Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
It is obvious even to the most casual observer (no Critical Thinking required) that we must quickly deal with the problem that medical technology has left on our door step. As a result of the success of medical technology we can prolong life ever more, every day, than the day before. I claim that this constantly extending the prolongation of life must quickly cease; we can no longer afford such a foolish unreflective behavior.
Bruce Hardy, a British citizen and cancer victim, was refused the funds, by British health officials, for a drug that could likely prolong his life for 6 more months. The drug treatment cost was estimated to be $54,000. His distraught wife said “Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can.
“British authorities, after a storm of protest, are reconsidering their decision on the cancer drug and others.
The introduction of the drug Viagra, by Pfizer, in 1998, panicked British health officials. They figured it might bankrupt the government’s health budget and thus placed restrictions on its use. Pfizer sued and the British government instituted a standard program, with the acronym NICE, for rationing health drugs.
“Before NICE, hospitals and clinics often came to different decisions about which drugs to buy, creating geographic disparities in care that led to outrage.
“British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/healt ... =3&_r=1&hp
I have stated many times before that I was convinced that we have created a technology that is too powerful for our intellectually unsophisticated citizens to deal with. It seems to me that this particular dilemma does not require a great deal of sophistication to understand. This might be a perfect place to begin a nationwide (USA) Internet discourse directed at getting our intellectual arms around this problem and helping our government officials in an attempt to resolve this terrible dilemma.
Incidentally I am 74 years old, which I think qualifies me to push this matter without appearing to be a hypocrite.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
So you don't think we should have a right to life? What's the cutoff age? Is 73 too high? Perhaps only the intellectually sophisticated should be exempt from a legal "shelf life."
Why do you claim that we can't afford such behavior? What is the cost and what budget does it exceed?
Why do you claim that we can't afford such behavior? What is the cost and what budget does it exceed?
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
coberst;1077803 wrote: Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
It is obvious even to the most casual observer (no Critical Thinking required) that we must quickly deal with the problem that medical technology has left on our door step. As a result of the success of medical technology we can prolong life ever more, every day, than the day before. I claim that this constantly extending the prolongation of life must quickly cease; we can no longer afford such a foolish unreflective behavior.
Bruce Hardy, a British citizen and cancer victim, was refused the funds, by British health officials, for a drug that could likely prolong his life for 6 more months. The drug treatment cost was estimated to be $54,000. His distraught wife said “Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can.
“British authorities, after a storm of protest, are reconsidering their decision on the cancer drug and others.
The introduction of the drug Viagra, by Pfizer, in 1998, panicked British health officials. They figured it might bankrupt the government’s health budget and thus placed restrictions on its use. Pfizer sued and the British government instituted a standard program, with the acronym NICE, for rationing health drugs.
“Before NICE, hospitals and clinics often came to different decisions about which drugs to buy, creating geographic disparities in care that led to outrage.
“British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/healt ... =3&_r=1&hp
I have stated many times before that I was convinced that we have created a technology that is too powerful for our intellectually unsophisticated citizens to deal with. It seems to me that this particular dilemma does not require a great deal of sophistication to understand. This might be a perfect place to begin a nationwide (USA) Internet discourse directed at getting our intellectual arms around this problem and helping our government officials in an attempt to resolve this terrible dilemma.
Incidentally I am 74 years old, which I think qualifies me to push this matter without appearing to be a hypocrite.
I too am 74 Coberst and continue to be very active physically and currently enjoy an excellent quality of life. The antibodies that I was administered in Dec, 08, Jan & Feb 09 were horribly expensive at $6,000 per injection. I was diagnosed with Non Hodgkins Lymphoma, B Cell, more specifically Waldenstrom's Disease, one of the 30 (but rare) types of Non Hodgkins Lymphoma. A disease that I will more than likely die with, than from. I did not feel ill at all when diagnosed and could have just not had any treatment all until there was a major organ breakdown (which could happen). Thanks to Medicare and an excellent Supplement, I opted for treatment after obtaining second opinion. Since the treatments, all of my blood work has improved and the disease seems to be heading for remission. I am currently in New Zealand and will be walking 18 holes of golf today, and swimming in the ocean afterwards. The total cost of my treatments according to Medicare and my Supplemental carrier since diagnosed with this Waldenstrom's has been in excess of $158,000.
I tend to agree with you about the costs of keeping someone alive without what we might call a quality of life for a short period of time, but it's not just the high cost of keeping the terminally ill alive, it's the total cost of modern day medicine. From others with my disease that I communicate with, it is likely that I will need to be treated again at some point. It might be 6 months or 6 years. There is no way to tell. I get a CBC (complete blood count) every 6 months to monitor the disease. I have been extremely fortunate with my disease to have responded as well as I have to treatments, not all of my fellow sufferers have been as fortunate.
The only way to contain the staggering costs of health care before it bankrupts the economy is to either lower the costs or ration the care. Many countries are already rationing care and I suspect that the U.S. will do likewise.
It is obvious even to the most casual observer (no Critical Thinking required) that we must quickly deal with the problem that medical technology has left on our door step. As a result of the success of medical technology we can prolong life ever more, every day, than the day before. I claim that this constantly extending the prolongation of life must quickly cease; we can no longer afford such a foolish unreflective behavior.
Bruce Hardy, a British citizen and cancer victim, was refused the funds, by British health officials, for a drug that could likely prolong his life for 6 more months. The drug treatment cost was estimated to be $54,000. His distraught wife said “Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can.
“British authorities, after a storm of protest, are reconsidering their decision on the cancer drug and others.
The introduction of the drug Viagra, by Pfizer, in 1998, panicked British health officials. They figured it might bankrupt the government’s health budget and thus placed restrictions on its use. Pfizer sued and the British government instituted a standard program, with the acronym NICE, for rationing health drugs.
“Before NICE, hospitals and clinics often came to different decisions about which drugs to buy, creating geographic disparities in care that led to outrage.
“British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/healt ... =3&_r=1&hp
I have stated many times before that I was convinced that we have created a technology that is too powerful for our intellectually unsophisticated citizens to deal with. It seems to me that this particular dilemma does not require a great deal of sophistication to understand. This might be a perfect place to begin a nationwide (USA) Internet discourse directed at getting our intellectual arms around this problem and helping our government officials in an attempt to resolve this terrible dilemma.
Incidentally I am 74 years old, which I think qualifies me to push this matter without appearing to be a hypocrite.
I too am 74 Coberst and continue to be very active physically and currently enjoy an excellent quality of life. The antibodies that I was administered in Dec, 08, Jan & Feb 09 were horribly expensive at $6,000 per injection. I was diagnosed with Non Hodgkins Lymphoma, B Cell, more specifically Waldenstrom's Disease, one of the 30 (but rare) types of Non Hodgkins Lymphoma. A disease that I will more than likely die with, than from. I did not feel ill at all when diagnosed and could have just not had any treatment all until there was a major organ breakdown (which could happen). Thanks to Medicare and an excellent Supplement, I opted for treatment after obtaining second opinion. Since the treatments, all of my blood work has improved and the disease seems to be heading for remission. I am currently in New Zealand and will be walking 18 holes of golf today, and swimming in the ocean afterwards. The total cost of my treatments according to Medicare and my Supplemental carrier since diagnosed with this Waldenstrom's has been in excess of $158,000.
I tend to agree with you about the costs of keeping someone alive without what we might call a quality of life for a short period of time, but it's not just the high cost of keeping the terminally ill alive, it's the total cost of modern day medicine. From others with my disease that I communicate with, it is likely that I will need to be treated again at some point. It might be 6 months or 6 years. There is no way to tell. I get a CBC (complete blood count) every 6 months to monitor the disease. I have been extremely fortunate with my disease to have responded as well as I have to treatments, not all of my fellow sufferers have been as fortunate.
The only way to contain the staggering costs of health care before it bankrupts the economy is to either lower the costs or ration the care. Many countries are already rationing care and I suspect that the U.S. will do likewise.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
e obvious problem that comes to mind is how much of a nation’s health care budget can be allocated to the elderly to extend their life an additional 6 months. In 2003 the elderly accounted for one-third of all hospitalizations even though they represent 12% of the population. This cost was 43.6% of the nation’s health care expenditure.
Another important consideration is how can we limit the population to a reasonable level when we continue to extend longevity?
Another important consideration is how can we limit the population to a reasonable level when we continue to extend longevity?
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Quality of life seems irrelevant to me in this case. Even if I was miserable I would not want to die just because I couldn't afford a drug that would sustain my life. After all, quality of life is a matter of perspective. If I was that miserable that I truly wanted to die, I would actively seek euthanasia. But, for as long as I have an interest in life, as miserable as it may seem, even if I have to tap it out with my tongue or my ear lobe, I would have a reason to want to continue living. Plus, there is always that most intrinsic of human qualities that we call hope. And I live most of my life by hope.
