Should we let dying people die and save tons of money

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As long as doctors and hospitals have the incentives to pile on these expenses and are allowed to they will. We don't have to ration treatment to fix this problem, we just have to remove those incentives. This goes for these expensive procedures on the dying as well as a lot of those tests and procedures that get blamed on "defensive medicine" that tort reformers love to crow about.

Lol what a pile. I guess you don't work in the medical field? I was in the ethics committees, because the hospital WANTED TO PULL THE PLUG! The family was insisting they be kept alive.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As long as doctors and hospitals have the incentives to pile on these expenses and are allowed to they will. We don't have to ration treatment to fix this problem, we just have to remove those incentives. This goes for these expensive procedures on the dying as well as a lot of those tests and procedures that get blamed on "defensive medicine" that tort reformers love to crow about.

Lol what a pile. I guess you don't work in the medical field? I was in the ethics committees, because the hospital WANTED TO PULL THE PLUG! The family was insisting they be kept alive.

Remember my old saying- "No one knows your job better than someone who's never done it"

 

[Elias824]

I hardly think we should let economics dictated ethics, that cant end well. If you are so concerned about being sick and costing to much money you dont have to get treatment for your illness, its a personal decision.
Old people cost too much money to maybe we should just shoot you when you hit 65 Happy Birthday! bang. Would solve our social secruity problem and probably a good deal of medical issues as well.

 

[Genx87]

This is a major cost that needs to be addressed by reform. I dont think we as a nation will have the balls to cut people off even when there is no hope for recovery. And in the process spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping somebody alive another 6 weeks.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Elias824
I hardly think we should let economics dictated ethics, that cant end well. If you are so concerned about being sick and costing to much money you dont have to get treatment for your illness, its a personal decision.
Old people cost too much money to maybe we should just shoot you when you hit 65 Happy Birthday! bang. Would solve our social secruity problem and probably a good deal of medical issues as well.

Cost alone can't be the deciding factor. Quality of Life has to factor in even if the person is 100+.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is a major cost that needs to be addressed by reform. I dont think we as a nation will have the balls to cut people off even when there is no hope for recovery. And in the process spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping somebody alive another 6 weeks.

From someone who has lived through this, I can say that you are probably right. It's one of the hardest things that you'll ever have to do in your life. I could not imagine if it were me making the decision whether to unplug a child of mine or limit their care so that they could die. I understand the financial burden on society for it but I also see the human side. I'm not going to weigh in for one side or the other...I just know from life that it's very difficult to let a loved one go....

 

[Red Dawn]

Allow them to self medicate, that'll takie care of the problem of them lingering on. If was was suffering from terminal cancer I would prefer to go out that way rather than getting radiated, poisoned and dried out.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is a major cost that needs to be addressed by reform. I dont think we as a nation will have the balls to cut people off even when there is no hope for recovery. And in the process spends tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping somebody alive another 6 weeks.

From someone who has lived through this, I can say that you are probably right. It's one of the hardest things that you'll ever have to do in your life. I could not imagine if it were me making the decision whether to unplug a child of mine or limit their care so that they could die. I understand the financial burden on society for it but I also see the human side. I'm not going to weigh in for one side or the other...I just know from life that it's very difficult to let a loved one go....

Speaking of which. Earlier this year a young couple here in Canada was faced with just this dilemma. They chose to pull the plug and donate the Organs, then their child surprisingly lived afterwards. It turned into somewhat of a Media circus with accusations and other BS being thrown around, but IIRC the Parents eventually ended up taking their baby home.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Despite the cost? What if that year cost $100,000,000? What is the value of life? Bleeding hearts often say life is priceless, but is it really?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Despite the cost? What if that year cost $100,000,000? What is the value of life? Bleeding hearts often say life is priceless, but is it really?

What if it was your wife or child?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Who draws the line and where do they draw it?

Government, if they get their way.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Why not let the dying people decide via advance directives?

Because it's not up to them when everyone else is footing the bill. UHC will mean that the public decides when to pull the plug, not the patient.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Despite the cost? What if that year cost $100,000,000? What is the value of life? Bleeding hearts often say life is priceless, but is it really?

Did they Evolve a Digestive system that can only consume Gold?

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As long as doctors and hospitals have the incentives to pile on these expenses and are allowed to they will. We don't have to ration treatment to fix this problem, we just have to remove those incentives. This goes for these expensive procedures on the dying as well as a lot of those tests and procedures that get blamed on "defensive medicine" that tort reformers love to crow about.

I would think it can be a case of giving a inexperienced surgeon practice and increasing the amount of trained staff, I like how the japanese gov have a set price placed on any given procedure, it's a concrete way of removing incentive to profiteer by unnecessary procedures.
If work has to be done for a modest income, productivity becomes the means and the solution, instead of the "would you like that upsized, Sir!" approach. The way to rationalize healthcare, is to remove exorbitant administrative costs, increase facility efficiency in design and construction, and to increase staff productivity. Make em earn it! not burn it!
So like so many things today, it comes back to all those fabulously trained and inexperienced MBA's.
You cannot buy a kilo of experience.

