I can tell you today in my Bioethics class--and in every policy-making discussion in the civilized world--we discussed the following: Just how do we tell "we the people" that we no longer will pay $1,000 daily to feed grandma while she dies? (JT)
---
Well, I suppose that it would be in the same way we would be forced to cull the same human herd by telling people that their disabled child will no longer be fed, educated and housed. The cost of raising a disabled child, the cost of saving a premature baby in some cases is in the millions and with aftercare, sometimes for life, is a huge cost. Last figures I saw were that almost 50 million are classified in the USA as disabled, two thirds of those severe enough to use long term disability benefits. During this last economic depression, the numbers of people on disability pension jumped by approximately 7 million people.
I used to work within the health care sector for challenged invidiuals - residential homes, day care, full time staffing, supplies, special education, specialists, doctors, transportation, administration - there is whole industry out there with budgets in the millions of dollars - so how does society tell all of them and their families 'we the people' will no longer pay for you to exist - since many of them require assistance to survive?
If we deem grandma to be too costly to keep alive because she's past her 'due date', how do you justify the expense to the rest of the population in keeping disabled persons or babies alive that in many cases, don't have the potential that even old grandma had? Or still has.
It's a slippery slope that I'm sure some would like to travel down - I wouldn't want to. Nobody can agree to allow voluntary assisted end of life programs - that might be a first step in the move before it gets to 'letting granny endure forced starvation'.
sammieswife
--
No More Million Dollar Babies
by James Leonard Park 1. THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS TO USE HEALTH-CARE DOLLARS FOR BABIES.
Caring for a premature baby in an incubator
in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
can cost $5,000 per day.
Thus, 100 days in the NICU costs about half a million dollars.
And if the premature infant needs surgery or other specialized treatments,
the costs can easily mount to more than a million dollars.
Instead of treating one premature infant to a million dollars of health-care,
it might be wiser to spent $1,000 each on 1,000 other babies,
giving their mothers prenatal care
so that these babies will not need intensive care after birth.
If the individual family had to pay the costs themselves,
how many would impoverish themselves in order to save one premature infant?
Is there a family that has sold everything they own — house, car, jewelry, stocks — to provide intensive care for an infant born too soon?
Instead of spending all of these assets to save one newborn,
most families would probably allow nature to take its course,
resulting in the death of an infant that had little chance of surviving.
They would grieve deeply for this loss.
And then perhaps they would try for another baby,
a child that will not have overwhelming medical problems as soon as it is born.
But our present system of medical care automatically assumes
that each premature infant should be saved no matter what the costs .
How can we shift the money available for premature babies
so that there will be fewer of them ?
Preventing premature births is much more cost-effective
than giving intensive care to babies born at a very low birth-weight and size.
Insurance companies routinely pay to care for infants born before they were fully formed.
And even mothers who have no health insurance
have their premature infants routinely placed in the NICU.
Emotionally it is difficult to let an individual baby go,
especially when we have some technical capacity to save that premature baby.
But health-care costs do matter.
Would it do more good to apply that million dollars
to perhaps 1,000 other newborn babies?
Frequently, inexpensive health-care can make a dramatic difference.
More healthy babies will result if we discover how to say "yes"
to health-care for the one thousand expectant mothers
who will have routine births and "no" to that one in a thousand
who will give birth to an infant so early in its gestation
that there is no way to save it from death
without spending one million dollars before it will be ready to go home.
In another cyber-sermon,
I have set a limit for my own life-time medical care .
I choose not to absorb more than one million dollars
of the money available for my health-care:
"Voluntary Rationing of Health-Care":