End-of-Life Care: Weighing Ethics and Rationing Resources

[SearchForSanta]

"the american people want" lmao, oh yes he sound very reputable

[funkalunatic]

My god, what a shit video.

[Redfingers]

Every man who stands in opposition to suicide should be killed.

[tempemonkey2323]

I think these guys are realizing the door they are about to walk through and are starting to get scared....

[imre1000]

I dread the day when clowns like these decide the level of care for me.

[GBS990]

So, you want the government to decide if your mom lives or dies? Better be well connected. (News flash, you're not).

[lynchmobb2000]

@GBS990

So, you want a private insurer who is looking out for its bottom line to decide if your mom lives or dies? Better be well connected. (News flash, you're not.)

Incidentally, the govt is currently covering anyone you know over age 65. It's called Medicare, it's wildly popular, and no grandmas are having their plugs pulled.

[christheferal]

@lynchmobb2000 I heard Medicare is going bankrupt.

[Asiablue]

@GBS990 That is not what they do. The doctor you've trusted for years is going to decide that. Good luck!

[restlys]

@GBS990 so what are your opinions about leaving those decisions to private companies?

[Robfenix]

lisaseeman and BigPurple. You are completely missing the debate. The debate is about whether government medicare should cover that treatment or she should be burdened to pay for it herself. Within the context of other people not getting care, it is moral to decrease the medicare coverage for expensive operations if it could save many babies' lives.

[lisaseeman]

You value quality of life over life.

Who gave you that right to decide for others the value of their life.

[BigPurple121]

@lisaseeman

Exactly, I can't believe people are even having this discussion. It's their money, they can do whatever they want to do with it.

[vincenmt]

I AM saying that if you are a human being who is a clunker you are out of luck. If there is no one left who places any value on you (either for your experience, or your family, or cause you pay them to value you) then you may as well be dead.

[goog2k]

goog2k @christheferal And everyone should get everything for free. That sounds nice. Any idea how that might be possible???

BTW, I know if I was demented, or had Alzheimer's, or some other condition for which I couldn't take care of myself, the most compassionate thing would be to let me go to sleep and never wake up.

I know people who have suffered endlessly in "Intensive Care" for three months, or even 6 MONTHS, only to finally die. You know what their last words were? "Please let me DIE."

[christheferal]

@goog2k Sure.

Firstly, we've had the know-how and advanced technology for over 60 years to feed, clothe and house every human on this planet, no exceptions.

As for if you had Alzheimer's, fair enough, I'm not saying all people would want to live if they suffered from that. Sure, you might want to kill yourself, I have no problem with that. I believe that there's nothing wrong with killing yourself, it's YOUR life after all.

[shelaughs]

Whaaaaat?!! I can't even believe these "Big Brothers" are HAVING this discussion!!! Oh my! We are in serious trouble...

[ananiasacts]

@shelaughs, I wish I knew what you meant by that. Are you saying that we shouldn't have any limits at all on what we're willing to spend to preserve life?

[christheferal]

@ananiasacts well we shouldn't. Money is a human invention, and nobody should be restricted by the amount of money they have. The wealthiest people generally own, they don't generally actually contribute or invent anything. So yes, we shouldn't limit our compassion because of the invention of money.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, I disagree with robing Peter simply to give it Paul because he really does needs it. A better question you might ask is this: How is it possible to have poor people today when we started out able to feed ourselves, and have undergone literally centuries of enormous productivity growth ever since then? Shouldn't everyone be fairly well off today? This is what I believe you are actually complaining about.  We really do have an economy that robs the poor to fund the rich.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, and I do see a better way to fix that problem--stopping the rich from surreptitiously spiriting away the wealth of the poor. It consists of redressing the measured impact we have on each other via the choices we make in life. All we need is a good proxy for that impact--a way of measuring, not perfectly, but very close to it, the effect enjoying our wealth has on other people--rich and poor. The best measure of it that I can find is very easy to measure too: carbon dioxide.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, So the fix that would allow us to be rid of ALL entitlement programs is simply to measure the global production of CO2 and issue every person on earth, each period (like a week or a month,) credits equal to one share of total CO2 produced globally (we already measure this amount every day using satellites.) Anyone wishing to produce more than one human's share, would have to purchase the rights from those who must have produced less CO2 and still have rights left to sell.

[christheferal]

@ananiasacts That's a very interesting idea. I don't know if you've heard about The Venus Project, but I think you've got the same fundamental idea that we have to share our Earth.

If you've looked into alternative energy sources, CO2 emissions are generally a lot lower, however, we still have to be careful with resources. I mean, today, the multiplicity due to the monetary system creates a heck of a lot of waste and wastes resources.

[christheferal]

@ananiasacts So are you saying that say a mobile phone that was produced using 500g of CO2 (just for example) could be free to everyone but if that company/person needs to use 550g, they have to basically agree with other people to use their 50g of CO2 to produce them?

I'm just unsure if this will be an easy measurement, because in a world where we DON'T have to cut corners due to money, we can take advantage of newer energy sources which produce less or no CO2, so people may not value it.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, the suggestion isn't intended to address climate issues at all. CO2 is only used because, over all the things we do, it is the best proxy or indicator of the extent of our impact on everyone else. Switching to solar doesn't really change the accuracy of using CO2 as such a proxy for our impact at all. The scheme redresses the impact we have on each other merely by enjoying our wealth and nothing else. But by doing that one thing, we ensure that poverty simply cannot continue.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, we are already using a network of satellites to measure CO2 levels. We know how much is produced, where it is produced, and can practically watch it diffuse into the environment in real time. That's what makes it an easy measurement. The only other measurement we need to make is how many people there are to divide it among. The scheme has a huge number of very beneficial side effects that aren't obvious, for example, it allows us to easily tax the underground economy.

[christheferal]

@ananiasacts What I meant when I was talking about measurement is that with newer technology that we're not implementing due to monetary restrictions, we're emitting more CO2 than we need to. In such a world where you'd have a certain amount of CO2 that you were allowed to emit, there's no monetary restriction and people would be motivated to optimise the technology.

Actually, come to think of it, it sounds like it'd give motivation to enhance the technology.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, Your exactly right. It does motivate a reduction of CO2, but not because of any regulations, but because it includes impact in the costing of products. But it really isn't an intention of the scheme at all. Just one of a whole long slew of unexpected fringe benefits, the most significant of which might be a whole new way to prevent human rights abuses. The more I examine this idea, and the more carefully I work out the effects it will have economically, the better it looks.

[christheferal]

@ananiasacts I'm going to The Venus Project tour, so I'll ask them what they think of such an idea, if it'd work.

[ananiasacts]

@christheferal, I didn't want to prejudice your impression of the Venus Project by discussing it earlier, but I have been aware of it for some time and have had discussion with people about it. If you're interested.

[christheferal]

Money isn't a resource.

They need to watch Zeitgeist Addendum.

[goog2k]

Excellent video.

The demented and those afflicted with Alzheimer's should NOT get heroic life-saving care.

Those Republicans saying something different are hypocritical propaganda mongers.

Why is it, those same Republicans who demand unlimited free care under Medicare are also against a system of universal health care for poor children??

Pathetic.

[christheferal]

@goog2k money shouldn't come before human compassion. That's all I'm going to say.

[ananiasacts]

@goog2k, mostly likely because almost all brain dead people vote republican.

[Atheistprimate]

I been in a wheelchair for eighteen years and no damn way im gonna end up in a rest home once i cant care for myself, if the state wont allow me to end my life with the aid of a doctor then ill look to the help of a Smith & Westen.