We have to feed you no matter what or give you dialysis, say, but don't have to give you that surgery where we freeze your brain while a team of surgeons from Japan fix your liver with nano robots.
Why? Is the life of the person who needs the surgery less valuable than the life of the person needing dialysis? Are you making an economic argument? A cost/benefit argument? A medical efficacy argument? Some hybrid of the aforementioned? If it's economic, can we apply the same reasoning to deny care to the premie? If it's cost/benefit, should be deny expensive kidney transplants and pay only for dialysis? If it's medical efficacy, do we limit our care only to "proven" treatments, especially when considering the vast majority of even common things like prescriptions are used for 'off label' uses? ...meaning they would no longer be covered.
Can you articulate the reasoning you used to conclude that the surgery is morally unnecessary but the dialysis is morally necessary?
I haven't been sitting through bioethics classes for the last three years like some of us. I'm simply pointing out the ethical problems I have with what you are advancing.
Yeah. There is always that one person in the room who contributes no solutions but rains on everyone else's suggestions. ; )
If you mean to define something called a society that is indifferent to its responsibility toward the future, and the people who would presumably make it up, that would be a new one.
That would indeed be a "new one" and one never mentioned by me or anyone else on this thread. (Logical fallacy: Taking the other person's argument to the extreme and then arguing against it.)
"Indifferent" to its responsibilities. Loaded language. Defining the scope of the "responsibilities" is the core of this discussion. D*mn I need that memo--please, please post that darn contract defining the terms of my responsibilties.
No solutions again Sulla. JT exiting the discussion...