Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra

Major Moral Dilemma: It Started with Viagra

It is obvious even to the most casual observer (no Critical Thinking required) that we must quickly deal with the problem that medical technology has left on our door step. As a result of the success of medical technology we can prolong life ever more, every day, than the day before. I claim that this constantly extending the prolongation of life must quickly cease; we can no longer afford such a foolish unreflective behavior.

Bruce Hardy, a British citizen and cancer victim, was refused the funds, by British health officials, for a drug that could likely prolong his life for 6 more months. The drug treatment cost was estimated to be $54,000. His distraught wife said “Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can”.

“British authorities, after a storm of protest, are reconsidering their decision on the cancer drug and others.”

The introduction of the drug Viagra, by Pfizer, in 1998, panicked British health officials. They figured it might bankrupt the government’s health budget and thus placed restrictions on its use. Pfizer sued and the British government instituted a standard program, with the acronym NICE, for rationing health drugs.

“Before NICE, hospitals and clinics often came to different decisions about which drugs to buy, creating geographic disparities in care that led to outrage.”

“British Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs” New York Times

I have stated many times before that I was convinced that we have created a technology that is too powerful for our intellectually unsophisticated citizens to deal with. It seems to me that this particular dilemma does not require a great deal of sophistication to understand. This might be a perfect place to begin a nationwide (USA) Internet discourse directed at getting our intellectual arms around this problem and helping our government officials in an attempt to resolve this terrible dilemma.

Incidentally I am 74 years old, which I think qualifies me to push this matter without appearing to be a hypocrite.

Maybe you should switch to Vitameatavegiman.

So you’re saying we’re going to bankrupt ourselves uselessly prolonging unproductive lives?

Mu.

My critical thinking tells me that this moral dilemma started well before Viagra.

Yeah, I think this sort of thing predates Viagra, like setting elderly people adrift on icebergs when they’re no longer productive.

I don’t know if this problem requires a solution. After all, we’re talking about temporary cures: pharmaceuticals rarely fix a patient, they usually just mask symptoms, relieve pain, or provide temporary chemical balance until the next dose. At the moment, pharmaceutical giants are making the most of it.

Until we get to the point where we can permanently repair problems, temporary cures are the best we can do — but one precedes the other, technologically speaking.

In cases where supplies or resources are limited, such as available organs for transplant, many states already do triage: they provide the organ to the patient who needs it most, and who is least likely to squander it. (For instance, it’s rare in some parts of the country that an alcoholic or drug abuser will get a new liver, or a smoker a new pair of lungs.)

What’s the debate, here?

Chuck, this appears to be the kernel of your argument. I think it’s somewhat ambiguous, but I will assume from the rest of your post that you’re using ‘afford’ in the financial sense, that is, that your argument can be fairly restated as “Society cannot sustain a population of its current size if the average lifespan is extended; a specific example is the cost of medication required to sustain the elderly.” If that’s not a fair restatement, feel free to object.

My issue with your argument is that it presumes aggregate productivity will remain constant across the relevant time periods. Is there any cause to believe that a longer-lived population will not produce more net benefit, thus justifying the cost of sustaining those longer lives?

Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.

If the citizens of the USA are not able to deal with this technology, then who is going to participate in the internet discourse? Resident aliens?

This is the most serious problem with socialized medicince. If people are allowed to retire in their 60s and then we prolongue their lives indefinitely, we’ll bankrupt health care programs.

It’s a coberst thread. Where is it ever?

You’re not thinking critically.

Harrumph. Had you read the OP, you would know that there is no Critical Thinking required.

I am going to assume that the core concept you are trying to debate is this: It is expensive to prolong life and quality of life, and because it is not cost-effective we should not do it.

It’s much too late to “begin” a discourse on this, as such a discourse has been going on for many years at both private and public policy levels.

The only possible solution is to ration healthcare that is paid for out of public funds. Because there is no upper limit to what could be spent on prolonging life and quality of life, this rationing will take place whether we want it to or not; there is an upper limit to public funds and therefore an upper limit to what we spend.

What is it that you want to debate: Whether it is, in fact, cost-effective, whether there is a moral issue around such rationing, or how we should practically effect it?

(May I assume you have done your part by giving up Viagra voluntarily?)

Sacrifice in March, corn have plenty starch.

Post in December, don’t bother to remember.

I have a pretty big porch… .it’s getting pretty cold here… for a couple of bucks you can park your old useless human there for a few days… call it a junkyard for people
For a couple bucks more I will clean up the mess…I’ve gotta big bbq pit in the back.

Legalizing prostitution and taxing it would automatically pay for any increased cost in providing Viagra. :stuck_out_tongue:

Coberst on computer? Start with tequila shooter.