Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Next month some British doctors will debate whether it's unethical to let premature babies die to save a little bit of money. Welcome to socialized medicine   (dailyrecord.co.uk) divider line
62
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

581 clicks; posted to Politics » and Fandom » on 04 Apr 2006 at 2:24 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



62 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
zn0k
2006-04-04 1:53:30 PM  
even worse, in socialised medical systems everybody is required to abort at least 2 fetuses before the age of 35 and also must pay $500 a month to support drug addicts.
it truly is nothing but evil.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-04-04 1:54:18 PM  
Slight miswording of headline; sorry. It should say that they're going to debate whether it's unethical to TREAT premature babies because it's so expensive.

Good grief.
 
synthemesc
2006-04-04 1:56:41 PM  
With the greenlight, the trolls are off! Go get 'em, boys!
 
Edsel
2006-04-04 1:58:30 PM  
I think submitter means "Welcome to Texas" -- because there's already a similar law there.

And what I find quite ironic is that I'm SURE the submitter would be opposed to the state paying health bills for the uninsured.
 
KyngNothing
2006-04-04 1:59:50 PM  
submitter: Next month some British doctors will debate whether it's unethical to let premature babies die to save a little bit of money. Welcome to socialized medicine


Huh, is it ethical to let premies[anyone] have a lower quality healthcare because they don't have insurance?

// sigh
 
Tigger
2006-04-04 2:00:04 PM  
Medicine is a scarce resource, therefore access to it is not infinite.

The debate as to who gets treated exists in all systems of healthcare. It's not unique to socialised medicine.

Given that, the debate about how to most ethically apportion that scarce resource is absolutely critical.
 
Uncle Eazy [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-04-04 2:00:34 PM  
If the premies won't get a job and get health insurance, screw 'em. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
 
mutilato
2006-04-04 2:01:07 PM  
KyngNothing: // sigh


I feel that sigh.
 
Tigger
2006-04-04 2:01:33 PM  
Last week, Susan Bewley, chairwoman of the ethics committee of the RCOG, said: "I would prefer that every baby could be treated but we cannot get away from the fact resources are not endless." Lee said: "I can't begin to tell you how angry and infuriated and disgusted I was.


"I would like her to come here to my home in Kilmarnock and meet Becky face to face and tell her she should have been left to die.



And making the issue a personal and emotional one doesn't change the fact that because Becky gets treatment, someone else does not.
 
sugarpop
2006-04-04 2:01:52 PM  
The CraneMeister: Slight miswording of headline; sorry

Your headline is still better than the one in TFA:

MY BECKY IF THESE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY DOCTORS HAD THEIR WAY
 
Aurric
2006-04-04 2:02:56 PM  
Tsk, tsk, zn0rk, you forgot to pre-Godwin the thread...

"Obviously, this makes the UK worse than Hitler's regime, because even though Hitler killed the Jews, we're talking about BABIES here, folks."

There, now that that's out of the way, let's get this thread rolling.
 
zn0k
2006-04-04 2:04:52 PM  
shiat. you're right. shoulda brought eugenics into it.
 
Edsel
2006-04-04 2:05:07 PM  
mutilato: I feel that sigh.


What I find exasperating is that there's a legitimate point to discuss here, and it's one that the medical profession is currently wrestling with -- but it's not the "OMG SOCALIZED MEDICINE IS TEH EVIL!!1!" talking point that's being presented here.
 
UnFark
2006-04-04 2:06:07 PM  
Yeah, here in America we only let the babies of poor people die. Much more ethical system.
 
bdub77
2006-04-04 2:07:45 PM  
Yeah, here in America we only let the babies of poor people die. Much more ethical system.

Poor babies have a higher chance of becoming terrorists. By letting poor babies live, you are letting the terrorists win.
 
Gwendolyn
2006-04-04 2:07:58 PM  
There are private hospitals in England. Have them take the babies there and pay the bills out of their own pockets like we had to do for my son.
 
KyngNothing
2006-04-04 2:08:01 PM  
Tigger: The debate as to who gets treated exists in all systems of healthcare. It's not unique to socialised medicine.


Nope, HMO's or insurance companies would never deny treatment that has a chance of saving someone's life because of monetary concerns!!

