The Forum > General Discussion > Organ transplants and medical ethics
Organ transplants and medical ethics
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
-
- All
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:28:46 AM
| |
Suseonline
"The will to live is very strong and many sick people will do almost anything to survive." Actually my experience is that sick people are more interested in quality of life rather than length of of life. I have had a number of friends that refused treatment, such as Chemotherapy simply because they found the treatment so unpleasant, they preferred to die sooner but with less hassles. One of my very good friends who had a very serious heart condition, gave strict instructions that he was not to be resuscitated, another acquaintance I had, told the doctor off for resuscitating her, telling him she was so tried so just wanted to go. I am not sure I agree with Hasbeen in considering cost as a factor, but I can see the point that saving two lives is a better option than saving one at great cost. In my own case I really don't know if the crunch comes whether I would go with a lung transplant or not Posted by warmair, Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:50:43 AM
| |
Banjo things like cancer treatment & Catheter ablation treatment of heart problems are simple & cheap. The cost of on going medication is greater than such treatments.
These are good value. It is the high end organ transplant stuff, with surgeons being paid like pop stars, that is really too expensive for us to continue funding from the public purse. I expect our ability to replace parts will grow, but if a reduction in costs of surgery does not occur we will end up with no public health as we go bankrupt. Watching RPA we see some amazing work being done on people who are no use to society, who have very short survival after a successful operation. This is what I am talking about, where surgeons are doing it because they can, [& perhaps because it's profitable], not because it is if any public benefit, & often little or no benefit to the patient. I am 100% against "feel good" medical treatment. Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 31 May 2015 11:59:50 AM
| |
Hasbeen,
I have actually seen people given a kidney transplant and they lived a normal life for many years after. It gave them quality of life. In contrast I have witnessed people on Chemo with horrible side effects and who wished they had not had it. For an oldy like me, I would elect to have just palliative care. Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 31 May 2015 1:54:00 PM
| |
Yes Banjo, kidney & liver transplants do seem to be highly successful, can use a live donor, & can return often quite young people to a full productive life. These are good value, it is the more exotic, which rarely appear to get people back to full productivity that I'm against, or those on old farts like us, if it is on the public purse.
I have no doubt we can develop spare parts to replace most of the usual organs, but we will need to get surgeon's down to mechanics remuneration, before this will become practical. Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 31 May 2015 6:20:21 PM
| |
This are ordinary things now for medicine. The ultimate thing they have discovered is the head transplant. This is something amazing. It costs a lot but in one day an old person can have a 20 years old body. Crazy or not I find science amazing. I work for CUA (http://australiainsurancequote.com/cua) in the health insurance area and we receive all this crazy madical news.
Just google it ;) Posted by ana.cruceru, Tuesday, 9 June 2015 4:22:00 AM
|
Back in the 1950s I was down at Port Kembla and was in the local RSL.
An elderly gentleman came in, bought a pint and got change of a pound, then went over to play the 6 penny poker machine. He'd feed the 40 coins in then take the payouts and go home.
My host told me about him, a Sudan,Boer and WWI(instructor) veteran he had been knocked down by a car and badly injured when he was 72, at the subsequent damages hearing the insurance company argued that as he had reached his three score years and ten that he was not entitled to compensation.
The Judge (whatever) saw a point in this so suggested to the lawyer for the company that the insurance company pay him the Basic Wage for the rest of his life, everyone agreed on this, it looked like a real money saver for the company and he'd have enough money for his no doubt simple needs.
I had the pleasure of attending his 100th birthday party in 1965 and he lived for a year or two longer.
So the insurance company ended up paying him for some 30 years, with the payments increasing each time the basic wage went up; probably cost them a lot more than the modest settlements of the 1950s.