4 ms·
> Should the public be financially burdened by outrageously expensive research and treatments for rare diseases? Yes, precisely because they are rare and thus
by david-gpu 2y ago
> Should the public be financially burdened by outrageously expensive research and treatments for rare diseases?
Yes, precisely because they are rare and thus market forces will fail to provide a treatment.
> When do we say, it‘s enough, your condition is not compatible with life, enjoy some palliative treatment?
That will vary case by case, depending on how much the public votes in favor of socialized care vs the suffering of these people.
- WithinReason 2y agoI think the point raised by GP is about distribution of finite resources for maximum benefit. E.g. do we spend a large amount of money to extend someone's life by 2 years if we could spend the same money to save 10 lives elsewhere?
- maratc 2y ago> if we could spend the same money to save 10 lives elsewhere? ... if we could spend the same money to extend 10 lives by n years elsewhere.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago1. I think we underestimate our scarcity nowadays, since much of it is completely manufactured by rich powers who want to keep an obedient working class. We are definitely approaching a point of achieving post scarcity society. No one should have to starve nor fear for their health in 90% of cases. 2. In such a case, we'd add help chip in for it. There aren't thousands of new people every day needing artificial hearts. There is certainly enough commerce in any first world country to fund such cases.
- bulletsvshumans 2y agoPending AGI, I don’t think medical intervention at the cutting edge of innovation will ever be post scarcity. It makes more sense in relation to things that are well established enough that they are well understood and producible at scale.
- rustrustrust 2y ago[flagged]