Posted by Random at 7:09pm Feb 28 '09I agree with all of your factors. I feel you got them all. They all should play a vital role in determining preference for treatment of patients. I'm more of the belief that it'd be a combination of those rather than meeting one will auto-prioritize you.
Your first point on severity of the disease I feel extremely important because some diseases can be so unbelievably painful. Though I suppose in this scenario I'm thinking more of numbing rather than actual treatment (I guess it falls under both treatment and just pain relief in general). There should be a distinction between relieving a patient and curing. You're talking about only life-extending treatments but what about pain relieving treatments? They can come to a great expense as well. Perhaps you're lumping them together.
Your 2nd point I agree with as well. No comments here.
Point C I also find as much of a factor as point A. If the person has been horrible in taking care of themselves, frankly I find them almost deserving to not get treated. I'm coming across extreme and harsh to those reading this paragraph but that's my stance on the issue. Here I see a hope vs. no hope boundary. If the person has an extremely poor immune system and chance for metastasization is high, I'd say, put them on pain relief medications and let them wait it out. Give the better candidate a better chance first. Little remorse, I know, heh.
Point D I'm also in agreement with minimal comments. Look at the situation with cochlear implants. You have to go through an entire review process to be eligible and go through with the surgery. Certain exceptions are made for infants with meningitis (hardened cochlea, etc.) but overall, they have an entire process for kids vs. adults. Certain standards are set for prime candidates contributing to high benefit with the implant. Those who benefit the highest in quality of life are chosen. A point I'd like to surface here is that the patient must be committed to the treatment and go to follow-up appointments to tune the implant. I'm not sure how as I can't recall at the moment, but doctors must be able to distinguish those are committed versus those who are unreliable. A similar distinction could be made with life-extending treatments so the highest benefit is observed in each individual.
As to developing a formula for all this? I'm not entirely sure if that can be done. There is such a wide variety of illnesses and so many different scenarios that it'd be near impossible to set a formula forth. Kind of reminds me of Kant attempting to derive a mathematical proof of sorts for morality (rough summation, I know). What is right v. what is wrong. What is severe v. what is not severe? What is old v. young? What is good v. bad quality of life succeeding the treatment? It becomes a case of reductio ad absurdum, frankly.
I'd also use palliative care with non-elderly. Another harsh opinion of mine I suppose.
As has been suggested I believe, statistics ought to be gathered for different diseases and combinations of diseases. Based on data collected, life-expectancy could be determined along with how much patients could benefit from medical attention. All the statistics now determine your car insurance, I'm sure it could be done in some form or another for treatment in the medical sphere. The factors you have mentioned come into play.
Your first point on severity of the disease I feel extremely important because some diseases can be so unbelievably painful. Though I suppose in this scenario I'm thinking more of numbing rather than actual treatment (I guess it falls under both treatment and just pain relief in general). There should be a distinction between relieving a patient and curing. You're talking about only life-extending treatments but what about pain relieving treatments? They can come to a great expense as well. Perhaps you're lumping them together.
Your 2nd point I agree with as well. No comments here.
Point C I also find as much of a factor as point A. If the person has been horrible in taking care of themselves, frankly I find them almost deserving to not get treated. I'm coming across extreme and harsh to those reading this paragraph but that's my stance on the issue. Here I see a hope vs. no hope boundary. If the person has an extremely poor immune system and chance for metastasization is high, I'd say, put them on pain relief medications and let them wait it out. Give the better candidate a better chance first. Little remorse, I know, heh.
Point D I'm also in agreement with minimal comments. Look at the situation with cochlear implants. You have to go through an entire review process to be eligible and go through with the surgery. Certain exceptions are made for infants with meningitis (hardened cochlea, etc.) but overall, they have an entire process for kids vs. adults. Certain standards are set for prime candidates contributing to high benefit with the implant. Those who benefit the highest in quality of life are chosen. A point I'd like to surface here is that the patient must be committed to the treatment and go to follow-up appointments to tune the implant. I'm not sure how as I can't recall at the moment, but doctors must be able to distinguish those are committed versus those who are unreliable. A similar distinction could be made with life-extending treatments so the highest benefit is observed in each individual.
As to developing a formula for all this? I'm not entirely sure if that can be done. There is such a wide variety of illnesses and so many different scenarios that it'd be near impossible to set a formula forth. Kind of reminds me of Kant attempting to derive a mathematical proof of sorts for morality (rough summation, I know). What is right v. what is wrong. What is severe v. what is not severe? What is old v. young? What is good v. bad quality of life succeeding the treatment? It becomes a case of reductio ad absurdum, frankly.
I'd also use palliative care with non-elderly. Another harsh opinion of mine I suppose.
As has been suggested I believe, statistics ought to be gathered for different diseases and combinations of diseases. Based on data collected, life-expectancy could be determined along with how much patients could benefit from medical attention. All the statistics now determine your car insurance, I'm sure it could be done in some form or another for treatment in the medical sphere. The factors you have mentioned come into play.
Prolonging life...hmm.. - Random