When I was a young fellow a long time ago our medicine cabinet had 5 things in it. Aspirin, magnesia tablets, plasters, detol and a roll of cotton wool. My parents both died in their eighties with a few ailments, so were taking some medication but were not hospitalized at the time of death.

It is becoming more common for people in their final years to be in and out of hospital many times. One example In the US, Medicare will pay $55,000 for patients with advanced breast cancer to receive the chemotherapy drug Avastin, even though it extends life only an average six weeks.

Private hospitals have become cash cows, operated more for the benefit of the share holders than the public at large.

Everybody wants to live as long as possible, but there comes a time when a drugs cost to the rest of society should be considered against a few more weeks of life for one.
Chris

Lefty, I have always been of the opinion that this is what insurances are for.

Now if one CHOOSES to go without insurance for other lifestyle choices, then that is their choice. Of cause there are the exceptions to every rule.

The fact is we are going backwards and if we don't stop the downward spiral who knows where we will be in twenty years, remembers where we were just ten years ago in comparison to where we are now.

Another side are the multitude of Charities for causes like find a cure for cancer, diabetes and many more things.

The Charity collects the money a lot goes in management fees etc, the problem is the Charity does no research it supposedly gives the money to the pharmaceutical companies to do the work, which leads to another problem because if a cure is found that they can't patent it will never see the light of day.
They will only produce something they can patent and make lots of money on.
Also they like it because someone else is paying them to do research on something they get to make money from.

In the above the taxpayer are partly paying because the donated money is tax deductible.

Philip and Rehctub
I agree with your posts completly
Chris

I suspect that the tunes of some here might change if their imminent demise was at hand and could be postponed by the liberal application of someone else's time and money...

Yes, the issue of how we shall apportion society's wealth is a difficult one, but the question asked here is, with the greatest of respect, the wrong one. It is based on some unsustainable assumptions:

1. That the cost of the drug is justified. This is true in very few cases. For example early batches of interferon were horrendously difficult to manufacture and cost a motza. That has now changed with new technology.
2. That the value of the added life is somehow able to be equated with a financial cost. The implication is that the money might be "better spent" elsewhere, but that is fallacious, because money is merely a medium of exchange. If it changes hands, it still exists: nothing is used up.
3. That there is an equivalence between something that is urgent and requires immediate action and something that can be put off. Next time you're eating a burnt meal you might think about that.
4. That the "common good" overrides a need to justify poor outcomes for individuals (except oneself, of course - see my first paragraph). This is a common fallacy committed by those who claim Marx as their inspiration. It's certainly not what Marx and Engels thought.

I'll leave that there, but it's not an exhaustive list.

A better question would be "why do we tolerate drug companies profiteering"? Perhaps an answer might be found in some of the responses here.

Quote ""why do we tolerate drug companies profiteering""
Same answer as if the drug companies was replaced by banks.

Too big.

Craig
Actually the question is the right one, as are all the questions on this site. If you want to post a different one please feel free to do that. I would happily post a response.

Speaking strictly for myself, I have no wish to have my life extended by weeks or months by any of these types of drugs. If natural methods don’t work then it is time to move on. I think the people who want to spend whatever it takes of other people’s money, are usually afraid of what comes next, I am not.

If you have ever seen visiting time in a nursing home, you will know that many residents sit alone and those that don’t, run out of things to talk about in the first 5 minutes.

So to answer your points.

1 The only thing that counts is what they charge and we are all aware that they charge whatever they feel they can get away with.
2 Your point about money is true; however try convincing the Australian parliament of that. I would rather the money was spent helping others at the bottom of societies pecking order.
3 Sorry I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here.
4 Sorry lost me again.
Chris

Hi Chris, you're right, there are no "wrong" questions as such, although not all questions are equally useful; perhaps I should have characterised it as "unproductive", in that it can't lead to a useful answer which settles the matter.

Your argument seems to be that if some people might not want to take advantage of life extension then it should not be available to those who do, because those who don't need it(or wouldn't want it) might be able to imagine something different to do with the money which they regard as more important.

That's certainly an argument commonly heard from our politicians, but it doesn't hold water. In its worst form its nothing more than expediency. I'm not suggesting that is the case here, mind you. Having watched both my parents die extended, miserable deaths I tend to agree with your view of an infirm old age.

To clarify 3 and 4:

3. Unless you can come up with an equally urgent need for the money as spending it on the treatment of someone in imminent threat of death, then there is no reason not to spend it in that way. Any other use can wait, just as watching Masterchef can wait if the steak is on the stove. In the intervening period, unless the country is completely indigent, more money will become available and can be spent on the lower priorities.

4. Very often, those who identify with a Marxist interpretation of the state's role try to justify policies which disadvantage certain classes of individuals on the grounds that there is a greater good to be served by preferencing some other class. Both sides of the Left/Right divide like this model, although on the Right they usually dress it up as Millsian utilitarianism rather than Marxist redistribution. The end result is the same: some identified class is given preferential treatment.

The class of people who need urgent and expensive treatment to extend their life is small but it has great personal consequences if they don't receive what they need. To deny it is unethical.

Craig
Sorry, but I disagree again as I don’t think any question raised here can have a (use) value placed upon it. All posts started will either be picked up by other’s who take the opportunity to voice their personal opinion/frustration, or will wither on the vine so to speak. I see the value of these posts as for people to share thoughts with others, not to arrive at answer.

I did not say it should not be available to others just because I would not pay insurance for, or expect others to pay for expensive drugs. I take your point about money , but that is another issue. My point was that extending life at any price, for any time has reached a point where we need to at least ask the question without being drowned out by those who think we have a duty to hang around longer than we are designed too.

It was really difficult for me to loose my parents as they both went when I was not around so was unable to say goodbye. However for them, I am sure it was preferable to go out relatively healthy than the fate of your patents.

Bottom line is the baby boomers are the generation that will need to open the difficult topic of personally controlled euthanasia, I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that just because you can stop the body from dying does not necessarily mean you should, I realize this is a can of worms, and many don’t want to talk about it.
Chris

Chris, ungrounded discussion that goes around in circles doesn't inform or entertain, it merely distracts. As a lot of discussion on this site shows, that merely reinforces entrenched positions and makes reaching any genuine meeting of minds more difficult.

The issue as I see it is that if a person wishes to extend their life and the means exist, then it should be their choice, not somebody else's based on a perceived difference in utility. It's not a very long slide from that to the Orwellian "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". If you recall, Boxer was sent to the knackery when he broke down and the pigs got drunk on the proceeds...

As I said, I lost my parents to long, debilitating illnesses that were prolonged beyond any point by the availability of a large amount of funding due to my father having maintained his subscription to the very generous health insurance scheme operated by his former employer, one of the largest conglomerates in the country. If they had chosen not to participate in the care offered by their medical practitioners I would have supported them 150%, but that's not what happened and I support them in that too, despite how distressing it was for me.

There is every possibility that this will be a very important issue in future, when dying at any particular time is largely a matter of personal choice, not an inevitable consequence of growing older. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but it is reasonable to expect that my kids will have to confront the issue.

Craig
I take your point regarding pointless topics, but you can always change the Chanel.
As for when Australia will be ready to change statute to make it possible to control your time and place to check out when you have had enough, you may well be right.
However I believe it will be the boomers who will start the conversation, which may well be the hardest part. There are a lot of institutions that have a vested interest in making sure you don't leave until they think it is ok.
Chris

Chris,
Surely if you're going to take the trouble to write a post asking a question you want it to be a good one that attracts interesting and unexpected answers?

It's easy to get a useless conversation going: just disparage a random football team and voila! Many hours of pointless argument will ensue.

Craig
Another point that I cant argue with(although I probably could, which just prove your point). I have to say that this site has proved that there are still places to go to find interesting points to debate.

At this point I am/have posted on another three topics on the subjects of, PC spoiling debate, Atheists changing, and the effect of quantitative easing on the economy. You may care to add your two penny worth.
Chris

I donate $0.00 to cancer research for 2 reasons.

1. Not one single cent is spent on researching nutrition as a cause or as a treatment of cancer.

2. any patents resulting from crowd saucing of research money will be owned by big pharma and not the crowed (i,e, open sourced.)

Why should Australian tax payers pay out any form of corproate welfare anyway?