Comments on: British Doctors Debating Whether Or Not To Let Preemies Die

By: girlnextdoor

girlnextdoor — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well then… just another reason for me to go to college to work in the NIC-U

By: Robert Perry

Robert Perry — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Sigivald, if one may judge by waits for specialists, the free market system is doing a heck of a lot better at providing needed capacity. Mean waits for specialists in Canada; 17-18 weeks. USA: 2-4 weeks, tops. The main problems in the USA in assuring adequate capacity? States that decide for the markets where new medical facilities may be built.

If it were even close, I might indulge your argument, but the fact of the matter is that it’s not even in the same ballpark. Whether it’s waiting 2 years or more for a Trabant in East Germany or waiting 18 weeks for a consultation for critical coronary bypass in Canada, socialism is a failure at allocating goods and services.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is absurd. Governments shouldn’t be able to usurp the rights of parents.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Given a finite number of beds, which exists, and a number of babies that need those beds, greater than the number of beds, <I>some babies are going to get left out</i>.

In such a case, giving the beds to those most likely to survive is necessary triage, and part of the hard but unavoidable choices doctors in the real world – where there aren’t an infinite number of beds, and in fact might be less than there are patients, especially for intensive care - sometimes have to make.

(Socialized medicine is more of an aside than a core issue here. Trauma units in the US, non-socialized, also ship people elsewhere at great risk, or even end up unavoidably causing deaths, if they’re sufficiently overcrowded.

And the free market isn’t great at creating new capacity for things with comparatively low demand and great expense (without commensurate ability to pay).

Of course, a socialized system isn’t great at providing capacity and quality service either, if only because there’s no incentive or decent feedback to do so.)

By: alicia

alicia — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

aren't docters supposed to save lives not let them die????? Why do they get to pick who lives or dies they need to just do their jobs and keep their mouths shut!

By: WOOF

WOOF — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If you the $500,000 needed to attempt to keep this type of premie alive I am sure you can take personal responsibilty and find a fee for service provider.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Exactly, Rob. Doctors can kill patients if the laws allow it. Alicia suggested otherwise.

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Welcome to the projected "HillaryCare Health Plan." That is, unless the medical community can find some way to find out if you are a left-wing-loonie at birth.

By: Robert Perry

Robert Perry — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, Woof, there has been a recent, celebrated court case where the British medical system worked to prevent parents from going to a fee for service provider. Competition in medical care, as in schooling, shows all too clearly that the government version just doesn’t work well.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It is a good guideline and all, but sort of meaningless in light of the death penalty example you bring up.

The Hippocratic Oath also contradicts the Patriot Act. There are several good reasons why we no longer follow it.

"All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal."