• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim

We're not talking about a continual budget-cutting . . . how much cutting, I don't know - the article doesn't discuss that (I guess it didn't matter too much)
They dropped one person. . . one (at least according to article it's just one) - if the system couldn't flex and make it happen for just one person then I seriously question their actual values.

But we don't have the details - the article is drastically biased and actually provides no solid information. From forbes, of all places, I'd expect something far more substantial.

The state dropped 99 people from the transplant list, two have died so far
 
The state dropped 99 people from the transplant list, two have died so far

No - there were 99 - then the cut happened
Now there are 97

Arizona *use to* provide 1.4 million - now they provide ____

The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million.
As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

Today, there are only 97 on the waiting list as two have passed away.

It's not even clear on the 2nd person who died - did the 2nd one die while *on* the list?

As I mentioned in my previous post - we don't know enough about the entire situation. Would this person actually have RECEIVED a donation before death? Why were they drooped and not someone else?

Someone went down the list - and picked this individual - dropped them and it most certainly wasn't the state.

Did the donation they might have received if they were still on the list go to someone else?
Usually the answer is no: rather than budget-cuts being at fault for a transplant-awaiters death it's actually a lack of available organs.

I might be wrong - but from what I understand is that the list is first-need first-serve unless someone makes an extra effort to bump someone to the top for special reasons.
So - the first person needing a heart is #1
The 5th person needing a heart is #5

The 1st person needing a kidney is #1
The 5th is #5

If they drop someone - it's usually based on need (how seriously do they need it?) or their spot on the list (last on is the first to go in the face of such circumstances)

So - what # was this person? Why were they chosen to be dropped - I think that's more important than anything else.

The article might be extremely misleading and have their facts wrong - but it really states that only ONE person was dropped from the list because of the budget cut.
 
Last edited:
Big surprise. The state of Arizona values human life at $14,000.

Do you really think that 99 people *ever year get a transplant?

The state allots $1,400,000 for transplants every year - and there WERE 99 people on the list. That doesn't mean that they were all receiving a transplant within the year. That means that - at maximum - the state would cover 1.4 million in costs. I'm sure a transplant costs far more than a mere $14,000.

Aside that - don't forget that there are only a few (two) organs that can be donated from a living donor - so the majority of patients are waiting for someone else to die.

to me - the system chose to drop the patient and it was pre-emptive. It's not like a supply/demand production situation or something. There's no reason to drop someone if it's likely that the majority won't receive a donor organ before they naturally die, anyway.

Put the blame where it should fall.
 
Last edited:
There's no reason to drop someone if it's likely that the majority won't receive a donor organ before they naturally die, anyway..

They do it all the time. For example, if someone waiting for a liver transplant was found to be drinking alcohol, they could be dropped from the list.
 
They do it all the time. For example, if someone waiting for a liver transplant was found to be drinking alcohol, they could be dropped from the list.

Ah yes - the donee becomes the donor
 
Notice how I asked where was the charity that conservatives so like to state will take care of the unfortunate, eliminating the need for governmental assistance. Given the conservative nature of Arizona I was suprised that millions of people did not donate to assist this person a fellow american could live.

Overall I am dissappointed at the individuals of Arizona who decided this person should die because they were too cheap to donate a few cents each to allow this person to get a transplant
Why do you feel they should have chipped in to save this person. It would only have cost the life of the person who received that liver and already had the means to pay for it. The whole thread makes no sense.
 
LT:
Since AZ is running a deficit, and you seem to think the State should pay for the transplant, where do you want the money to come from? Higher taxes? How about the State balances its budget and only fund that which it can afford. The State/Local/Federal govt cannot fund all that people want in programs. Did you sent any money to help support the transplant since you are asking "conservatives" to do so? Bet not.
 
I tell you what, let's go to a national health care system and bankrupt the entire country while driving up the cost of care and driving down the availability of care so that no one can get a cold pill much less a transplant.
 
