Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- From: "zara" <zaraspook@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:22:52 -0400
"-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0efe342d-4452-4101-92db-ebca94460ef2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"zara" <zarasp...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Steve de Mena" <st...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike wrote:
"Marvo" <ma...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs' recent trip to Tennessee to pick himself up a
new
liver has raised some sticky questions about what money can buy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31509368/ns/health-health_care/
The news had said the wait was a lot shorter in Tennessee than other
states, something like 48 days.
The news also stated that specific medical factors are used in the
list priortization (eg, more sick = higher).
I wonder how many states' lists his name was on?
It would appear to be more than one. There's also been news reports
that have said that roughly 3% of all
I wonder which one on the list he jumped over, will die as a result?
How long was he on the waiting lists?
Since the national list functionally "Rolls Over" every 2.5 years,
then one only needs to be on the list for just over a year to be
statistially 'average'.
More seriously...
Its an unfortunate reality that "Resources" are a factor in all cases
of need, and Health Care is no exception. There can also be debates
on individual "Worth", since while we would like to claim that we are
all equals, the reality again is that some people have contributed
more to society than others. Plus then there's the 'celebrety' factor
as already alluded to.
Not to point any fingers at any individuals, but merely
illustratrating that the situation requires is always more complicated
than it may otherwise initially appear and it requires sensitivities
and empathies on multiple levels. For a hypothetical example, would
society consider it acceptable to let a rich guy "cut the line" if he
does so while making a donation that pays for 10 other patients that
would otherwise not benefit due to their lack of financial
resources? From a societally-based "big picture" is that not a net
gain? (Spock: "Needs of the Many...") FWIW, I'm not necessarily
advocating this position, but merely pointing out that it exists and
that its an area in which there needs to be an open debate by Society
to seek out the empathy balance.
And while much ado is being made about this report on Jobs, there's
speculation as to how much elements such as "resources" may have
played a part despite the known absence of the highly relevant
information.
Since the original article says that there's roughly 1,500 transplants
done per fiscal quarter and that there's similarly around 15,000
patients on waiting lists - - so if we ignore medical factors (tissue
matching, etc) and simply look at the math macroscopically, these two
values mean that 15,000/1,500 per quarter = everyone on the list gets
'their turn' if they can hold out for 10 fiscal quarters.
And since ten quarters is 2.5 years, the next question is "How long
had Steve been on the waiting list?" To over-simplify but recognize
that there are medically based prioritization elements, one can
probably say that if he had been on the wait list for 1.25 years, then
his "turn" was probably statistically normal.
But we don't know for how long he was on the list. The current
situation is that there's some factors that are probably not likely to
be disclosed, either due to patient privacy, or simply because someone
believes that it will generate some bad PR somehow/somewhere.
The bottom line to all of this is that organ donations & transplants
invariably incur a supply-vs-demand element, which will persist even
after medical technology perfects our ability to clone our own organs,
because there's still going to be that persistant "resource" variable
for how to pay for it. I don't want to suggest that the "Haves"
deserve this while the "Have Nots" don't, but I'm not so naiive as to
believe that it isn't going to happen at some level, regardless of how
good our intentions. Nor am I going to automatically assume that
some "Have" could have only acted in an utterly self-serving matter:
since it an American ethical standard of "innocent until proven
guilty", all speculators who suggest otherwise are being nothing less
than maliciously slanderous.
Organs are easily available for a few thousand, from South America. You
place your order - someone gets killed and dies - you get an organ.
Similar to the Jobs case - place an order - pay some money either now as a
fee, or later as a donation, someone is passed over and dies, you get an
organ. Pretty much the same thing, but in a more civilized manner
What you can't deny is; there is much speculation nationally on this case as
we speak. It's not going to fade away - people are activly digging for the
truth, and won't stop until something is adequatly resolved.
Jobs will be living with this stigma for some time to come.
And while the presumption of, "innocent until proven guilty" is a nice
concept, in reality it doesn't work with the news media, and people in
general. In many cases, not even in a court of law.
Have you been following the "Tot mom" case here in Florida? She is toast,
unless they come up with a creative miracle.
jack
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- From: Marvo
- Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- From: Mike
- Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- From: Steve de Mena
- Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- From: zara
- Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- From: -hh
- Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- Prev by Date: Re: Macs holding their value
- Next by Date: Re: Steve Jobs and his transplant
- Previous by thread: Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- Next by thread: Re: Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
