Let Him Die?

Swampfish......the people who died in AZ because they lacked of money to pay for a transplant were not elderly (they would have been covered, or not, under medicare). These were young working people....Have you never known someone who had a heart or liver transplant who lived many, many years afterwards? I don't have the answers, just pointing out that it's pretty hard on a wife, or children to handle the death of a spouse or father when they know he could have been saved by a transplant. The stories touched many people in AZ, and I believe they have since reinstated transplant coverage under their AZ medicaid.

So what are you saying, that the 30 year old in the example should be allowed to die so you can harvest his organs?

God, I could sit and watch "Compassionate Conservatism" for hours.... (So could anyone else who is "easily amused.")

The thing is that there is not an easy black and white answer. Do we look at the cost effectiveness? Giving a 30 year old a new liver can result in decades of cash revenues. Do we look at the emotional side? You'd have to be a monster to deny care to a helpless baby. Do we take a pragmatic stance? Anyone who can't pay for their healthcare is likely to be a drain on society anyway? As a Christian these are issues that oftent torment me. Jesus Christ directly ordered us to care for the poor, the sick, the helpless. If our government is an extension of ourselves what is it required to do? But we must seperate church and stats. Oy. My head spins.

You guys sure let wayne off easy with a worthless post.....a couple people in an audience yell something out and this is suddenly a worthy news story? Did you investigate these individuals wayne and find out they are rabid tea party members?! Now that would make it to the front page of the Huff Rag.

Science Chic wrote:

swampfish wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote: So the question is. How much should society spent to keep one person alive? $1 million? $10 million? Is it unlimited?

I read about a lot of older people who do everything they can (transferring assets, etc) to make sure their own assets aren't eaten up if they end up in long term care, or long term disease.....if their own assets aren't worth spending to extend their life, should society's assets be used?

Deep questions....

You make an excellent point, Renegade. I think what our society has come to expect is to stay alive and well forever, no matter how much it costs [someone else]. I think if we didn't have insurance - health, auto, home, life - maybe we would all be a lot more careful about what we do; we'd take our daily health and long-term physical care seriously; we'd cherish life much more because it could end at any time with a lot more pain and suffering than we experience now. Insurance has made us lazy, timid and careless as a culture.

Perhaps, but for me personally it comes down to what my family would have to suffer. Whether it's my own insurance, or state-paid, I would refuse treatment (and know of others who have done the same) if the treatments for an end-stage disease aren't going to improve the quality of my life while I'm dying, only prolong the pain and physical, mental, and emotional suffering for me and my loved ones - and that will save the insurance company if I refuse expensive medicines and treatments. But that's also the minority of what insurance is used for, so I don't see having insurance as making us careless. Routine health care, yearly Dr's physicals, dental check-ups, optometrists visit for those of us with eye problems, dermatologists check-ups for those at-risk for melanoma, etc helps us maintain a healthy lifestyle affordably (I wouldn't go to the dentist 2X a year if I had to pay for it myself, and even if I brushed and flossed 3X/day, I'd still have problems. Not taking care of your teeth is linked to heart disease so that helps save my health, and the insurance company in the long run) and not having it isn't going to make an overweight person suddenly decide to lose weight b/c they'll have to pay more down the road for diabetes, metabolic disorders, and heart problems.

You wouldn't go to the dentist twice a year if you had to pay for it yourself - and yet taking care of your teeth is critical to whole-body health (see http://www.colgate.com/app/CP/US/EN/OC/ ... ealth.cvsp ). This suggests that you are not willing to spend money on the one part of your body that actually seriously influences how healthy the rest of you is? This is what I mean by insurance making us lazy, timid and careless. If you could only buy one visit to a medical professional a year, it should be for your mouth, which will affect all areas of the body if it is ill - and signal illness elsewhere in the body. The rest of the 'routine' medical care is about checking up to make sure you are still healthy so you can catch disease in time and fight it longer with more drugs and treatments. Again, this isn't living well, this is depending on the medical and insurance professions to stay well and live longer, at great cost to society. How about if we eat the very best that we can, sleep enough, get enough fresh air and exercise - and stop running to the doctor at least four times a year when we're not even sick - once for body check-up, once for eye check-up and twice for teeth? That's a lot of money to spend on "well-care."

As for those who are overweight and won't lose just because it will cost them more down the road to treat diabetes etc., it's really time for a wake-up call, for Americans to take responsibility for their health and well-being. We didn't have these problems 100 years ago... maybe modern medicine and insurance to get it hasn't improved our lives so much as it has compromised our ability to have strength and courage in the face of both death and life.