• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should we let dying people die and save tons of money

D

daveymark

Lifer
it's a question that needs to be asked, and a serious discussion needs to be had about it, because if UHC passes, I'm sure this is likely going to be an issue that the gov't will certainly be looking at.

Does anyone have some statistics on how much money is spent on an individual's last dying days? It would be interesting to see the numbers, say for how much it costs to keep the average person alive for the last week of their life.

I keep hearing/seeing/reading about the following scenario:

Bobby has cancer, and his only two options are:

1)spend thousands to keep him alive for a few more days, even though he will be in complete agony

2)hop Bobby up on painkillers so he is not in pain for his last moments and let him die without trying to "save" him, thus saving thousands.

Is this really the scenario everyone goes through when they are dying? If not, does it really happen often enough that we can really save a significant amount of money?

 
Death is Nature's way of dealing with man made global warming.

Either way works, and really the docs try to combine both approaches. The first option is only available if you have the bucks to pay for it.
 
If we're going to have UHC, we will have to ration. We should do a cost-benefit analysis. Allowing older people and ridiculously sick younger people to pass away is reasonable.
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Topic Title: Should we let dying people die and save tons of money
Topic Summary: instead of paying tons of money just to keep them alive for a few more days/weeks/months?
Click to expand...

This UHC subject is really bringing out the evil of Republicans.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: daveymark
Topic Title: Should we let dying people die and save tons of money
Topic Summary: instead of paying tons of money just to keep them alive for a few more days/weeks/months?

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If we're going to have UHC, we will have to ration. We should do a cost-benefit analysis. Allowing older people and ridiculously sick younger people to pass away is reasonable.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This UHC subject is really bringing out the evil of Republicans.
Click to expand...

 
If a person can be "saved" and brought back close to full health and live for a year or more, then they should be despite the cost. But when it comes to keeping someone alive in pain for a few weeks at tremendous cost, no.
 
Originally posted by: Extelleron
If a person can be "saved" and brought back close to full health and live for a year or more, then they should be despite the cost. But when it comes to keeping someone alive in pain for a few weeks at tremendous cost, no.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear you say that should you be in that position.

Another Republican for Carousel :roll:
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Extelleron
If a person can be "saved" and brought back close to full health and live for a year or more, then they should be despite the cost. But when it comes to keeping someone alive in pain for a few weeks at tremendous cost, no.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear you say that should you be in that position.

Another Republican for Carousel :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't want to be kept alive in constant pain with no hope of recovery for a few miserable days or weeks. And I'm not a Republican.

 
They've got a point. If someone is declared medically "brain dead," is over 60, and there's a 1:1,000,000,000 chance that they will ever regain consciousness, then it would make sense to let them pass away. Also, I'd almost bet money that Democrats will be the first to bring this up, whenever it is brought up, which it will for sure be, I'd guess in less than a year after UHC takes effect.

While I hate the thought of "rationing," and it's my biggest complaint with the way UHC works around the world, there are little compromises we all must make to keep each other happy. As long as we don't start letting 15 year olds in comas go, as long as we make every effort to save every American life we can, then I'm fine. If there's nothing in a person to be saved, then there's nothing to be gained from pouring tons of money into their lifeless body.
 
Can someone tell me what the criteria is for unplugging someone and letting them die?

My step-father spent a week in the hospital battling leukemia, beat his infection, went through chemo and lived the best two years of his life.

Then the leukemia came back and put him back in the hospital for a week before he died.

At what point do you decide that his life is not worth saving?
 
I don't think that this is as big of an issue as many people say it is. When somebody becomes terminally ill with cancer or whatever, these things tend to work themselves out. Leave it up to the patients if they are still in control of their faculties. Generally in those circumstances they just want to go peacefully without unnecessarily prolonging life and suffering. Seriously, how many people bitching about "prolonging life for a few days/weeks" due to cost have dealt with those with terminal cancer before?

For those that aren't in control of their faculties, then you either have to look to a living will or the will of the family. Beyond that, it devolves into beating the dead horse of the Terry Schiavo case...

Edit: Perhaps I should summarize. Let the patients themselves decide about their own life. We as a society tend to respect that, so under a UHC system it shouldn't be any different.
 
Point two:

Who defines 'old' or 'full life' ??

My grandfather died at 92.

My brother in-law's father and grandfather both died in their 50s.

If I end up in the hospital at 70 and him at 50 for the exact same problem which one of us is a better investment of time and money to save?

A person sitting behind a desk may decide that his life is worth saving while mine is not due to our ages.