To answer this thread, I really have to place myself in the position of a person in a disadvantaged country. I thought I should place myself in an African's shoes then realised that all I have to do is hitch a ride to the UK and I would get first class treatment over and above the UK's citizens.
To be honest, the UK didn't have National Health until 1948. So, what did we do before then? Quite simply, we died unless we had the money or a wealthy benefactor. So did the Africans.
To answer this thread, I really have to place myself in the position of a person in a disadvantaged country. I thought I should place myself in an African's shoes then realised that all I have to do is hitch a ride to the UK and I would get first class treatment over and above the UK's citizens.
To be honest, the UK didn't have National Health until 1948. So, what did we do before then? Quite simply, we died unless we had the money or a wealthy benefactor. So did the Africans.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
When the Medical profession began, it was purely for saving life.
These days ...........it is for enhancing our everyday life, with peripheral treatments such as fertility treatment, plastic surgery, and other non life threatening sundries.
Cut them out.....and there is plenty of funds for real health care.
These days ...........it is for enhancing our everyday life, with peripheral treatments such as fertility treatment, plastic surgery, and other non life threatening sundries.
Cut them out.....and there is plenty of funds for real health care.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Bruv;1078277 wrote: When the Medical profession began, it was purely for saving life.
These days ...........it is for enhancing our everyday life, with peripheral treatments such as fertility treatment, plastic surgery, and other non life threatening sundries.
Cut them out.....and there is plenty of funds for real health care.
The medical profession has always been more than just saving life. Those who have the money can have all that's on offer and this knowledge has come from the profession. It is also about quality of life.
The National Health Act was created for the working class who could not afford medical help. It was intended to maintain the work force. Again, this would be with regard to maintaining a healthy work force rather than just saving lives.
These days ...........it is for enhancing our everyday life, with peripheral treatments such as fertility treatment, plastic surgery, and other non life threatening sundries.
Cut them out.....and there is plenty of funds for real health care.
The medical profession has always been more than just saving life. Those who have the money can have all that's on offer and this knowledge has come from the profession. It is also about quality of life.
The National Health Act was created for the working class who could not afford medical help. It was intended to maintain the work force. Again, this would be with regard to maintaining a healthy work force rather than just saving lives.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Mine is not so much a question as it is a claim that we face some very serious moral questions that requires answers constructed on a foundation of courage, compassion, and sophistication. How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best effect that important result?
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
coberst;1078505 wrote: Mine is not so much a question as it is a claim that we face some very serious moral questions that requires answers constructed on a foundation of courage, compassion, and sophistication. How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best effect that important result?
There is no simple solution to your question. I think that a lot of radical changes would need to be implemented that need to start at the top of society as well as the bottom.
There is no simple solution to your question. I think that a lot of radical changes would need to be implemented that need to start at the top of society as well as the bottom.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
OpenMind;1078513 wrote: There is no simple solution to your question. I think that a lot of radical changes would need to be implemented that need to start at the top of society as well as the bottom.
I suspect that the citizens of the United States have a long way to go before reaching the level of sophistication required to attack this very important problem.
I suspect that the citizens of the United States have a long way to go before reaching the level of sophistication required to attack this very important problem.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Reminds me of Logans Run....................
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
chonsigirl;1078583 wrote: Reminds me of Logans Run....................
Chonsi, you showing my age.:wah:
Chonsi, you showing my age.:wah:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
coberst;1078505 wrote: Mine is not so much a question as it is a claim that we face some very serious moral questions that requires answers constructed on a foundation of courage, compassion, and sophistication. How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best effect that important result?
coberst;1078579 wrote: I suspect that the citizens of the United States have a long way to go before reaching the level of sophistication required to attack this very important problem.
When you refer to stabilizing world human population, are you suggesting dictating behavior or changing attitudes? I suggest it is supreme arrogance, rather than sophistication, to presume to know where that balance should lie, especially concerning other populations and other cultures thousands of miles away.
coberst;1078579 wrote: I suspect that the citizens of the United States have a long way to go before reaching the level of sophistication required to attack this very important problem.
When you refer to stabilizing world human population, are you suggesting dictating behavior or changing attitudes? I suggest it is supreme arrogance, rather than sophistication, to presume to know where that balance should lie, especially concerning other populations and other cultures thousands of miles away.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Accountable;1079208 wrote: When you refer to stabilizing world human population, are you suggesting dictating behavior or changing attitudes? I suggest it is supreme arrogance, rather than sophistication, to presume to know where that balance should lie, especially concerning other populations and other cultures thousands of miles away.
Therein lay the rub. When our (USA) citizens lack the sophistication to comprehend the problem solutions are impossible.
Therein lay the rub. When our (USA) citizens lack the sophistication to comprehend the problem solutions are impossible.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
coberst;1079480 wrote: Therein lay the rub. When our (USA) citizens lack the sophistication to comprehend the problem solutions are impossible.
So do I understand you correctly, that you think it is, and should be, the responsibility of the USA to determine and dictate global population?
So do I understand you correctly, that you think it is, and should be, the responsibility of the USA to determine and dictate global population?
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Accountable;1079715 wrote: So do I understand you correctly, that you think it is, and should be, the responsibility of the USA to determine and dictate global population?
No, I cannot know other nations as I know the USA. I suspect all Western nations are much the same but hesitate to say.
No, I cannot know other nations as I know the USA. I suspect all Western nations are much the same but hesitate to say.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Accountable;1079715 wrote: So do I understand you correctly, that you think it is, and should be, the responsibility of the USA to determine and dictate global population?
coberst;1079881 wrote: No, I cannot know other nations as I know the USA. I suspect all Western nations are much the same but hesitate to say.
Then I don't understand what you are implying in this post:coberst;1078505 wrote: How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best effect that important result?You made it clear that when you use "we" you mean USA. The planet is nowhere near overpopulation. The few pockets of mass starvation is caused by human nature (greed and addiction to power), not the extension of life expectancy. If you are trying to convince me that old people are the root cause of some kind of global calamity, and that euthanasia is the best way to prevent it, good luck.
You ask 'how can we stabilize world human population' without first asking if it even needs to be done.
coberst;1079881 wrote: No, I cannot know other nations as I know the USA. I suspect all Western nations are much the same but hesitate to say.
Then I don't understand what you are implying in this post:coberst;1078505 wrote: How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best effect that important result?You made it clear that when you use "we" you mean USA. The planet is nowhere near overpopulation. The few pockets of mass starvation is caused by human nature (greed and addiction to power), not the extension of life expectancy. If you are trying to convince me that old people are the root cause of some kind of global calamity, and that euthanasia is the best way to prevent it, good luck.
You ask 'how can we stabilize world human population' without first asking if it even needs to be done.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Accountable;1080434 wrote: Then I don't understand what you are implying in this post:You made it clear that when you use "we" you mean USA. The planet is nowhere near overpopulation. The few pockets of mass starvation is caused by human nature (greed and addiction to power), not the extension of life expectancy. If you are trying to convince me that old people are the root cause of some kind of global calamity, and that euthanasia is the best way to prevent it, good luck.
You ask 'how can we stabilize world human population' without first asking if it even needs to be done.
I suspect that our first and most important task is to convince the citizens of all nations that they must become a good deal more sophisticated in order to comprehend the problems the world faces. It seems to me that the 18th century Age of Enlightenment is comparable to the size of the change that must occur.
You ask 'how can we stabilize world human population' without first asking if it even needs to be done.
I suspect that our first and most important task is to convince the citizens of all nations that they must become a good deal more sophisticated in order to comprehend the problems the world faces. It seems to me that the 18th century Age of Enlightenment is comparable to the size of the change that must occur.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
I don't know which amuses me more. The complete and utter lack of a direct answer from Coberst to Accountable's question, or the irony of a pair of septegenarians trying to argue that health care as extension of life for the eldery is a bad call.
Consider Lon's account of the treatment he recieved and is still to recieve. Well over 150,000 dollars? That's currently equal to over a decade of my current wages, an amount of money that exceeds the total I earn let alone spend, on every aspect of my life. Health, food, clothing, entertainment, education. And in Lon's case, this is in -addition- to the costs I listed above rather than inclusive of.
If it is apparantly a drain on the health budget and the economy to be using science to prolong the life of the elderly, he should have been forbidden from ever obtaining such treatments.
Do I think he should have been prevented from recieving these treatments? Not in the slightest.
That the average person in the United States is statistically likely to live until the age of 77 from birth is due pretty much solely to the advances in medicine and health that increse life expectancy.
If you feel that past a certain age, people should be denied treatment that would prolong their life, you might as well suggest instead that we cut out a few treatments we give earlier in life that lead to the greater life expectancy anyway.
If we stopped innoculating children against various diseases, we could bring the life expectancy down to something you perhaps consider more reasonable? I'm quite curious to hear what the cutoff age for you is, and whether it will be "X+1 where X is my age"
Consider Lon's account of the treatment he recieved and is still to recieve. Well over 150,000 dollars? That's currently equal to over a decade of my current wages, an amount of money that exceeds the total I earn let alone spend, on every aspect of my life. Health, food, clothing, entertainment, education. And in Lon's case, this is in -addition- to the costs I listed above rather than inclusive of.
If it is apparantly a drain on the health budget and the economy to be using science to prolong the life of the elderly, he should have been forbidden from ever obtaining such treatments.
Do I think he should have been prevented from recieving these treatments? Not in the slightest.
That the average person in the United States is statistically likely to live until the age of 77 from birth is due pretty much solely to the advances in medicine and health that increse life expectancy.
If you feel that past a certain age, people should be denied treatment that would prolong their life, you might as well suggest instead that we cut out a few treatments we give earlier in life that lead to the greater life expectancy anyway.
If we stopped innoculating children against various diseases, we could bring the life expectancy down to something you perhaps consider more reasonable? I'm quite curious to hear what the cutoff age for you is, and whether it will be "X+1 where X is my age"
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
A 70-year-old woman in India gave birth to her first child, a girl, after undergoing infertility treatment, according to a report in the Daily Mail.
The mother, Rajo Devi, had been trying for 50 years to get pregnant with her 72-year-old husband, who had failed to become a father in two prior marriages. It was undetermined whose egg and sperm were used in the treatment, the newspaper reported.
70-year-old in India gives birth to IVF baby - Pregnancy- msnbc.com
The mother, Rajo Devi, had been trying for 50 years to get pregnant with her 72-year-old husband, who had failed to become a father in two prior marriages. It was undetermined whose egg and sperm were used in the treatment, the newspaper reported.
70-year-old in India gives birth to IVF baby - Pregnancy- msnbc.com
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
And I assume you think the above linked story is something horrible and bad that never should have been allowed to happen yes?
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Christians in the US accept both reason and revelation as sources of truth. The Bible is the source of revelation for Christians.
For Christians reason provides knowledge about material matters such as physics and chemistry and bridge building and business practices. In matters of values and morality the Bible furnishes their truth.
Those individuals in the US who are not believers, or are believers but not so fundamentalist, accept reason as the source of truth for all matters. Such individuals accept reason as the human faculty that makes it possible for us to ascertain truth.
I would guess that in the US at least 80 % of the population are acquainted with the Bible to the extent that they can speak of it with some small understanding. I would guess that in the US less than 5 % of the population could speak with some small understanding of reason. I suspect that in the US at least 30 % of the population might be considered expert in the Bible and less that 0.1 % to be expert in understanding the science reason. (I use ‘science’ here to mean a body of knowledge). I suspect that more than 10 % of the US population studies the Bible more than once a week. I would guess that almost no individual in the US studies reason once a week.
Did you know that 78 % of all statistics are made up on the spot? However, you can choose your own statistics but I suspect it will not vary dramatically from my own.
Under such a condition is it reasonable to expect that reason can outrun revelation in the contest for acceptance as a foundation for living. Those who promote revelation are well informed, smart, hard working, tenacious and well organized. Those who promote reason are smart.
For Christians reason provides knowledge about material matters such as physics and chemistry and bridge building and business practices. In matters of values and morality the Bible furnishes their truth.
Those individuals in the US who are not believers, or are believers but not so fundamentalist, accept reason as the source of truth for all matters. Such individuals accept reason as the human faculty that makes it possible for us to ascertain truth.
I would guess that in the US at least 80 % of the population are acquainted with the Bible to the extent that they can speak of it with some small understanding. I would guess that in the US less than 5 % of the population could speak with some small understanding of reason. I suspect that in the US at least 30 % of the population might be considered expert in the Bible and less that 0.1 % to be expert in understanding the science reason. (I use ‘science’ here to mean a body of knowledge). I suspect that more than 10 % of the US population studies the Bible more than once a week. I would guess that almost no individual in the US studies reason once a week.
Did you know that 78 % of all statistics are made up on the spot? However, you can choose your own statistics but I suspect it will not vary dramatically from my own.
Under such a condition is it reasonable to expect that reason can outrun revelation in the contest for acceptance as a foundation for living. Those who promote revelation are well informed, smart, hard working, tenacious and well organized. Those who promote reason are smart.
Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra
Thanks for uh...not at all addressing my question.