News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by noonespecial on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:21PM (#1168232)
Free speech is a right. When I speak freely, I don't diminish your ability to do so. Healthcare can never be a "right" in the same way because it is bounded by scarcity. There is some point at which when I consume more, it leaves less for everyone else.

We can decide to ration what we have fairly. (How to do this is a matter of great debate). I'd argue that facing this problem in a clear-eyed, rational manner is almost a rite of passage for civilization, but calling it a "right" clouds the issue considerably.

Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by axod on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:30PM (#1168254)
Yeah sorry, the choice of words wasn't correct. It's not a right to demand every treatment under the sun etc.

But I believe it is a right to have some level of basic healthcare provided by government. I simply couldn't live in a country without it :/

I guess the issue is that you can spin that as "Death panels" if you wish - the government/NHS/etc get to decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't. It's a great shame it's been spun that way though.

Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by pw0ncakes on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:45PM (#1168287)
First world European countries use a quality-of-life-year or disability-adjusted life-year metric. If resource X will give patient A an expected 20 years of life as a vegetable (Q = 0.1) vs. patient B 10 fully-healthy years (Q = 1), patient B gets it. The goal is to maximize total life-years. Obviously, these numbers are estimates, the quality multiplier is subjective, and the optimization problem is very difficult, but the goal is fair and noble, and I think most people would agree with it. When I'm 90, if we haven't made any anti-aging progress, I would want the 20-year-old to get the heart transplant instead of me.
Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by dhyasama on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:26PM (#1168369)
I would want myself to want the 20-year-old to get the transplant instead of me. Whether or not I would make that decision while lying on my death bed is another matter.
Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by pw0ncakes on Thursday March 04, 2010 @10:09PM (#1168704)
Assuming no anti-aging progress, me being 90 implies that I've got 15 years left of life, tops... and most likely 2-4 given that I've just had a transplant. I'd be willing to give that up in order for someone else to live, as long as I can die a decent death. I believe that there are benefits to doing the right thing, both in the here and the hereafter.

It'd be a harder decision if I was 50 and had children who depended on me, and if the 20-year-old didn't have good odds anyway (or had done something incredibly stupid). Then I might be tempted to do make the "selfish" decision if it were mine to make. But not if I am 90 and decrepit.

Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by pw0ncakes on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:31PM (#1168255)
There are absolute and relative rights. Absolute rights are based on absolute ethical frameworks, while relative rights are constrained by the resources available.

For example, I don't have the absolute right to life, but only a relative one. No one can provide for that. In fact, I am guaranteed to die someday. I do have the absolute right not to be murdered (and to expect society to punish those who deprive that right).

People in a society have a relative right to food, shelther, and medical care. If the resources exist, they have a right to them. If they don't, then that "right" is meaningless. Every American has the right to adequate medical care without the life-destroying mess of individual medical billing (as opposed to the taxpayer-funded system that First World countries use) but not every American has the right to a liver transplant, because livers are scarce.

Re:End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Wo... by igorhvr on Saturday March 06, 2010 @11:51AM (#1171738)
> Every American has the right to adequate medical care without the life-destroying mess of individual medical billing

Bullshit. Someone has to pay for the adequate medical care - and it should be the person receiving it. If you want protection against "individual medical billing", you can always buy insurance - if you don't do that, you should be willing to face the consequences.

To put another way: the only way of ensuring "adequate medical care" to someone without the means or unwilling to pay for it is to force other people to pay for it. Do you think this makes sense? Let's say I eat healthy food (which most people don't), make exercise every single day (most people don't) and pay (insurance) for proper medical care (most people don't).

Why, exactly, should I be forced to pay when someone that eats crap every day, spends 4 hours a day on Television, does no exercise at all, etc, etc, gets sick?

And even that is besides the point - even if a perfectly healthy person gets hit by a car - why should I be forced to pay for it?