// wait, so they make more money if they deny coverage to me what?
 
RoguePixie
2006-04-04 2:08:04 PM  
Tigger: And making the issue a personal and emotional one doesn't change the fact that because Becky gets treatment, someone else does not.

Touche.
 
Cosmic_Music
2006-04-04 2:08:08 PM  
Neither the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists nor the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health are part of "socialized medicine" as they are independent organisations which function in private medicine as much as the NHS.
 
Tigger
2006-04-04 2:13:37 PM  
Of course we could apportion medical care on the basis of projected value to society. In which case submitter would be apportioned one small bottle of advil and a roll of scotch tape to last his entire life.
 
synthemesc
2006-04-04 2:17:30 PM  
Tigger: Of course we could apportion medical care on the basis of projected value to society. In which case submitter would be apportioned one small bottle of advil and a roll of scotch tape to last his entire life.

Wouldn't that turn him into MacGyver or something?
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2006-04-04 2:18:40 PM  
Get Your Freep On!
 
whidbey
2006-04-04 2:28:35 PM  
submitter: Welcome to socialized medicine

And a cockpunch for thee, submitter!

Nice bit of broadbrush BS...
 
Shut........UP
2006-04-04 2:28:46 PM  
Socialized medicine is inevitable and the US is in the best position to make it work. Whats needed is slow change that allows the economy and business to adjust to the added costs and benefits. Thats were Europe went wrong and why they have to now backtrack on what they are going to offer their aging population.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-04-04 2:31:45 PM  
For decades, the big drug companies have spent far more on "marketing and administration" than on anything else. Throughout the 1990s, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the world consistently spent about 35% of sales on marketing and administration, and only 11% to 14% on R&D... source

Non-socialized medicine makes sure that medicine and treatment are affordable and available for all, with very little waste. Corporations keep our healthcare more efficient than a government could.

/keep believing that, Freepy McResponsibilityson.
 
adc_fortytwo
2006-04-04 2:33:41 PM  
Yea, this sort of thing never happens in private health care systems. Insurance companies NEVER refuse to fund a particular treatment. You get sick or injured and they will pay for every treatment under the sun. And if you have pre-existing conditions, they don't care. They'll insure you anyways. Nobody ever has to pay out of pocket for any medical treatment in private health care systems. It's all paid for by private insurance, and everybody always gets all the treatment they need.
 
antisocialite
2006-04-04 2:40:11 PM  
submitter: Welcome to socialized medicine

Sure beats not having insurance you farking bastard.
 
onecanshort
2006-04-04 2:41:25 PM  
It's only unethical if the babies are not eaten after they are left to die.

Waste not, want not.
 
quizzical
2006-04-04 2:42:23 PM  
"My Becky If These Wouldn't Be Here Today Doctors Had Their Way"

That made my eyes cross...
 
antisocialite
2006-04-04 2:42:58 PM  
onecanshort: It's only unethical if the babies are not eaten after they are left to die.

Mmm! Tastes of chicken!
 
King Keepo
2006-04-04 2:51:09 PM  
I have a friend who works at Swedish Medical who came back one day and told me the price of life was around a quarter of a million dollars. If you are likely to rack up that much in medical spending they will start questioning whether you are worth treating.

Welcome to capitalized medicine.
 
mutilato
2006-04-04 2:51:42 PM  
Edsel: What I find exasperating is that there's a legitimate point to discuss here, and it's one that the medical profession is currently wrestling with -- but it's not the "OMG SOCALIZED MEDICINE IS TEH EVIL!!1!" talking point that's being presented here.

As usual, you are right. In fact, there are a number of issues that warrant discussion:

1. Given that medicine is a limited commodity and very often means the difference between life and death, how do we determine, fairly and humanely, how that resource is allocated

2. Given that Medical caregivers are sovereign humans with full authority over themselves, how can they be convinced to operate this way once a fair and humane solution is discovered.

3. What are all of our education responsibilities in that light?

4. What rights do patients have in that light? For example, if they have the right to refuse to be experimented on, up and coming medical professionals will not get the requisite experience to work and they, as well as future patients, will suffer.

Medicine is one of the more complex areas of ethics we have in front of us. We are best off not oversimplifying.
 
portscanner
2006-04-04 2:56:03 PM  
Which would you prefer:

1. Doctors are prohibited from providing services to people who are in selected age groups under penalty of law (Goverment appointed agency decides what those age groups are and the agency is not selected by the voters) You cannot get service no matter how much money you have/dont have if you are in that age group. Euthenasa is still free.

2. You have to pay for your own medical needs, just like you have to pay for your own food and housing.

Choose one.

/ no I cant spell
 
FriarTuck
2006-04-04 2:58:48 PM  
Shut...up: Socialized medicine is inevitable and the US is in the best position to make it work. Whats needed is slow change that allows the economy and business to adjust to the added costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------

I think the only way we could pay for such a thing would be to increase our birth rate or let in young wage earners become citizens to pay for the cost of death care for the boomer generation.

Unless we find a way to keep illegals out of the US (amnesty, zappy collars, whatever) they will continue to go to hospitals to get their care. Except with socialized medicine we will all be paying for it instead of a few hospital providers in the southwest.

To review, we need:

1) More citizens, either through legal immigration or more births.
2) No more giant ER bills dropped on the hospitals by non-payers.


The most realistic way I could see doing this would be to allow for Amnesty so at least everyone is paying into the system.
 
NutznGum
2006-04-04 3:01:25 PM  
Submitter:

Google 'Sun Hudson'
 
FriarTuck
2006-04-04 3:02:00 PM  
portscanner: I believe even in the UK there are private hospitals and doctors where you can go for treatments. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not really for socialized medicine unless a number of things change regarding the population and we come to some sort of agreement on death care issues and longshot medical procedures.
 
Mr. Anon
2006-04-04 3:04:33 PM  
I dated someone with a severly mentally/physically disabled child. So I'm...(I used to love that cliche, then it got all used up).

But anyway I did and while she loved her child totally and completely the ammount of resources that were spent keeping that child alive are enourmous. She has to send the kid to special schools, he can't talk and can barely walk (is 7 years old).

There are too many things wrong with him to list here, but if you look at it from a completely inhuman way where we start evaluating the resources that this child uses vs the resources of other children, it is alarming how much he costs. The only reason he survived birth is because we have all this new fangled tech that allows us to keep primi babies alive and kicking when nature would've decided they weren't able to survive previously. Now i'm not advocating just letting these kids die but I think there needs to be perspective.

Lets say you could save 30 lives with the cost and effort put into keeping this child alive to live a life where he can't talk, barely is able to move and won't have much quality of life. Before meeting him, this would've been an easy decision, but after having been in that world, it is hard for me to say what I would decide.

From a strictly beaurocratic perspective, the choice is easy, when you put a human face on it, it becomes a much less easy proposition.
 
FriarTuck
2006-04-04 3:04:41 PM  
antisocialite: Sure beats not having insurance you farking bastard.
---------------------

Yeah, but does it beat my PPO? That is the question most white collar people will have to ask.

And if not, are the warm fuzzies generated by some working poor people getting better medical care worth the decrease in care?
 
mutilato
2006-04-04 3:06:24 PM  
As an aside, we don't help people who need help because of who they are. We help people because of who we are. Because what makes us a compassionate, reasoned and civilized people tomorrow is our committment to each otehr today.
 
portscanner
2006-04-04 3:07:44 PM  
FriarTuck

True, but if you have a chance to do little research on the proposed "Hillary Care" from a few years ago, you will see why I posed the question I did.
 
portscanner
2006-04-04 3:09:03 PM  
Oops! Forgot a slash!

Slashes are your friends!
 
dubdub
2006-04-04 3:31:28 PM  
I blame religion for not having covered all women up, and making men horny.
 
FriarTuck
2006-04-04 3:32:04 PM  
mutilato: That is true.

We also should consider the extra economic benefit to having a more healthy lower middle class in the US. There would be added economic benefits to employers in having a healthy workforce.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-04-04 4:33:53 PM  
Mr. Anon: Lets say you could save 30 lives with the cost and effort put into keeping this child alive to live a life where he can't talk, barely is able to move and won't have much quality of life. Before meeting him, this would've been an easy decision, but after having been in that world, it is hard for me to say what I would decide.

