The health service strugggles. It will always take more money because medicine is advancing. Does this mean a line should be drawn?
A free health service is essential. But can everything be free?
Should the operating principle be the greater good. Is it right to spend a phenomenal amount on one person when the same money could treat hundreds?
There will always be one more treatment, there will always be one more operation, one more life that can be saved. That is the nature of the beast.
The only person who can make the decision is the one with nothing to gain. Politicians should not be allowed to choose because they are after more votes. The people who are ill, and their families, cannot choose because they will (rightly) always want the most expensive and best option. Find the man (or woman) with no motives and let them decide.
A free health service is essential. But can everything be free?
Should the operating principle be the greater good. Is it right to spend a phenomenal amount on one person when the same money could treat hundreds?
There will always be one more treatment, there will always be one more operation, one more life that can be saved. That is the nature of the beast.
The only person who can make the decision is the one with nothing to gain. Politicians should not be allowed to choose because they are after more votes. The people who are ill, and their families, cannot choose because they will (rightly) always want the most expensive and best option. Find the man (or woman) with no motives and let them decide.
1 comment:
It's very emotive. The amount of money spent of keeping premature babies alive is, I would imagine, phenomenal. But how do you tell a parent you're going to let their baby die just because of cost? But how much could you improve other people's lives with that money?
Similarly, should people who smoke/drink/do no exercise benefit from the NHS equally with those who do take care of themselves?
I don't know...
Post a Comment