What I find interesting is this would not even be a topic of discussion 20 or so years ago. Not sure why people are wanting the govt. to do everything for them.
 
What I find interesting is this would not even be a topic of discussion 20 or so years ago. Not sure why people are wanting the govt. to do everything for them.

Because they are too lazy to defend their own rights.
 
You cannot and should not put a price on human life.
 
You cannot and should not put a price on human life.

You are correct to a point. Insurance companies, judges/juries put a price all the time. The question is how to pay health care? How about the level of care? That is if a transplant is to be done, should a patient demand the leading transplant specialist peform the operation or should they accept any certified doctor. What are you willing to give up to provide health care for everyone?
 
I tell you what, let's go to a national health care system and bankrupt the entire country while driving up the cost of care and driving down the availability of care so that no one can get a cold pill much less a transplant.

Transplants, to me, seem like a sci-fi luxury. What about all the kids and parents who go without antibiotics and dental services? What about hte many people die for the lack of a flu shot or penecillin :shrug:

To expect, wait for and desire for another human being to die in order for another individual to live - and then to peg the entire expensive, complex and dangerous and tragic process off as if it's a duty of the state to ensure - seems ridiculous.

I don't understand the logic.

I would only consider it a viable and "should be available to all who need it" option if everyone in the entire country receives 100% free and top-end healthcare to prevent and end their health problems.

On one hand we have people arguing that a few hundred dollars increase on the base cost of an SUVs and Vans (to install back-up cameras in all new models) is uncalled for though it could have saved the lives of quite a few elderly and children, or the overall cost of ensuring fresh fruits and veggies to the children in schools (to hopefully stave off later illnesses) is ridiculous and a waste of money - yet up to 1.4 million in one state for 99 people to have an extended life isn't enough?

I don't get the logic - you either WANT people to live a healthy and normal life and pay whatever the cost or you don't.
 
Last edited:
You are correct to a point. Insurance companies, judges/juries put a price all the time.


The people that made my defibrillator (medtronics) put a price on the thing.
 
You are correct to a point. Insurance companies, judges/juries put a price all the time. The question is how to pay health care? How about the level of care? That is if a transplant is to be done, should a patient demand the leading transplant specialist peform the operation or should they accept any certified doctor. What are you willing to give up to provide health care for everyone?

I'm not saying healthcare should be free and all doctors and pharmacists should work for charity. My view is that when the issue of cost comes up that would result in the death of someone, it's unethical to deny them treatment because they don't have enough money. I think a for-profit healthcare industry is a bad idea as care is centered around profits and not around patients.
 
You cannot and should not put a price on human life.

Morally, I absolutely agree. However, we live in a world with finite resources and we have to somewhere because there is no way we can allocate resources to save everyone.
 
I'm not saying healthcare should be free and all doctors and pharmacists should work for charity. My view is that when the issue of cost comes up that would result in the death of someone, it's unethical to deny them treatment because they don't have enough money. I think a for-profit healthcare industry is a bad idea as care is centered around profits and not around patients.


I'm glad you are becoming a pharmacist!!!!


And I thank you
 
Morally, I absolutely agree. However, we live in a world with finite resources and we have to somewhere because there is no way we can allocate resources to save everyone.

I feel we can make it more efficient though. I support a lot of the Republicans' views when it comes to cost cutting measures. I also support the Democrats in reforming healthcare into a government industry that is not run for profit. I think if we cut the charges down that would go towards profit, implemented Republican reforms, and had people paying the government instead of insurance companies healthcare would be cheaper for the individual and for the healthcare providers.

On a side biased note, I believe pharmacists should be allowed to write several prescriptions and be allowed to work maintinence clinics. In Florida they have grown the pharmacists' prescriptive authority and it has cut costs and provided better patient care. In the UK they have cut costs by allowing pharmacists to have clinics in their pharmacies and allowing them to prescribe certain medications. However, as states, my view is slightly biased ;)
 
I feel we can make it more efficient though. I support a lot of the Republicans' views when it comes to cost cutting measures. I also support the Democrats in reforming healthcare into a government industry that is not run for profit. I think if we cut the charges down that would go towards profit, implemented Republican reforms, and had people paying the government instead of insurance companies healthcare would be cheaper for the individual and for the healthcare providers.

