5 ms·
I'm an american and for me, it's not an issue of cost. The issue is how do you want to end your life on this earth. My father died of lymphoma when I was 17;
by earl 15y ago
I'm an american and for me, it's not an issue of cost. The issue is how do you want to end your life on this earth. My father died of lymphoma when I was 17; he got it twice. The survivorship rates if the first set of treatments didn't work were not awesome. In his case, he died after multiple rounds of chemo and radiation and surgeries, incisions that didn't heal for multiple months, collapsed veins leading to a shunt installed in his chest, persistent nausea for half a year, so much pain that if properly medicated he was barely lucid, being forced into a wheelchair, having to wear a diaper, bleeding from his eyes and mucous membranes, etc.
Having seen his tour of the medical system, I desperately hope that if I were ever in that position, I'd have the strength to say no: treat the pain and I'll die in peace.
- krig 15y agoI don't think the issue is the cost to the patient, but rather that in a private payer system, it becomes profitable to keep patients alive for as long as possible. In a public payment system, you could crassly say that keeping patients alive is a cost to the system. Now, that would seem to imply that the public option might lead to early termination of treatment in cases where treatment would be feasible but expensive, and perhaps that does happen.