"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."

Pelican,

While I know this will be contentious, with the current debate about recycling stormwater and sewerage in the wake of the drought, why don't Australian towns appropriately filter their waste water so that the pharmaceuticals that are flushed down the sink and toilet are kept in drinking water? If a small dosage of drugs is maintained, it may well have a very positive effect on population health and would work in much the same way as fluoride in water, folate in bread and iodine in salt. I reckon the authorities should at least do the science and examine this possibility. If this could be made to work, I think it would be a great idea.

RobP :)

Not sure what your point was RobP - do enlighten. If it was a comment on government regulation it might have been overstated.

Otherwise, yes marvellous idea. We will have to make sure that people only live in those areas where the particular pharmaceuticals that are relevant to their health are not filtered. Only High Blood Pressure patients in Northern NSW, Arthiritic patients only to dwell in SE QLD, people with depression to reside in Western Victoria and so on. :D

Thank you Foxy for clearing that up and please except my humble apologies. Fractells post is the pinnacle of what needs to be considered and even thou the current system isn't perfect, this is where I will make a stand, with the points I have already put down so far.
now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't tradition to past on all wealth to your next generational off-spring? but no, this is not going to happen any more, is it! The system we served so loyally, comes back to bite us the end. I agree Australia's wealth is out standing and it can cover the costs but only to a certain point.

The dollar value of human-beings has no price and medicare does soak up some of the costs, but the sharks will circle and consume the rest and then every-one loses except the sharks.

We all know the baby-boomers are responsible, but they will past and the balance of the elderly will return. So let things as they are for now. Just a little fine tuning is needed for the system.

Steve. Sorry for hijacking, but I saw the opportunity to put the euthanasia picture on show, just to remind people we should have the soul right to die in the manner we choose.

If Iam incapacitated in some way, I would like a legal document attached to my last will and testament saying and following my last wishes to the letter, and not be kept alive on some life-support system, draining every last cent I have.

I believe in moving aside when its my time and leaving the wealth where it belongs. In the family.

Isn't that point of it all. I guess the world has become so much fun, no-one wants to leave. But Iam not the selfish type.

EVO

Fractelle wrote:

"Caring for its citizens helps to maintain Australia's wealth"

I couldn't care less.

I would want to care for Australian citizens even if it resulted in a NET SUBTRACTION of Australia's wealth. I think I speak for the majority of Australian citizens there.

We need to avoid two traps:

TRAP 1

Economics is the only consideration. Government should only spend on projects that can lead to some sort of quantifiable return to the taxpayer.

This leads to the sort of thinking where people who are incapacitated due to illness or age or both are considered a "drain on the economy" and are to be encouraged to embrace euthanasia.

TRAP 2

We can ignore the economics entirely. I call this the bleeding heart approach. A bleeding heart is s person who is prepared to spend other people's money in unlimited amounts on what he or she deems worthy causes.

In the real world we have a BALANCING ACT between compassion and economics. Call it, if you will, PRUDENT COMPASSION.

I do feel that we need to have an honest debate about this. We should stop pretending that we can spend huge amounts to prolong life for a few months. We also need to stop pretending that everything has to be justified on economic grounds alone.

Fractelle(again)

I do sympathise with you over your mother's illness.

I also take on board the fact that there is probably a lot of waste in health care expenditure. In return I ask you to accept that even if every ounce of waste was squeezed out of government expenditure we would still have to place limits on what we can spend on health care. Probably we shall never be able to spend much more than 10% of GDP on health care. (At the moment we spend less)

Pelican,

My point was that recycling pharameuticals would be one good way of spreading the health cost across society, as basically all it costs is for Government to put in the infrastructure to do the job. It also doesn't allow pharmaceuticals - effectively a resource - to just get flushed out to sea. It may also short-circuit to a large degree the need for big pharma to resell their old products over and over again.

If the idea were to work, it would be great for population health as it would be a relatively cheap way of maintaining it.

I'd advocate that small amounts of drugs, that were below medically-approved and scientifically-determined upper thresholds, only be let through the filtering system, though.

Steven

Your last paragraph:

"I also take on board the fact that there is probably a lot of waste in health care expenditure. In return I ask you to accept that even if every ounce of waste was squeezed out of government expenditure we would still have to place limits on what we can spend on health care. Probably we shall never be able to spend much more than 10% of GDP on health care. (At the moment we spend less)."

Every resource is finite.

You state:

"Economics is the only consideration. Government should only spend on projects that can lead to some sort of quantifiable return to the taxpayer."

Where your argument fails is that your starting point is the economy and not what is the foundation for our economy - healthy people, sustainable resources, healthy environment.

You admit yourself we could do better regarding health care (that there is wastage and we do currently spend less than we can actually afford. So please explain the point of this thread?

I also have another quibble with you, your claim that the topic of euthanasia is a 'red herring'. I disagree it is as much a part of living as living is a prelude to dying.

You appear to want a debate under very specific terms - namely whatever you decide them to be.

Please enlighten.