The problem is that at some point in some way the decision has to be made that “sorry we can’t afford to cure you”. The job of any public health service is then to draw these lines in such a way that the maximum number of people benefit.

The thing that isn’t mentioned in the story are the relative costs of each treatment; additionally a “life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance” are pretty slim odds thats 1:20 chance of the treatment having a worth while affect.

The Dr assisted suicide is purely another option.

I see only one thing wrong with this which is the phrasing of the letter which was pretty poor. Health care for all is a wonderful idea but it has limited funds.

I think it is convenient for you to misunderstand what I’m saying. Talk about blinders.

You keep saying that I am makeing judgements about who lives or dies.

I am not doing any such thing. Cancer is killing this man. He believes that a certain kind of treament (curative treatment) will extend his life. That is extremely unlikely.

According to what was said by the official, Palliative treament is an option. Hospice is an option, and Doctor-assisted suicide is an option. He has a right to choose to have taxpayers pay for any one (or more…palliative until it no longer works, hospice until he dies or until it becomes unbearable for whatver reason, dr.-ass suicide if he decides he doesn’t want to wait)

He even has a right to choose the curative option if he finds a private way to pay for it, and is strong enough to have it not kill him faster (as happened with reletives of mine).

You say that I was objecting to reletives dying in pain. The pain was unfortunate, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about curative treaments killing them more quickly or as quickly as if they had not been treated at all, and how palliative treatments are a much better option for terminal patients because they are less harsh on the body, but delay the cancer and allow for quality of life and don’t kill you quicker.

I am not using those anecdotes to justify killing people. I am saying that palliative treatment is more appropriate for terminal patients than curative treaments which are likely to do more harm than good.

Besically, I’m saying that it seems you are arguing for the right of patients to be “killed with the cure”.

And furthermore, you are saying that if I don’t think it’s a good idea, I’m responsible for people dying. Which is just weird.

Teresa’s last blog post..Copy-Cat Creep

As nice as all your Mother Theresa / Sisters of Mercy references are, I could honestly care less. They are a private charity that individuals can chose to go to or not.

As far as I’m concerned, the government ought not to be in the business of paying for physicians to kill patients and they sure as hell ought not to be willing to pay for death but not for life - no matter how short and painful it may or may not be. And yes, if a person qualifies for state health care for whatever reason, the state has an obligation to pay for medical care. I thought Democrats were in favor of universal health care? Apparently not so much.

Who are you people making moral quality of life decisions about who should live and who should die based on how much pain they may or may not be in or exactly how much time they may have?

The truth is in the facts. Be it in palliative care or treatment for the specific illness, the medical technology of pain management has advanced to the point where 98-99% of all pain is manageable. So, if you have experienced loved ones dying in extreme pain, I am sorry that you had to go through it but it wasn’t necessary and it doesn’t justify just killing more people.

If someone wants to or has to stop treatment for whatever illness they are fighting and be satisfied with palliative care, that is absolutely their prerogative. There is never a cause or justification to kill a person because they are elderly or physically/mentally ill or disabled. And if you continue to deny the fact that there is a slippery slope of devaluing life with death is on the table in light of this particular story, you should readjust your blinders.

Whats to say that those 50 people’s lives (probaly not all of them died, but most likely, their lives were SHORTENED) less valuable than the benefit of increased attractivness in fruit?/sarc

The EPA assesses air quality requirements based on a cost/benefit analysis of the number of pre-mature deaths a certain level of pollutants is likely to cause.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/dec/dec18b_06.html

Many people are OK with passing a law that would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion if pregnancy will shorten her life, but her life is not in immediate danger. They casually weigh the value of her shortened life-span against her child’s life without a second thought.

Or the airplane industry that decides that a set of safety upgrades cost too much to save x number of lives every year.

People and institutions make these assessments and judgements all of the time.

Consistancy on this issue could end up being quite demanding.

Teresa’s last blog post..Copy-Cat Creep

“I’m thinking we don’t even need doctors. Just people to help us kill ourselves if we become ill. Not terminally ill, mind you, just ill.” /sarc

NOW you are talking about the “Mother Theresa” health care system…which must be so much better because it is religious.

My point is not that people should be denied the right to live as long as possible. My POINT is that given the prognosis, care would not likely prolong the person’s life.

If the person believed that eating a concoction of oregano oil and garlic would prolong their life, would you demand that taxpayers fund it, despite the unliklyhodd it would work?

No.

My “moral authority” or lack thereof has nothing to do with the fact that someone who is that sick is unlikely to be helped or have their life prolonged by curative treatment. Indeed, as in some cases I have observed, they died more quickly due to the treatment.

(for instance, chemo shut down my grandmother’s kidneys and liver…she died four months sooner than her prognosis without treatment. Chemo also gave my grandfather kidney failure, and he survived about as long as he was likely to without treatment. Also, my Mother-in-law has terminated her treatment as the chemo she was on caused seizures that almost killed her on two seperate occasions.)

Teresa’s last blog post..Copy-Cat Creep

When did God die and give power to Oregon to decide that one year of life is worth less than five?

There’s a difference between choosing to live, and asking the taxpayers of Oregon to foot the bill for your life. The taxpayers have decided the cost-benefit isn’t worth their dollars.

Is it worth yours? Then pay the freight. Life is a privilege. No one has the right to be kept alive at all costs. It’s hard, yes, but I don’t see the problem. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the state of Oregon. If god wants to keep this man alive, then he/she knows what to do …

Oh, and I’ve dealt with a family death from cancer. Sometimes there is such a thing as “too much.”

Let’s rephrase that: Oregon WILL cover life-prolonging treatments if there is a 6% chance that the patient will live for another three days. Oregon will no longer fund “Hail Mary Medicine”.

I have seen taxpayer-funded triple bypass surgery done on a semi-comatose nonegenarian (that’s a person in their 90s) with emphysema, pneumonia, and failing kidneys …taken from the ICU to surgery and back to ICU, where she lingered for another couple of weeks. Where is the medical reason for that?

Your desire to live as long as possibleis just that - your DESIRE, not a taxpayer-funded right.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s always going to be a cynical equation when health care resources are limited and compromises must be made. The best the health care system can do is be honest about it, at that seems to be the case here.

That said, I do see that an unusual level of tact is required when telling someone, “Sorry, we’re not going to pay to give you a chance for extended life, but what we CAN pay for is a quick and painless death…”

I’m thinking we don’t even need doctors. Just people to help us kill ourselves if we become ill. Not terminally ill, mind you, just ill. /sarc

You want them to have a third choice…the one where taxpayers pay more to make their inevitable death more difficult, painful, and possibly quicker.

Newsflash: Everyone’s death in inevitable. I’m sorry that you’ve had to watch so many loved ones die of cancer. However, that does not give you the absolute moral authority card to decide the values of others, and their desire to live on this earth as long as possible.

Sunflower Desert’s last blog post..Bighorn Sheep in the Canyon

Yes, I read the story.

I did read the story. I think that “5% chance of surviving more than five years” means something different to me than it means to you.

Perhaps it is due to my experience in watching numerous friends and relatives deal with cancer.

Teresa’s last blog post..Copy-Cat Creep