these doctors were trying to do was NOT formulate some kind of evil nazi reform, granted some have twisted that way, but seriously looking at it, its just a hypothesis on a better more just way to dish out care. Now I’m not exactly sure if I agree that this is the best way, it still seems not fair, but neither is our current system. I don’t think this would ever get passed, like never, but I also don’t think it’s evil either.
No one wants to see old people or babies die, or anyone for that matter. Yet the points the doctor brings up, albeit ugly, are things that should be thought about. Scenario: 1 month year old, 12 year old, and a 70 year old all need a new liver. Yet there is only one available at the moment. Who do you give it to? Now under the traditional method, its based on who’s name is on the top of the list. For the sake of arguing lets say its the 70 year old. He gets it, and lives for another X years. the other two patients die. To me, that’s throwing away two potential long lives so one can live another couple years. I’m a nazi for wanting to change that? Yes it seems cruel to say “well you are too old, this liver could be better used in a younger body”, but doesn’t it seem just as cruel to give the liver to the 70 year old, and just blame it on fate that the other two had to die?
It’s not that <10 and >50 should get least care, but rather they are the ones who need most care, and basically suck the most money. And they will still get the most care, and use the most money, because the chances of them getting sick or needing a transplant is much higher than the ones in between. The frequency of the middle group going to the doctor is much lower than the frequency of the other two groups. So what is wrong with saying that whenever that random time comes along when the middle group gets injured or sick, they get precedence over the <10 and >50. I’m still debating this one in my head, I just can’t get over the ethical rape in the face that this rational creates. But I don’t think it’s NAZI to ponder it or even consider it.