Quote (Voyaging @ Nov 16 2014 05:41pm)
Good point. As much as it pains me to say, I think giving people a rough "value" in dollar amounts (it hurts me just to type) might be the most practical method. If a treatment costs more than the expected value of the life saved (so if 0.02 * [value of a human life] >= [procedure cost] then the treatment should be made), maybe it needs to be paid out of pocket.
It feels awful, but I can't think of a better option. Luckily I'm not a working bioethicist. Hopefully there are better options I'm just overlooking.
Having a sort of medical judicial committee in place to determine who gets treatments seems far too impractical.
How do the countries with the most successful socialized healthcare handle it? I think taking their lead would be a good start.
I agree that it's shitty to have to put a hard number on human life but it's what you have to do when it comes to risk analysis. We already do it for life insurance, why not health too?
Perhaps the government can just give everyone a couple thousand dollars per year in a healthcare savings account that they can use towards treatment. If they don't use it, it rolls over so that you can accumulate savings over time. That way, the individual is empowered to make these decisions instead of society.