Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra

[coberst]

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/he...nted=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.

[Eclogite]

I believe I qualify as a casual observer and, despite your assured claims to the contrary, it is not obvious to me that we must quickly deal with the problem medical science has dumped on our doorstep.
Could you begin, or rather continue, by defining exactly what it is you believe the problem to be. Is it the cost of drugs that proling life? Is it the difficulty of fairly distributing such drugs to persons who would benefit from them? Is it the very notion of extending life? Is it related to the quality of life that would be extended? Is it connected with the degree to which society is responsible for extending the life of the individual?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

I believe I qualify as a casual observer and, despite your assured claims to the contrary, it is not obvious to me that we must quickly deal with the problem medical science has dumped on our doorstep.
Could you begin, or rather continue, by defining exactly what it is you believe the problem to be. Is it the cost of drugs that proling life? Is it the difficulty of fairly distributing such drugs to persons who would benefit from them? Is it the very notion of extending life? Is it related to the quality of life that would be extended? Is it connected with the degree to which society is responsible for extending the life of the individual?

You have succinctly delineated many of the important issues. I suspect many more could be added.

[Moontanman]

Well on thing i can see that needs to be addressed, insurance will pay to make an old man have an erection he can cut diamonds with but it won't pay for birth control to keep that old man from getting a woman pregnant. I think this definitely not correct from many angles not the least of which is over population and people having babies they cannot afford to take care of.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by coberst

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.

You know, coberst, you spend a lot of time complaining about how people don't respect/dislike intellectuals, and then for some amazing reason, you wonder why?

Really, no one likes being called an idiot, and when some intellectual snob comes a long looking down his nose at them telling them what they ought to think and do *because* their idiots and need the smart people to "order their lives" you've got open hostility, yes, against intellectualism.

Need a mirror?

In my mind the real problem with the situation you pose is that investment in medical/pharmaceutical technology is problematic. Because there is almost no investment and promotion of the very expensive process of developing these technologies by the government--government regulations of course being the primary reason the process is so expensive. Although I'm firmly for the free market, I think that the government ought to provide more of the R&D budget in exchange for making sure that the resulting technologies don't end up costing an arm and a leg (literally!).

In many cases of pursuing intellectual decision making, it's important to actually consider Reframing the Problem, rather than blindly attacking the symptoms.

Always watch where you are going. Otherwise, you may step on a piece of the Forest that was left out by mistake,
Buffy

[coberst]

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?

[questor]

Coberst, if I understand your question properly, could it be stated thusly: What does society owe a citizen during his life? Do we just owe people in our own country, or do we owe all of humanity?
If we are to owe others, what do they owe us? On the day Bruce Hardy was refused medication, probably thousands of people worldwide died because they had no medication for their
condition.

[Buffy]

There ya go: we should give everyone a fixed amount of health care dollars for their lives. When they run through that, then they don't get any anymore. Not even hospice care while they die.

Oh and those folks with congenital diseases? Tough luck! If it costs more than that amount to cure a 13-year-old, we should just let them die because its unfair to everyone else!

Why do you worry about us keeping the population to a "reasonable level?" While it looks like we'll easily hit 10 billion, the acceleration of births is actually slowing down as the biggest baby producing countries (China, India, and now even African nations) are starting to become developed countries? Certainly if you talk about developed countries only, we're on our way to flat growth discounting immigration, and some countries like Russia and Japan already have negative growth!

Life clocks are a lie! Carousel is a lie! THERE IS NO RENEWAL! ,
Buffy

[cooloola]

Buffy - that would be a particularly harsh world in which to live. There is a problem with funding and distribution no need to revert to this one size fits all policy.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by cooloola

Buffy - that would be a particularly harsh world in which to live. There is a problem with funding and distribution no need to revert to this one size fits all policy.

I'm not a Buffy, but I play one online. Anyways, her coments are satire of the sardonic kind and refer to Questorator's implications in the post before which have a wider context here at Hypog in a number of other threads. To describe Questy's world-we-all-should-live-in as 'harsh', is apt if not an understatement.

I'm not forgetting you Cobersto, so as long as I'm here...

Originally Posted by Coberst

I claim that this constantly extending the prolongation of life must quickly cease; we can no longer afford such a foolish unreflective behavior. ...

I offer this: Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. ~Hippocrates
Hippocrates Quotes