Here is a little more to and fro', from a careful, well-intentioned anonymous commenter, in our comment box, on the above topic, yesterday (with my various typos corrected, by edits):
Anonymous said...
Just for debating purposes: Isn't this a 'death panel' pathway?
September 23, 2010 8:18 AM
Condor said...
Just responding, then:
Um. . . non-life threatening condition; expensive treatment?
Nope. No death possible -- except to our wallets.
The more general point -- as to cost v. benefit (in truly life v. death calls) -- will always raise that difficult question, though.
Just because it is a difficult question, however, we are not exempt from being required to think it through, right?
Namaste
September 23, 2010 9:18 AM
Anonymous said...
I'd love to continue this exercise.
What 'someone' now is proposing that my access to medical care needs to be overseen by a committee/panel that will determine if my quality of life meets their fiscal priorities.
As mentioned over on Pharmalot:
"Hervé Decousushe tells the Times, noting that clots can be seen expaning in the veins under skin toward deeper veins where they can also migrate to the lungs. “It’s painful, and you can see the clot in front of you…We don’t want to wait for a fatal pulmonary embolism.”
Last I knew, fatal=death.
Slippery slope to 'death panels.'
BTW: this is just an exercise.
What I believe is that we do have to have these conversations on; exactly what are we (as a nation) willing to pay for and what we aren't. Knowing full well, that the lines for that will change.
Thanks for the exchange.
September 23, 2010 12:22 PMCondor said...
Yes, this is a nice exchange -- civil and easy.
And, near as I can tell (for the sake of argument) no one is suggesting these superficial topical clots are (by themselves) life-threatening.
Is $186,000 per each potential new event avoided too high, when the event (while painful) is considered not life-threatening?
I don't know. But like you, I think it is the sort of hard discussion we ought to have, openly -- rather than simply letting the savage allocation of excessive wealth v. poverty force that allocation indiscriminately -- if we are after a more humane system, overall.
Namaste
September 23, 2010 11:10 PM. . . .
Now, what do you think? Do go take the poll, in the left sidebar (points slightly above, and left)!
