on those who will die or spend it on improving the quality of life of those who must live and endure terrible illness for many years to come.
2006-10-19 04:24:28 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Pain & Pain Management
In the West, there is an unhealthy attachment to life at any cost. When pain is a constant companion or permanent incapacity strikes, it is time to take a final bow and leave. To prolong such life at the expense of the healthy or treatable unwell living is doubly wrong.
2006-10-19 04:55:29 · answer #1 · answered by Clive 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you'd ever seen someone at the end stage of a terminal disease you probably wouldn't even consider extending their life. I don't mean this in an uncaring way. I mean there is usually a lot of pain and suffering. Although the person who is ill suffers the most, family also suffers a great deal. If there is some way to improve the quality of the time a person has left, that would be the best place to spend. Better yet, the very best thing someone with a life threatening disease can use is the love and support of those around them.
2006-10-19 11:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by IAINTELLEN 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds to me like both options are lost causes. Better to spend the money on somebody who's life can be drastically improved. The use of 'endure terrible illness' is a subjective choice of words. This has been a dilema for many generations. I think the real issue is. How far do we move away from survival of the fittest - Are we breading terrible illness into society by not following evolution principles. We should try to fix genetic problems. For those who suffer currently - My opinion is that we are potentially removing funds from the process of research. But remember, money is a system to control resource usage and is not neccesarily the whole picture (democracy is easily as powerful).
2006-10-19 13:05:08 · answer #3 · answered by interested_party 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't have to do anything. What are we prepared to pay for is the question.
Whatever we decide I think we must give everyone the best we can afford within the means available. We never want to make the choice you pose. However, we could have wards full of people on life support systems using up all the resources of the NHS, and none of them having much hope of recovery.
2006-10-19 11:33:47 · answer #4 · answered by Barbara Doll to you 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the people who are "suffering" are the only ones to have the right to choose, for myself I would want a certain quality of life not just quantity, but I can say that as I am youngish and have been cured of cervical cancer, I wonder how I'd feel if it were a different outcome
2006-10-19 20:47:26 · answer #5 · answered by onlyme 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For a few weeks? NO, I would rather leave the money to my family. Or are you talking about in a health service setting? Im not sure I get the bit about "enduring terible suffering". Other patients? The NHS does what it can within its budget to help all who are under their care.
2006-10-19 11:29:54 · answer #6 · answered by huggz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The question in my mind is who is making the decision that extending your life is (or is not) appropriate? Is it a loved one who knows your wishes? Is it your kids who don't want the hospital bills to eat up their inheritance? Is it your physician who is afraid of being sued? Is it some bureaucrat in the hospital that wants you out of there to make room for another patient?
You see the point? Everyone has an agenda...and it isn't always in your best interest. Your very question implies that one person's life is more important than anothers. That cannot be the criteria for making euthanasia decisions.
I am actually for euthanasia, but I firmly believe there has to be very specific guidelines as to when it is appropriate to be done in a medical setting. And, first and foremost, the patient has to very specifically define his/her feelings on end-of-life care decisions.
2006-10-19 13:09:44 · answer #7 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that's one of those ethical questions (dilemmas). Personally, no. I would rather spend the limited healthcare resources on those who are going to live -m trying to find things that would help their quality of life.
2006-10-19 12:25:17 · answer #8 · answered by Dovie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boots
If i was dying i would go out and enjoy whats left of my life. If i had money to give away i would leave it to (NO NOT MY FAMILY) they don't need it,,,, so i would leave it to a hospice
2006-10-19 11:34:52 · answer #9 · answered by chass_lee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
when such a situation arises and involves a loved one, i believe the pain of seeing the suffering and helplessness would surmount that of letting the loved one go.
2006-10-19 11:37:41 · answer #10 · answered by fanofdilbert 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