> Are you implying we kill/let die the "sickly"?

What's the choice? Make other people ill and have the original sick people die anyways?

That's all slowing mortality down in heroin abuses does, and it's definitely not how we treat other kinds of diseases, particularly those which have reached epidemic proportions, where the prime objective is arresting transmission.

So, yes -- I think we should follow standard medical practices, and it's unfortunate that strong measures are needed to confront an epidemic level problem. Just like it always is when you have to make medical triage decisions.

But we have to prioritize maintaining the healthy population ahead of the comfort or longevity of the already ill, in broad strokes.

What you're suggesting is not standard medical practice, to be clear. Treatment for heroin addiction is to get that person off of heroin, not let them die.

And no, we don't have to prioritize maintaining a healthy population, not to the degree that treating the ill is excluded. That implies a limitation of resources that simply does not exist. We can and do both.

It's the entire Republican plan for healthcare: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea...

>Blitzer pressed the point. "But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?" At that point, the rabble erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"