A looming global social crisis is that of health care. Medical science will advance enough to be
able to provide a “cure” for most ailments – but at a cost. An essential question will be, “Is it worth
$x to extent the life of an (say) 85 year old person?” Granted that 85 is arbitrary. Maybe the question could be framed about a
65 year old alcoholic or drug user. If
we don’t talk about life extension – how about speaking about a knee
replacement? – or a hip? - or a
heart? Is the replacement of a knee of
a 70 year old worth the expense to society?
Evolution has
endowed us all with a reverence for life.
If we didn’t think life was important, our species, with limited
physical abilities, would not have lasted long in the face of (say) saber tooth
tigers. If the tiger had grabbed
grandma/pa and we didn’t think her/his life was important, the rest of us would’ve
ran. But we rallied, used our superior
intellect, and saved grandma/pa by a concerted effort. (Grandma/pa was a big help in caring for our
offspring while we gathered berries and venison.) And we are still caring for grandma/pa even though we don’t really need them anymore.
At some point
the quality and enjoyment of life for an ill elder diminishes to the point
where continuing their life offers no benefit either to themselves or to
society as a whole. But evolution
offers us no alternative than to sustain them.
Hepatitis C now
has a cure costing at least $80,000 and a similar cost may be attached to the
to-be-found cure for other maladies.
Should everyone who has hepatitis C be eligible – via
medicare/medicaid/ObamaCare- for this treatment? If not, how do we decide who gets it and who does not?
We as a society
do not have a mechanism for dealing with this type of question. Let me offer one (immodestly, of
course). We are used to making legally significant, i.e., life/death decisions.
Juries do it routinely. Would
not a panel of ordinary citizens chosen randomly from the population, when
presented with the medical (other ailments, past history, mental acuity) and
societal evidence (age, family, financial stability) not be the best resource to
determine, - “Yes, spend the $80,000 or not”?
I suspect the
Doctors do a lot of this decision making now and we don’t know about it. That may be OK, but I see a conflict of
interest. They want to keep working and don't have the fullest breadth of view.
For me, I’m
quite willing to cede my oxygen allotment to my granddaughters and really hope
not to have a lingering death. If
tomorrow was my last day…I’ve had a good life.
I just wish I had a pill to make sure I didn’t lie for weeks on end
being miserable.
© 2014 Lester C. Welch
Excellent post. The "panel of ordinary citizens" idea would certainly be a fair approach. Not sure how practical it would be, but maybe it could work. I think your last paragraph says very well what most of us feel.
ReplyDeleteA panel of ordinary citizens determining life or death for others based on age, finances, and "value" to society? Sounds very Orwellian...and frightening when you consider some of the other decisions that ordinary citizens make. In our city football and baseball stadiums would probably gain more financial support than life sustaining expenses for the elderly or indigent. Can you just imagine the lawsuits? Just saying...
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you I do wish we could have a pill or mechanism to end our own lives when we are suffering with no end in sight.