NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/med/14984

Text File | 1992-07-31 | 3.1 KB | 67 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com!motto
From: [e-mail] (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: FDA still at large
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:34:48 GMT
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Small Systems Solutions) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>    [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>
>>>I suppose it was homeopaths and chiropractors that discovered the
>>>benefits of a low fat diet in heart disease?  But what do you do
>>>with people who have clogged arteries already and are about to
>>>die from them?  Too late for them to try the low fat diet.
>>>Just let them croak?
>>
>>Maybe...compare the cost of the bypass, and all comcomitant therapies, with
>>granting basic health care to 100 people.  Bypass surgery will improve
>>quality of life for some individuals (surgeons, in particular), but it
>>is very expensive (even at the tenfold reduction in cost over the last
>>ten years).
>
>"OK, Mr. Jones, we've decided that instead of giving you your bypass,
>we'll just confiscate your $20,000 and use it to provide basic health care
>to 100 homeless people.  You won't be needing the money anyway
>where you're going."  Do you see the problem with this?
>
Actually, as I understand it, it was cardiologists who discovered
the benefit of a low fat diet.  And, they have found out that such
a diet will actually help reverse existing blockages in clogged
arteries.  I was delighted to read all about this after my husband
had a second heart attack and was treated by angioplasty.  Heck,
if I keep the guy on a 20% fat diet, he may actually get better and
be able to dance with me at our grandkids weddings.  If not, since
he's only 33, I could be a widow before I hit 40.

Which is a better deal for society?
a. take the $14K it cost to patch up my husband, let him die, and
instead temporarily patch up 100 people (not from anything really
complicated mind you - we're talking about <$150 each)
b. take the $14K it cost to patch up my husband, patch him up, let
his case at 33 yrs of age set a CLEAR example to all his co-workers
(most are older than he is, many smoke, etc) and let him return to
his productive work where he generates more than $14K per year in
income tax and social security payments (which can in turn fund
health care for the less fortunate) plus charitable donations of
all sorts and blood donations.

Of course, you don't get to vote on this.  I voted to fix him up
because I'm desperately in love with the man.

But the point is that the social impact of doing a procedure on an
individual is very broad.  And ethical decisions are not often
economic -- so, do you turn away poor people who need expensive
treatment and only help those whose problems can be solved with
a $10 bottle of antibiotics?  Good Lord!

Mary Otto