From a strictly beaurocratic perspective, the choice is easy, when you put a human face on it, it becomes a much less easy proposition.

maybe it would be easier if you could also meet the 30 people who would be saved with that money?

but yes, it's always a tough call.
 
the_geek
2006-04-04 4:58:29 PM  
KyngNothing: Huh, is it ethical to let premies[anyone] have a lower quality healthcare because they don't have insurance?

No. The ethical option for those without the ability to pay for health care is to offer them zero health care. Low quality health care is unethical. No, I'm not joking.
 
the_geek
2006-04-04 5:00:01 PM  
FriarTuck: There would be added economic benefits to employers in having a healthy workforce.

Which is precisely why so many companies offer health care for their employees at very little cost.
 
Dinjiin [BareFark]
2006-04-04 5:01:50 PM  
Socialized medicine could be a great thing. However our current culture and view on medical treatment is the major hurdle to making it work properly.

The main issue is over the question of "should we do this". Right now, everyone in the medical profession is locked into YES mode.



Baby is premature and the outcome is grim. There is a high likelihood of medical complications for the rest of its life. Should we save it? YES!

Person has experienced near-catastrophic organ failure and lost all higher brain function. However, there is the slightest glimmer of hope that they'll recover to that point just beyond cognitive awareness. Never mind the fact that what that really means is that they'll be able to blink and smack her lips. Should we save 'em? YES!

Woman comes into the doctors office three times a week to complain about a phantom medical affliction. She is old, lonely, bored and is under the delusion that she is sick. Never mind the fact that she has been fit as a fiddle for the last 200 checkups. Should we treat her? YES!

Man has been warned since he was a kid to change his diet. However, the man has continued with a self-destructive path of eating. Today, his heart is failing and he needs a transplant. Many other people are on the transplant list below him who have defects brought on by genetics, not poor self-choices. The likelihood of this guy changing his ways are low. Should we patch him up so he can kill himself off five years down the road with Twinkies and fried pork chips? YES!

Person is 85 years old and needs massive coronary work. They've lived a good life, and this operation will most likely keep them going for another 3-5 years. Should we save 'em? YES!


Once government steps in to pick up the bill, there is never a reason to say no any longer. Doctors will stop at nothing to keep a person alive. So yes, they will be alive. However, will they really be human? Will that extension of life be of quality, or will they remain so close to death that are a prisoner upon themselves? Does that person even deserve to live any further given their sheer and utter lack of personal responsibility?

Back to the baby issue. It is about money, right? What if there might also be an ulterior motive here in that lawmakers are tired of seeing doctors releasing crippled babies into the world? You're a cold and heartless bastard if you withhold money, but youre a Nazi if you decide to play God.
 
the_geek
2006-04-04 5:04:38 PM  
Dinjiin: Back to the baby issue. It is about money, right? What if there might also be an ulterior motive here in that lawmakers are tired of seeing doctors releasing crippled babies into the world? You're a cold and heartless bastard if you withhold money, but youre a Nazi if you decide to play God.

You've hit the nail on the head right here. Socialized medicine does not mean infinite budget. Socialized medicine means you do as much good as possible with what you have.
 
Ender777
2006-04-04 5:05:10 PM  
Lets get a little perspective here..

Infant mortality rate 1960-2004

Year 60 70 80 90 95 00 04

UK-- 23 18 12 08 06 06 05

US-- 26 20 13 09 08 07 07

Definition:
Infant mortality rate is the probability of a child dying between birth and the age of one, expressed per 1,000 live births.

Source

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). 2005. "Childinfo.org: Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women". Child Mortality statistical database.

/Credible and medthodical stats liven and add credability to any debate
//zing
 
pipmaster2004
2006-04-04 5:20:08 PM  
Yeah, and this is different than the US how? Have a baby born before 23 weeks in most states and they won't try to resuscitate.

It's a perfectly normal and acceptable debate to have, and something that many nations are now having. We have the technology to keep these kids alive, what needs to be figured out is the best way to do this and when to make the decision not to treat.

/Submitter is a cock
//No slashes..
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.