StocktontoMalone wrote:RossValoryRocks wrote:StocktontoMalone wrote:Hmmm.....do you believe a person owns his/her body, exclusively? That is....should a person be allowed to decide if they want to die, legally?
I do believe a person should be able to end their own life legally in certain well defined situations...What does that have to do with communal standards?
Nothing.....just wanted to ask that....
But back to the other topic. Gotta love the way Mantle climbed that liver ladder. I guess fame and $$$ works wonders in those situations. Not to mention that quality of life should be a criterium in those circumstances....if it comes down to, like you said, a 70 year old, and an 11 year old - the 11 year old should trump.
I disagree on the 11 year old versus the 70 year old.
I agree on the Mickey Mantle thing.
Who are YOU or anyone else to decide who lives or dies in a situation...based on age?
That is what I am afraid of, someone else making that decision based on something a nebulous as age.
We aren't allowed to discriminate based on age in a workplace, because that would be unfair, but in healthcare it is ok???
BULLSHIT. Even if the rationale is the same, as an employer I can get more years out of a younger person, probably cheaper as well, but if I use that in any way, shape or form, it is illegal.
You are advocating it in HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking nuts?
The powerful story of Barbara Wagner demonstrates why this discussion is of utmost importance. When Barbara's lung cancer reappeared during the spring of 2008 her oncologist recommended aggressive treatment with Tarceva, a new chemotherapy.
However, Oregon's state run health plan denied the potentially life altering drug because they did not feel it was "cost-effective." Instead, the State plan offered to pay for either hospice care or physician-assisted suicide. In stunned disbelief you may ask, "How can this be? This happens in Europe. I've heard stories of Britain's National Health Service delaying intervention until the patient dies or reports of physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands. But in America?"
The answer is simple. Oregon state officials controlled the process of healthcare decision-making?not Barbara and her physician. Chemotherapy would cost the state $4,000 every month she remained alive; the drugs for physician-assisted suicide held a one-time expense of less than $100. Barbara's treatment plan boiled down to accounting.
To cover chemotherapy state policy demanded a five percent patient survival rate at five years. As a new drug, Tarceva did not meet this dispassionate criterion. To Oregon, Barbara was no longer a patient; she had become a "negative economic unit."
Confirm this at
http://www.physiciansforreform.org