On a side biased note, I believe pharmacists should be allowed to write several prescriptions and be allowed to work maintinence clinics. In Florida they have grown the pharmacists' prescriptive authority and it has cut costs and provided better patient care. In the UK they have cut costs by allowing pharmacists to have clinics in their pharmacies and allowing them to prescribe certain medications. However, as states, my view is slightly biased ;)

I agree with everything there. If anything, the pharmacist is probably going to best know the drug interactions and know which substances are relatively harmless for simple problems.
 
I agree with everything there. If anything, the pharmacist is probably going to best know the drug interactions and know which substances are relatively harmless for simple problems.

I think the same way. Pharmacists are the most knowledgeable people in the healthcare industry regarding medications and treatments as we study it intensely. The difference between doctors is that they are trained more so in medical techniques and diagnosis. However, most pharmacy curriculum study medical sciences for three years and one year of rotations. Most medical school curriculum are two years of study and two years of rotations. Doctors will still be a vital role in the medical industry, but I support more power to the pharmacists as well. Nurses and physician assistants are allowed to prescribe medication, yet in most states the only thing a pharmacist can do is write for the plan b contraceptive (which is far more dangerous than most drugs). I hope what has started in Florida will spread across the rest of the US. To my knowledge, there have been no problems in Florida due to pharmacists being able to prescribe several medications.
 
I think the same way. Pharmacists are the most knowledgeable people in the healthcare industry regarding medications and treatments as we study it intensely. The difference between doctors is that they are trained more so in medical techniques and diagnosis. However, most pharmacy curriculum study medical sciences for three years and one year of rotations. Most medical school curriculum are two years of study and two years of rotations. Doctors will still be a vital role in the medical industry, but I support more power to the pharmacists as well. Nurses and physician assistants are allowed to prescribe medication, yet in most states the only thing a pharmacist can do is write for the plan b contraceptive (which is far more dangerous than most drugs). I hope what has started in Florida will spread across the rest of the US. To my knowledge, there have been no problems in Florida due to pharmacists being able to prescribe several medications.

The pharmacist at the hospitals anticoagulation clinic name is on all my scripts then I pick them at wall mart where again the pharmacist there counsels me on the side affects and what ever I need to know. Oh BTW I take 7 different pills aday.
 
The pharmacist at the hospitals anticoagulation clinic name is on all my scripts then I pick them at wall mart where again the pharmacist there counsels me on the side affects and what ever I need to know. Oh BTW I take 7 different pills aday.

The laws vary from state to state. In your state pharmacists may be able to write in clinics as clinical pharmacy is a growing career. In TN it is a state law that a pharmacist must counsel patients on new medication and a doctors explanation cannot suffice. We can also "loan" pills to patients who have expired prescriptions for medications while they wait for the doctor to respond to the refill renewal request. However, all this stuff is for another thread, I feel I have derailed this one with my bias opinion :mrgreen:
 
You cannot and should not put a price on human life.

We can and absolutely should.

I'm not saying healthcare should be free and all doctors and pharmacists should work for charity. My view is that when the issue of cost comes up that would result in the death of someone, it's unethical to deny them treatment because they don't have enough money. I think a for-profit healthcare industry is a bad idea as care is centered around profits and not around patients.

So how much do you think we should be spending on each person. Say that we have the ability to extend an 80 year old's life, but it will cost $50k/month. Should the government pay for that care? Say that we can save a 10 year old from a debilitating disease, but the medications they will have to take forever cost $50k/month. Should the government pay for it?

The biggest problem facing our healthcare system is that people are too scared to simply say "no, we cannot and should not be paying for this." The end result is a system where we try to fund everything and end up with skyrocketing costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom