Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
quote:
So before I can have a "thought" I need to know yours. Is life worth extending for all regardless of the cost, or the quality of the live preserved? Should 90% of the resources allocated be used by 10%?
For me, and for those close to me, the answer is "No, life is not worth extending regardless of cost, and at the point at which I can no longer contribute, I will have to have that discussion with my family about how much of the family resources can actually be put out for my ongoing care, and how those resources will be used. In my case, that translates to 'just enough resources to keep me relatively comfortable while I pass from this world'. If there were an option for "just enough resources to keep me comfortable and help me shorten the time passing from this world", it would translate to that one.
I don't think that my choice could be universally applied, though. Too many people are too afraid of death to ever be comfortable allowing the natural course of events, much less encouraging the transition. You don't incur $140k of medical expenses in one payment. It's paid out over the course of a year. Medication, hospital care, ambulance service to the hospital; each instance treating and enabling life to go on. Any one medication eliminated may end their lives - is that what you reference "just enough resources to keep me comfortable"? Because that's the cost of keeping my parents, and many other older people, "comfortable".
My description of my parents condition wasn't clear. They are not 'chronic' they are not 'on life support'. Between the occurrences of illness they are functioning. They saved all their lives and are currently enjoying a life in a private 'assisted living facility' resembling a land locked cruise ship life-style. Fortunately they saved, mostly in the form of their house, nearly a $400k. It will all be gone in another year or so and I'll have to take over that expense. But meanwhile they are enjoying their life as much as they can.
The occurrence of illnesses are frequent, as they would be for anyone of their age who made their life choices about diet and self imposed preventative health maintenance. Neither require a respirator and they can feed themselves. They are "comfortable", expensive for their insurance providers, but very comfortable.
And they earned their comfort. There is no blame on either side of the table for not appreciating when the last union contract was signed in the 1980's to consider the medical technology and resources available in 2010. My father's heart attack would have been fatal if he had it in 1981; in 2000 he got bypass surgery and was up and around in 2 weeks. My mother has had a shunt in place for a few years. Her treatment didn't exist when her union contract was signed and her insurance coverage for her retirement was committed.
It is within this model, with technology and costs not contemplated now 'standard' practice that needs to be reconciled. Treatment and medication is "life extending" but it isn't considered "exceptional". In an era when a heart, lung, liver, and kidney transplants are so common as to be minor plot lines in soap operas; you can't say that they are anything but routine. However, they are expensive and that's what it comes down to.
Take the 'chronic' the comatose, the exceptional life support methods out of the equation and you still end up with a large, and growing, population who simply needs to tap into the technology to live a decent life. You still end up with very skewed numbers of resource allocation. How can the numbers be managed by a industry or a government?
|
RE: Thoughts??? (Insurance rate increase) - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread