It it acceptable to let someone die who cannot afford health care?

Is it acceptable to let someone die because they cannot afford the needed health care?

As an example.

A 25 year old homeless man walks into a ER room complaining of chest pains. It is determined that he needs a heart transplant which is very expensive due to a previous undiagnosed condition. He cannot pay for it and will NEVER be able to pay for it.. Without this, he will die very prematurely.


How should this individual be treated?

1.) Let him die of his condition
2.) government pays for the operation
3.) the hospital pays for the operation
4.) try and raise money through private charity. ( if not enough is raised, he still dies, but hey, at least we tried )
5.) indentured servitude ( government/hosp/private group/individual pays for it, but in return, they now own this persons life until the debt is paid off )

 

High school student?

 

Why was he lacking health coverage? This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Obviously Obama Care makes an effort to do so, but I'm thinking it's not going to be the best way. Single payer seems best, letting everyone pay an affordable level of tax and receive needed health care services in return. Unless there is some way to significantly lower the costs of health care, one of these solutions is pretty much needed. Private insurance remains expensive (and regressive), and too often fails to cover health care costs when needed. And most people can't afford this stuff out of pocket either, so...

Just remember that "government pays" really means that the taxpayers pay, and you know government loves to bleed us for all the taxes they can get. It's already getting to the point where people are taxed enough that they may need to turn to food stamps and the like to supplement the income they lose to taxes, though they may not think of it in those terms since they're accustomed to budgeting with their net income and thinking of tax day as a day to get a refund rather than a day of great financial loss, thanks to automatic withholding.

 

The liberals and other socialists are all full of compassion and love. They'll be glad to use their own money to help the useless and greedy.

Or the useless and greedy can die.

To quote the Famous Harridan:

"What difference does it make?"

- - - Updated - - -

Do you really want a defective person living longer and spreading more of his defective genes into the population?

If he wasn't defective, he would have had enough sense to purchase at least catastrophic health coverage, right?

 

If the condition is natural or self induced by illicit behaviors it is unfortunate, but it is not the responsibility of anyone else, particularly not the government...

 

I'd make it even money that those who favor letting the person die would change their tune rather quickly if the tables were turned on them. If human life is as precious as many maintain, then all efforts must be taken to do our best to save the patient in all circumstances.

 

They should die only if their organs can be harvested at a huge profit. Otherwise, it's better to keep them alive so they can be milked dry of any available resources to help maintain that immense profit. Profit above all else is paramount.

 

Chances are he will croak before they find a heart match.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. But thats beside the point isnt it?

 

No; they should not be allowed to die. If not by their own fault of course. If they for some reason try to hurt themselves then let's not be in their way right? One less idiot to deal with, one less to pay for.

 

Of course they should not be allowed to die. Why is there any question in the first place?

 

Well, if he can come up with a pile of cash, I'm sure someone would "coincidentally" find him a heart. No cash? Yeah, he'll likely die (unless he has good insurance then, in that case, "treat" him to the limits of the policy first).

 

"Treating" the patient is ALWAYS more profitable than letting someone die. If they're poor, you can just harvest their organs and sell them to the highest bidder.

An organ has been located! It's a "miracle"!

 

Absolutely not. It would be a violation of both common ethics and the Hippocratic oath.

 

There are some people who, because of their advanced age or chronic debilitating condition, are not worth keeping alive on the taxpayer's expense. We also have to ask ourselves how much a human life is worth. Should society be spending such a ridiculously huge sum to keep one person alive? This is a legitimate question.

 

Profit before people. That supersedes ethics and morality. That's just the way it is.

 

I wonder how pro-lifers vote, do they let the child that was born die, or do they really prefer life...


.

 

would we then need death panels to decide these things?

.

 

If the government starts taking over healthcare, someone will need to decide how that money is allocated. When the government expands its role, bureaucrats must be entrusted with administrative powers.

 

I guess # 2 is the most plausible choice. Not sure why we should be both judge and jury.

Hippocratic Oath – Modern Version

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University,
and used in many medical schools today.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such
knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of
overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding
may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are
needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all
thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with
great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness
may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems,
if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings,
those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection
thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long
experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Florence Nightingale Pledge

I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly, to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession, and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work, and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.

Mark 12:31
New International Version (NIV)
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

 

well if a person has no money, it's either death or the gov lends a hand

 

In France we have a social security since 1945. That also include free health care for most of life threatening issue.

If , the whole society pay for it, it's also withdraw the cost of ill-health from the economy. Poorly treated workers can't work properly. The main problem are the loobying with medical industry for the price that state pay, and the possible abuse from medical wasters within the people who benefits that.

That expensive sure, but that made us proud ( until some smart-head started to included everyone (including illegal ) in the French territory as having unlimited "emergency health" "AME" care for free, which include basically anything, which cost a lot as the whole third world are coming to get healed on our cash)
A minimal should be covered by states, we are talking about common public health

 

No one heart transplant surgery is considered elective, so they just need to arrange proper aftercare likely as a charity case, perhaps hospice.

 

This implies a narrative that is entirely false (i.e. that, under America's current healthcare system, the uninsured are allowed to "die" because of their lack of insurance coverage).

For more on this, please see the Hill-Burton Act, as passed in the 1940s and revised in the 1970s...

 

The question you should actually be asking yourselves is whether it's acceptable to steal the property of others to fund operations.

Vegetarians always say if you had to kill the animal you wouldn't eat it - if you had to steal the tax you wouldn't advocate it.