I'm jumping ahead to this thread, but have much to say
in the conservation one still (and I've only time for
one more post today)-
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will have to be addressed by some sort of health
> care rationing. The
> only question is when and how. We may not be there
> now, but there will be a
> point at which we cannot afford to give the best
> health care that's
> available to everyone....even if that's the focus of
> the entire economy.
Unfortunately too true.
> How we do that rationing is a very difficult
> decision. This is one reason
> that I think we should start working towards the
> most reasonable rationing
> system we can have as soon as possible.
Yes. Some basic care, especially preventive or
preemptive, ought to be available to all (it's
actually cheaper in the long run). Immunizations,
treatment for infectious diseases such as
tuberculosis, and screening for serious common
illnesses before they manifest are examples, which I
think most could agree with. Health education is also
very important, to improve people's lifestyle choices.
However, we can't afford to keep alive everyone whom
we technologically are capable of prolonging death;
end-of-life care is extremely expensive for small
return of quality living. The real poser, for me, is
taking care of those who could exist for years/decades
but whose quality of life requires massive support,
like physical, occupational, and other ancillary
therapies. I believe Ronn mentioned extreme preemies,
and others include head/brain injuries, massive
trauma, various cancers...
Rationing, which as you pointed out is going on in a
piecemeal way, will need to be more - rational. But
it will not be pleasant. I have my own criteria for
myself; I'm not sure how many would find them
acceptable. And when a child's life or well-being is
at stake, few can be impartial. I've posted
previously that I would be very strict on who
'deserves' to get organ transplants (frex no
alcoholics or IV drug users), yet I'd be hard-pressed
to create rules for, say, preemies...even though
statistically speaking, a 24 weeker is most likely to
need major ongoing care, there will be a few who
manage to have a near-normal life.
I'd have a much easier time working on drugs: as
somebody else pointed out, these ought to be used on
the basis of proven efficacy (*real* endpoints, not
just presumed-relevent markers).
Urf, gotta run-
Debbi
Guidance Systems Breakdown Maru :(
____________________________________________________________________________________Be
a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
