• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Medical technology and ethical decisions

I think money is a key factor because it is what keeps this system somewhat stable. I think if you want costs to be reasonable, we have to be reasonable and decide what procedure to do or not to do. So for an extreme example, a 90 year old leukemia patient shouldn't try to prolong his or her life, it is his or her time to die.

Death is a part of life. There are times when it is our calling, and it is sooner and later than others. It's reality. And if you want these outrageous costs to come down, then we can't have the mindset that everyone should get every possible procedure done to prolong their lives at all times. That isn't sustainable. We have to be reasonable and say, "That person is going to die, it is his or her time."
 
I think money is a key factor because it is what keeps this system somewhat stable. I think if you want costs to be reasonable, we have to be reasonable and decide what procedure to do or not to do. So for an extreme example, a 90 year old leukemia patient shouldn't try to prolong his or her life, it is his or her time to die.

Death is a part of life. There are times when it is our calling, and it is sooner and later than others. It's reality. And if you want these outrageous costs to come down, then we can't have the mindset that everyone should get every possible procedure done to prolong their lives at all times. That isn't sustainable. We have to be reasonable and say, "That person is going to die, it is his or her time."

So you support death panels?
 
I think money is a key factor because it is what keeps this system somewhat stable. I think if you want costs to be reasonable, we have to be reasonable and decide what procedure to do or not to do. So for an extreme example, a 90 year old leukemia patient shouldn't try to prolong his or her life, it is his or her time to die.

Death is a part of life. There are times when it is our calling, and it is sooner and later than others. It's reality. And if you want these outrageous costs to come down, then we can't have the mindset that everyone should get every possible procedure done to prolong their lives at all times. That isn't sustainable. We have to be reasonable and say, "That person is going to die, it is his or her time."

A friend's grandmother was 90 years old; had bladder cancer. They chose to not have chemo or anything done because - yeah, she's 90. And the side-effects of the chemo would be pretty hard on her.

Another friend's dad had a shoulder that would pop out of its socket every so often - even when he went to comb his hair, it would pop out; extremely painful, required a trip to ER to pop back in. After awhile, the dad went in for surgery - mid-70s. Died a couple days after surgery, still in the hospital. Might still be alive without it.

So many things to consider before treatment. Quality of life vs extending life. And again, who decides? If that 90 yr old had really wanted chemotherapy, should society have paid for it? I guess we would have; but she and her family chose otherwise.
 
I havent at all claimed that it isnt worth discussing. Pointing out that the topic isnt new doesnt in anyway devalue the topic it just takes into account that it isnt a new concept.

Technological advances have done what exactly in the last decade? What would be different today as opposed to 2004? What technological devices exist now that did not exist before that make the questions that you ask any different than 20 years ago much less ten? What are the new the ethical Dilemma that exist now that did not exist before?

More preemie babies can be kept alive (at a greater cost) than before; multiple births are more likely to be kept alive; older people have more treatments open to them; hip replacements are "common" now, open heart surgery, etc etc etc. are more common now. Organ transplants.
 
So you support death panels?
Insurance companies have had "death panels" ever since they started. Try running over your policy limit and see what happens ...
 
Insurance companies have had "death panels" ever since they started. Try running over your policy limit and see what happens ...

A hospital can't deny you life-saving medical care based on inability to pay.
 
More preemie babies can be kept alive (at a greater cost) than before; multiple births are more likely to be kept alive; older people have more treatments open to them; hip replacements are "common" now, open heart surgery, etc etc etc. are more common now. Organ transplants.
Since my wife recently had her hip replaced I can tell you for a fact that a bad hip isn't fatal. You're stretching ...
 
A hospital can't deny you life-saving medical care based on inability to pay.
Oh, one of those entitlement people, I see ... LOL!


Hospitals are not required to R&R your heart.
 
Since my wife recently had her hip replaced I can tell you for a fact that a bad hip isn't fatal. You're stretching ...

sorry, didn't mean to imply they are. I meant more that they have become a lot more common as the technology has improved; and they aren't free. Now they have added HUGELY to people's quality of life; but they are one of those things that, as technology has improved, more people are getting and thus costs are going up.

So yes, this is a debate that has been around for a long time; but in my opinion the increasing number of life-saving or life-helping technologies - which are more expensive than prior treatments - means we'll be faced more and more often with the cost vs benefit decision.

I have a friend who is in her mid-70s who just had one hip replaced and will soon have the other one replaced. She probably should have had it done 5 or more years ago, but she kept hoping other things would help. Would I deny her the hip replacement? no way - she was reduced to using walkers and wheelchairs pre-surgery and now, hopefully, she will be able to walk without them and without pain post-surgery.

But it all costs us...
 
More preemie babies can be kept alive (at a greater cost) than before; multiple births are more likely to be kept alive; older people have more treatments open to them; hip replacements are "common" now, open heart surgery, etc etc etc. are more common now. Organ transplants.

Yes some of that is true but it doesnt largely change the premise. But enough of that (it wasnt even important to me). Ill just concede and assume that the situation has evolved into a different problem.

Three years a go, my Mom was at the end of a long battle with COPD. Her doctor asked if I wanted to basically unplug her. At the end stage of COPD the mind is but a shell of its old self. And she was on a ventilator. Technology could have kept her alive for who knows how much longer. The ethical thing to do at that point was to let her die. SO technology isnt always the panacea of ethics.

What it comes down too is quality of life and the decisions made by the patient and or the loved ones responsible for their well being. As I said (but you ignored in lieu of defending the legitimacy of the premise of this thread) every case should be dealt with by a case to case method and nothing short of that would be ethical technology or not its still the same outcome. A decision is called for and IMHO the decision should always be personal not a cookie cutter one size fits all.
 
Yes some of that is true but it doesnt largely change the premise. But enough of that (it wasnt even important to me). Ill just concede and assume that the situation has evolved into a different problem.

Three years a go, my Mom was at the end of a long battle with COPD. Her doctor asked if I wanted to basically unplug her. At the end stage of COPD the mind is but a shell of its old self. And she was on a ventilator. Technology could have kept her alive for who knows how much longer. The ethical thing to do at that point was to let her die. SO technology isnt always the panacea of ethics.

What it comes down too is quality of life and the decisions made by the patient and or the loved ones responsible for their well being. As I said (but you ignored in lieu of defending the legitimacy of the premise of this thread) every case should be dealt with by a case to case method and nothing short of that would be ethical technology or not its still the same outcome. A decision is called for and IMHO the decision should always be personal not a cookie cutter one size fits all.

I would hope we stick with that case by case method. I'm just not sure that will work out on the large scale of our country.
 
I would hope we stick with that case by case method. I'm just not sure that will work out on the large scale of our country.

Why wouldnt it work? That may on the surface sound like a naive question, but individual requirements are the reality of the situation. Just because something is daunting doesnt mean that one should take the easy way out. Today's reality is that there really isnt a system in place that deals sufficiently with the need of a case by case policy (be it private or public care). And I dont see a solution anytime soon with all of the political arguments getting in the way.
 
Back
Top Bottom