Meds cost $17K per week?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm torn on this. I would love to say, let the state pay for this kid, but then what happens for other treatments that are very costly but not so narrowly confined?

What should the state cover as a medical procedure is a very interesting question, that I haven't seen much debate about here in Canada.

[Japher]

here we know that 17000 a week will give a child a decent quality of life. Our health care system routinely spends more than that keeping 90 year olds with heart failure going through another week of dementia and pain with no hope of ever leaving a hospital bed

right, you also cover pain meds and that pain is only temporary...

Each case should be addressed independently. However, this is a president being set, but the humane one IMO.

Still, I think the burden should be taken by the drug manufacturer in return for something the company wants in the future; i.e. priority on drug approval lists, clinical trial assistance, tax breaks on other products, etc...

[Q Classic]

Each case should be addressed independently. However, this is a president being set, but the humane one IMO.

precedent, not president.

Honestly? Sucks to be him. Were I making the call, I'd pay for it, but jeez... that's only 'cause I'm a softy, and would like to stretch out that kind of misery as long as possible.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Flubber
A very big "if"

If you save this million and have this individual die, I seriously doubt that you can point at the other life (lives) that would now be saved.

Actually, you probably would save more lives and produce a greater net utility by giving it to, say, an emergency room or something like that. Or just find two kids who each have a disease that only costs 8.5k a week.

[Az]

Yeah, Q^3, 'softy' is the first word that comes to my head when I see you post around the forums.

[Japher]

precedent, not presiden

you new what i ment

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
[ only 'cause I'm a softy, and would like to stretch out that kind of misery as long as possible.

Actually the article indicates that the treatment will allow the child to live fairly normally but that the disease will likely kill him by the time he is 20

[Az]

Medicate him numb till he's dead. [/q^3]

[Q Classic]

Yeah, Q^3, 'softy' is the first word that comes to my head when I see you post around the forums.

Isn't it? That's what I think of when I think of myself.

I Q^3, that softy...

[Q Classic]

Actually the article indicates that the treatment will allow the child to live fairly normally but that the disease will likely kill him by the time he is 20

So he'll live fairly normally.

I don't see how that changes this:

...and would like to stretch out that kind of misery as long as possible.

[Q Classic]

Medicate him numb till he's dead. [/q^3]

Morphine

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What should the state cover as a medical procedure is a very interesting question, that I haven't seen much debate about here in Canada.

Well people get costly treatments all the time with far less possible good effect.

Mrs Flubber is a nurse in a cardiac intensive care unit. In her unit they don't see that many no-hopers since the surgeons won't operate unless there is a decent chance for a reasonable outcome.

But in other intensive and chronic care units tou see bed after bed filled with people that will not get better and being supported by a battery of machines. They are there because their heart/lungs/liver/kidney /whatever are failing and nothing can be done to cure them. Mrs flubber has often come home upset because she "had to restart a patients heart so they can have another few days of pain".... our health care system does this all the time and the cost

Well lets see

1 to 1 nursing care at $30/hour=720 a day=5040 a week
doctors
respitory therapists
various techs and admin
drugs


etc etc--- I could easily see the number for a dying elderly person go up to 17,000 a week. Our system treats them willingly and nobody questions the cost.

If we want a system that denies a child the drug that will vastly improve and lengthen his life ( thats my assumption here, that the drug will help a lot), be prepared to have others look at medical expenses of other treatments. Wander through an ICU . . . . probably half the patients have no hope of a recovery. If you deny a child this drug on ECONOMIC grounds I wonder how you justify the economics of an 88 year old on a ventilator

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Actually the article indicates that the treatment will allow the child to live fairly normally but that the disease will likely kill him by the time he is 20

So he'll live fairly normally.

I don't see how that changes this:

...and would like to stretch out that kind of misery as long as possible.

Ahh do you see a relatively normal life as "misery"??

I don't -- I love life .

[Dauphin]

$17k a week? That's expensive, but when you consider how much we waste on sports personalities glorified wage earnings its damn cheap.

[Q Classic]

Ahh do you see a relatively normal life as "misery"??

Yup.

I'll admit it, I'm a softy.

I don't -- I love life .

Clearly, you have a better dealer than I do. PM me his contact info?