I think I'll agree with runner on this one.
Brian Holden and others may be interested to know that it has been done before, in a manner.
The policy was called 'Aktion T4'.
Some interesting reading can be found here; http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAction_T4&rct=j&q=aktion+t4&ei=MU3_S4X_L4GsNfyTzTs&usg=AFQjCNGIQIsamv3HPsf5rGTZRcS7oZJ21A

I am wondering what argument could be put forward to save the premature baby with the very expensive intensive care that they require and the possibility of diminished faculties, instead of wheeling (say) Ms Quentin Alice Louise Bryce, AC, DStJ (getting long in the tooth and had a fair go GenY might say) into intensive care after her operation? Alright, what if Quentin was 80+ at the time and writing her memoirs while doing the international lecture circuit?

I am not supporting either 'side', just wondering about the ethics.

Or would we swap Quentin, a distinguished woman after all, for one of those white males who have always been advantaged as the mantra goes?

Then again, Aboriginals are past their prime in their fifties, so make sure one never log-jams someone who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth from getting a bed in IC. Hey, those medical resources wasted on the black guy could be better spent on ego boosting cosmetic surgery on boobs, face and thighs for that well-heeled matron after they save her from the accidental OD on coke (fashionista parties are like that).

Hold on, the black guy is disadvantaged and there are no beds available, so what about that younger old bugger over there?

A done deal, the age for shunting off the rescue and resuscitation line is now sixty-five, but only for those devoid of HEROC's (active) protection. Muted "Cough, cough, ahem, Minister, the really good spin-off from the revised '65 and out' initiative is that their pensions can be redistributed among the needy - ie the consultants and other artful dodgers who have the wit to keep their snouts firmly in the public trough and can be relied upon to support you."

It could all be so easy too, just stop the old buggers getting into hospital in the first place, or withdraw their Medicare 'entitlements'. That is the problem with democracy and a national health service, they always want to treat people as being equal - a life is a life and all of that nonsense. Come the revolution!

Interesting article & comments but everybody has missed another directly related issue. At the opposite end of the scale there are many children with extensive disabilities, deformaties being kept alive.

I have worked in this industry & seen first hand both children & the elderley with extensive issues, plenty of pain, no quality of life being kept alive at great expense. Because emotional parents don't have the courage to end it.

Its also been rising progressively over the decades as women have been encouraged to have children later in life, which radically increases the risk of medical complications for both mother & child.

Are any health admin experts going to "run the numbers" through the spreadsheet on how much this is costing "medicare".

Or is this too politically incorrect?

I have a brother who has a severe intellectual impairment as a result of meningitis when he was three. He is now 53, has no language and although mobile has no capacity to live independently. Our mother is 85 this year and still lives independently (although is becoming almost the quintessential grumpy old woman and a complete interpersonal chore). Our mother has a 'do not resuscitate' caveat on herself and has decided it's time to die soon and with dignity, pain free. We have discussed this and proposed sensible parameters.

I desperately fear the consequences for my brother if he ever suffers an illness or accident that incapacitates him further. He is on a disability pension and is under the care of the Adult Guardian. Does that mean he is doomed to life at all and every cost?

In Britain the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) sets the parameters for treatments the National Health Service (NHS) offers.

You can read about NICE here:

http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/

One of the most controversial of NICE's guidelines is a cap on the annual amount that may be spent to prolong the life of terminally ill patients. Broadly the cut-off point is 30 thousand pounds per annum. The NHS will not usually offer treatments that cost more than 30 thousand pounds per year of additional good quality life.

This sometimes leads to harsh decisions. See:

HUNDREDS OF LIVER CANCER PATIENTS DENIED DRUG LIFELINE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1281465/Hundreds-liver-cancer-patients-denied-drug-lifeline.html

"NICE said Nexavar can increase survival by an extra 2.8 months on average, but at a cost of £27,000 per patient, using a complicated formula meant to assess a person's quality of life."

TO ALL POSTERS HERE:

What is the maximum you think Medicare should spend to prolong the life of a terminally ill patients by an AVERAGE of 2.8 months?

No red herrings please. I think we all understand that some people may gain no extra life as a result of treatment while others may live for an additional year or more. If we knew in advance who would benefit and who would not it would change the equation. But, right now, we don't know.

In fact we don't even know whether an individual patient has benefited from the treatment. All we can say is that if we divide patients into two groups, give one the treatment and the control group a placebo the treatment group members on average survive an extra 2.8 months

Soylent green & the island are getting closer.