3 ms·
I once talked to a radiologist who said something similar but not about the elderly. He claimed there is a lot of money being fruitlessly spent on the last six
by mcny 8y ago
I once talked to a radiologist who said something similar but not about the elderly. He claimed there is a lot of money being fruitlessly spent on the last six months of a patient's life. He explained that a problem is that we don't know before hand when someone will die but in hindsight it is obvious that a lot of the money to keep someone alive is waste.
Then I started hearing about the death panels. I sincerely thought death panels are a great idea. If it costs to much to keep someone alive with little or no chance of a recovery, it might be better to put someone down. Thankfully, most people are more sensible than I am. Turns out there was no death panel.
I still think about this issue though. I read somewhere that we spend about 18% of our GDP on healthcare. Maybe we just need slightly different priorities and try to go for most bang for the buck. Thoughts?
- repsilat 8y agoIf there's a limited amount of money to be spent, "most bang for your buck" is a moral imperative. We do it to some extent -- measures like the "QALY" ("quality-adjusted life-year") attempt to quantify "bang", though I'm not sure how rigorously we apply them in determining whether to follow some course of treatment. (It's also fairly standard to give a QALY some fixed dollar value. Uncomfortable, perhaps, but again -- necessary from a moral perspective, at least if you're a utilitarian deciding what to spend on healthcare.)