Re: OT - Costly drugs force life-death decisions
- From: F. George McDuffee <gmcduffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:59:35 -0500
Newsgroups reduced to rec.crafts.metalworking only.
======================================
On 12 Aug 2006 15:34:16 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
<too_many_tools@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am posting this article for discussion in a number of groups where I<article snipped>
think we might see some useful discussion.
In my own extended family, we have seen three individuals in the last
five years affected by this trend of very expensive treatments...many
times experimental...to hopefully extend life with no guarantee of
quality of life.
In each of their cases, the decision was made not to spend
extraordinary resources for only limited improvement of their final
days.
Your thoughts on a subject that you and your family will likely face in
the future?
TMT
=======================
As in almost everything, the fact that something can be done is
no justification to do it, although it is frequently a rationale.
This is overwhelmingly an individual issue in that the
individuals' [both the patient and those controlling treatment]
view of the world and the "way things ott'a be," rather than any
scientific facts, will determine the outcome (assuming the
courts/gumm'ent don't get involved).
The typical American is greatly handicapped in making these types
of decisions because death is seen as exceptional, and being
exceptional it is "unfair." The automatic reaction is to get a
lawyer and sue.
In many cases, extraordinary measures are not taken at the wish
of the patient, but because of the insistence of their children
and/or spouse, whose dread of loss if frequently far greater than
the patients fear of death. Indeed, in many cases the patient
has been "ready to check out" for some time.
The denial of inevitability of death is no more irrational than
the denial of aging, and the inevitability that sooner or later
everyone will depend on their pension, ira, social security and
possibly charity for living expenses in their final years.
Not only are there "quality of life" issues involved, but serious
long-term family as well as personal/individual considerations.
Specifically, money/capital that is expended on possibly futile
efforts to extend life with minimal quality [i.e. pain, limited
mobility, nausea, isolation] will not be available to provide for
the grandchildren' college educations, provide start-up capital
for small business, etc. Indeed, large debts are frequently
incurred, and it is well known, although not widely publicized,
that 80 to 90 % of the average or typical person's total lifetime
medical costs are incurred in the last few weeks of life.
I see no reason for my estate to go to the pharmaceutical
companies rather than my family, especially as I would be
purchasing at best only a few more weeks to a few months of low
quality life. Now if they were to offer a rejuvenation treatment
that would make me 30 years old again and would last for a
minimum of 20 years I *MIGHT* consider.
Unka George
(George McDuffee)
....and at the end of the fight is a tombstone white
with the name of the late deceased, and
the epitaph drear:
?A Fool lies here, who tried to hustle the East.?
Rudyard Kipling The Naulahka, ch. 5, heading (1892).
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Long term rust protection
- Next by Date: Re: FedEx or UPS
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Costly drugs force life-death decisions
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Costly drugs force life-death decisions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
