This debate always fascinates me. The ultimate expression of this conundrum
is, if we had a treatment which would save the lives of a hundred people
with a rare disease, but would consume so much of the GNP, that we were left
unable to provide social or medical care for anyone else, would it be
morally right use it?
If it wasn't right to use it, it means we can draw the line on healthcare
cost/benefit - so where do we draw it?
Who gets to decide where to draw the line - if politicians, do doctors have
the right to absolve themselves of all responsibility? After all, we come up
with the treatments in the first place, although in our case the
respnsibility may be rather indirect. In addition, what respnosibility have
we if the politicians say "go ahead, use it" but make economies elsewhere
when our opnion is that to do so might wreck the system (which is of course,
in some ways the situation now)?
Answers on the back of plain e-mails please.
Andrew
Dr. Andrew N. Herd MRCGP [log in to unmask]
Blue Peter Conundrum Appeal
-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 26 February 1998 08:54
Subject: Re: Patient Results
>On 02/26/98 06:11:32, "Jon Wilcox" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>A half million pounds per life saved ???
>>Where is EBM when we really need them ??
>
>Ah, but it's a woman's life saved. In my books, that's worth the
>world ;-)
>
>Ahmad
>
>"The future is in beta"
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>Dr Ahmad Risk
>http://www.cybermedic.org
>Chairman British Healthcare Internet Association <http://www.bhia.org>
>Director Internet Healthcare Coalition - USA <http://www.ihc.net>
>
>Home: +44 1273 724866/748198
>Work: +44(1737)240022 Fax: +44 1737 244660
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|