Meanwhile he may not make it to 60 due to the heart disease that runs in his family, while I'd still be walking around 20 years later.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Point two:

Who defines 'old' or 'full life' ??

My grandfather died at 92.

My brother in-law's father and grandfather both died in their 50s.

If I end up in the hospital at 70 and him at 50 for the exact same problem which one of us is a better investment of time and money to save?

A person sitting behind a desk may decide that his life is worth saving while mine is not due to our ages.

Meanwhile he may not make it to 60 due to the heart disease that runs in his family, while I'd still be walking around 20 years later.
Click to expand...

If you were going to have people making those decisions it would have to be the doctor treating them or a panel of doctors at the hospital. Obviously you don't want the people in charge of the budget deciding.

It's a tough issue and I'm not sure if it could be implemented fairly. When we're spending 25% of the money someone spends in their entire life within the last 12 months of it, it certainly bears taking a look at though.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's a tough issue and I'm not sure if it could be implemented fairly. When we're spending 25% of the money someone spends in their entire life within the last 12 months of it, it certainly bears taking a look at though.
Click to expand...

do you have a link to the 25% figure? I think if more people see the facts, they might have a better understanding of this issue.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone tell me what the criteria is for unplugging someone and letting them die?

My step-father spent a week in the hospital battling leukemia, beat his infection, went through chemo and lived the best two years of his life.

Then the leukemia came back and put him back in the hospital for a week before he died.

At what point do you decide that his life is not worth saving?
Click to expand...

Who draws the line and where do they draw it?
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Extelleron
If a person can be "saved" and brought back close to full health and live for a year or more, then they should be despite the cost. But when it comes to keeping someone alive in pain for a few weeks at tremendous cost, no.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear you say that should you be in that position.

Another Republican for Carousel :roll:
Click to expand...

LOL Carousel.



yeah, if it was his kids, or him he'd be singing a different tune.
 
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone tell me what the criteria is for unplugging someone and letting them die?

My step-father spent a week in the hospital battling leukemia, beat his infection, went through chemo and lived the best two years of his life.

Then the leukemia came back and put him back in the hospital for a week before he died.

At what point do you decide that his life is not worth saving?
Click to expand...
Who draws the line and where do they draw it?
Click to expand...
I don't know.

The first time around $50,000 in hospital bills got my step-father 2 years of life.

The second time around $50,000 got him a few extra days.

The problem is figuring out which result you are going to get.
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's a tough issue and I'm not sure if it could be implemented fairly. When we're spending 25% of the money someone spends in their entire life within the last 12 months of it, it certainly bears taking a look at though.
Click to expand...

do you have a link to the 25% figure? I think if more people see the facts, they might have a better understanding of this issue.
Click to expand...

Here you go.
 
If we end up with UHC then I expect that we will end up with hundreds of charts that determine whether someone is worth saving or not.

It will become a very complex process: how old is the patient, is their illness treatable, what is the life expectancy of someone with their illness, is there a history of other ailments in the family that might shorten their life expectancy etc etc.

Could end up with a computer program to do all the math and spit out an answer.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If we end up with UHC then I expect that we will end up with hundreds of charts that determine whether someone is worth saving or not.

It will become a very complex process: how old is the patient, is their illness treatable, what is the life expectancy of someone with their illness, is there a history of other ailments in the family that might shorten their life expectancy etc etc.

Could end up with a computer program to do all the math and spit out an answer.
Click to expand...

Under any system that's actually going to be sustainable I imagine we will end up with some sort of method by which to devise whether or not someone is worth giving a treatment to.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: daveymark
Topic Title: Should we let dying people die and save tons of money
Topic Summary: instead of paying tons of money just to keep them alive for a few more days/weeks/months?
Click to expand...

This UHC subject is really bringing out the evil of Republicans.
Click to expand...

Meh. Remember Terry Schavio? The Republicans were trying to keep alive a brain dead woman.

There is sensible rationing. I can't see giving a 600lb man heart surgery. I can't see performing a $100,000 operation on someone in their 90s. I can't see keeping someone brain dead alive on live support indefinitely. If you're a known gangster and get shot up committing a crime, I can't see spending much money to fix them up.

We also have to evaluate our procedures. Its insane to spend $50,000 when a $10,000 procedure will do. Its insane to run tests that aren't medically indicated and won't show a benefit. This is where a national EMR and evidence based medicine comes into play.

Probably the largest thing is that we need to stop performing medical care of the sake of families. If Gramps is 90 and has advanced cancer, the family has to accept it. Hospice is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top