Maybe IQ also should be a factor of triage of treatments. Begin at the top and work right to left.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: SammyJr

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.

This...
In Med school 8 years ago, I sat in several ethics board cases where the hospital wanted to terminate "heroic" measures and put gramps on hospice. Instead, family wanted to do everything possible to keep gramps alive. Legal costs/benefit ratios were done and all 3 died in the ICU while hooked up to several machines. At the cost of >$10,000 PER DAY!!! The shortest stay was 16 days for one of the patients before he died.

To the posters who said let the patient and the family decide on "advance directives" That's exactly where we are at this time and it's even worse as majority of people don't even have advance directives or DPOA's.

So true. It's very naive for people to think that even half of all people have "advance directives." When my wife was working on the floors, she frequently had to counsel people that "it's time to let gramps go." It seems that some people feel that if they give the okay to pull the plug and let someone pass naturally, that it's morally equivalent to them killing the person. They don't want to live with it on their conscience that they were the one to actually make that decision. "What if gramps regained consciousness for even 5 minutes and was able to say good-bye to everyone?" There have been times when families have accepted that their relative is going to die, but prolonged treatment simply so more of the family would be able to gather at the relative's side to say good-bye (while that person was unconscious). "Can't let him die now! Betsy has a flight up from Florida tomorrow! "

Once apon a time, they where ushered away and told "we are doing done all that is possible"
* next morning- "I am afraid Sir your grandfather passed away painlessly in his sleep last night"

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

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.

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

Another Republican for Carousel :roll:

Just out of curiousity, when the Dems pass UHC and health care is indeed rationed and people die after being denied expensive procedures with low chances of success.... how do you intend to blame the republicans?

It is rationed now- to the highest bidder!
No change is required!
Let's keep old rich fucks alive, let's find a way to make them live a thousand years!
*then when it becomes cost effective, it will trickle down to the poor! mwahhhmwahhhahaaaa!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Despite the cost? What if that year cost $100,000,000? What is the value of life? Bleeding hearts often say life is priceless, but is it really?

What if it was your wife or child?

What if the bill gets mailed to you?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Despite the cost? What if that year cost $100,000,000? What is the value of life? Bleeding hearts often say life is priceless, but is it really?

Did they Evolve a Digestive system that can only consume Gold?

Then put a price on it. How much is too much?

Democrats say we currently spend too much, then they turn around and say no cost is too much. Talk about double speak. :roll:

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Despite the cost? What if that year cost $100,000,000? What is the value of life? Bleeding hearts often say life is priceless, but is it really?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079475/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
http://www.time.com/time/healt...0,8599,1808049,00.html
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn...cle.cfm?articleid=1949
http://economicefficiency.blog...lue-of-human-life.html

Maybe, its the people who add to the price, witch, make it less affordable for some to live.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I suspect that rationing would take care of itself if we start letting people choose to end their life with set conditions, for example "pull the plug after one week if less than 5% chance of recovery."

Right now the hardline Christians fight against the right to commit suicide tooth and nail because the Bible tells them it's a mortal sin.

The Bush administration tried to block Oregon's right to die law, apparently because God told Ashcroft that the terminally ill should suffer.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Why not let the dying people decide via advance directives?

Because it's not up to them when everyone else is footing the bill. UHC will mean that the public decides when to pull the plug, not the patient.

No, it doesn't- if you decide to pay for it yourself! You Decide!
You can even pay to die in Switzerland!
The real question to be answered by society, is can some afford to live!

 

[Hacp]

We should pull the plug if they can't pay for it. Insurance companies should stop funding 90 year old grandpas who want 2-3 more days to live.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Hacp
We should pull the plug if they can't pay for it. Insurance companies should stop funding 90 year old grandpas who want 2-3 more days to live.

Ironic, sarcastic or both?
Hacp- I do like the majority of your postings, but what are you saying there?
UHC, private, both or none?
Insurance companies fund nothing, they profit from those funds!

 

[piasabird]

Are you volunteering?

Who determins dying? Is that everyone with High Blood Pressure or what? What if your kid falls off a bicycle and breaks her leg. Should we just let the child die? It is your idea??? If you have a car accident do we let you die?

Note to self. We are all dying!

What if the Govt tells your wife that a cesarian section is too costly and she dies when her cervix does not open?

Then there is the idiot mountain climbers, and a lost child in the mountains. We should just let them die. No one forced them to get in trouble all alone.

Some people would die naturally at 50 and some people would die naturally at 90 or older. Maybe we should not use pace makers but just let people die naturally. No stint for you Mr. vice president.

We may not be able to afford anymore aids medication either.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Hacp
We should pull the plug if they can't pay for it. Insurance companies should stop funding 90 year old grandpas who want 2-3 more days to live.

Ironic, sarcastic or both?
Hacp- I do like the majority of your postings, but what are you saying there?
UHC, private, both or none?
Insurance companies fund nothing, they profit from those funds!

Obviously not UHC. Insurance companies can do this right now and save money for everyone. Sure, they might keep the profits to themselves, but that's why we need reform. Encourage more insurance company startups and let the competition drive the prices lower.