Dear Evo,

Read my earlier post.

What I am saying and what I said in my
earlier post was that this is a decision
that should be made by the cancer victims
themselves, their families, and their
medical specialists - not by government
officials trying to save money at the expense
of providing adequate medical care for all.

This does not mean that every cancer victim
is going to want to prolong their life.
They're not. Many will opt out.
It's like the Catholic Church not recognising
divorce - because they fear that everyone is
going to rush out and get one.

AS I said in my previous post governments waste
billions on questionable schemes and think
nothing of it. - Yet they question
the price of what's spent on human services.
Remember Howard wanted to get rid of Medicare.

In democratic countries government officials are
accountable to the people. They have to be sensitive
to public opinion - their jobs depend on it.

So what is the dollar value of human life - be it
six months or more?

My answer is:

Give people the option. Make it work.
Cut back in other areas of government spending
- other government schemes, reduce waste in other
areas.
Find ways to reduce the cost of this hypothetical
injection - don't take the easy option -( you're
going to die anyway).

Look at the bigger picture, all citizens should be
entitled to adequate medical care whether they're
young or old.

They should at least be given the choice to make
their own decisions in a matter of life or death.

Don't give us arguments for why it can't be done -
look for solutions that can make it work.

My Dear Fractelle,

Your last post says it so beautifully.

Thank You.

The protagonists on this thread seem to be split into two camps.

On the one hand we have those like TRTL who seem to be saying that when humans have reached the end of their "economic lives" they should be denied all but the most rudimentary health care.

On the other side we have Foxy and Fractelle who think we should pull out all stops, regardless of expense, in order to prolong life for those who want it. They evade the question of cost by conjuring into existence a vast pool of wasted government funds that can be used to fund unlimited health care.

They refuse to acknowledge there are competing WORTHY claims on every dollar of government expenditure.

In their own way both sides are attempting to evade the tough questions.

I am afraid I fall into neither camp.

I think most Australians would agree that sick people of ALL AGES deserve the best medical care we as a society can afford to provide. The twin questions we need to ask are:

--What can we afford? and

--Where will it do the most good?

In other words, back in the REAL WORLD we have to perform a difficult BALANCING ACT.

My own view is that we should be honest with terminally ill patients. We should say that we shall provide treatments of PROVEN COST EFFECTIVENESS for as long as you want them. We shall also provide the best palliative care available.

But there will come a point when we say that we have reached the limit on what we can reasonably justify paying to prolong your life.

That's what we do anyway. I just think we should be more open and honest about it.

And my personal answer. In a case such as Amelia McDonald's I think it reasonable in present circumstances for the taxpayer to pay up to $10,000 for a shot at another six months of good quality life.

The issue of euthanasia is a red-herring on this thread. Nobody is arguing that terminally ill people should be forced to live.

Steven

I believe you are overreacting.

1. Australia is a very wealthy country

2. Caring for its citizens helps to maintain Australia's wealth

3. Our taxes that are currently utilised for Aged care are presently squandered in administrative costs and for the profit of private Aged Care service providers.

I recommend that you listen to the following report:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2008/2329185.htm

"When George Vassiliou got funding to help his 84-year-old mum stay in her own home, he was shocked to find that two thirds of the money was gobbled up by overheads. It left precious little to pay the carer who actually spent time at his mother's house. So, Mr Vassiliou took on the system... and won. After arguing his case for years, he managed to triple the number of hours' care his mother received at home. It was a symbolic victory as much as anything, because he had seized control of the money his mother had been allocated from the bureaucracy. But there's more to the story than meets the eye"

If you are really concerned about our taxes I suggest areas like negative gearing and corporate welfare are very good place to start rather than the lives of vulnerable people.

PS

Thank you Foxy

I am in agreement with Foxy, Fractelle and Steel Mann's excellent posts. Sorry to hear about your mum Fractelle - all the best.

Of course there are always competing priorities on our tax dollars but I imagine that somewhere in our distant past when humans decided that some aspects of life were better served by pooling resources as a group, health care and wellbeing came at the top of their list.

There are many programs funded now by government that could easily be sponsored by the private sector or managed better.

Health, extending life (where possible and if desired) and reduction of suffering surely has to be at the top of our list of "must haves" as far as our tax dollar is concerned. Too often our health services are degraded with horrible consequences to the disabled, the mentally ill and the sick.

The only problem I can see with this opening up the door to any cost is okay is one that I think EVO pointed out that there will be those pharmaceutical companies that will exploit it for profit.

The only way around this sort of exploitation is via government regulation or legislation but even more relevant or helpful is what if the government actually gets more involved in funding the research into these sorts of pharmaceuticals so that the cost is spread. Afterall health services provide a safety net for all of us - if we don't get to use them much someone we know inevitably will.

RobP: "The answer has already come out in the conversation: whatever the Government can responsibly afford after all the legitimate competing interests for the taxpayers' dollar become apparent."

I agree. We need the entire health budget to answer this question meaningfully, and even then we'll need to create an algorithm that conjures up a percentage rather than a dollar amount.

Another variable is the "disease de jour" style of funding most governments fall prey to. So SIDS and AIDS and breast cancer get all the funds, while schizophrenia gets sod all. People then blame those who lobby for particular health funding (e.g. "bloody feminists and their bloody bossums!") rather than scrutinise those who doll it out.