A 5 page research paper that examines the question as to whether or not health care should be rationed and whether expensive high tech procedures should be limited to keep down overall health costs in the country. The writer argues that such proposals are ethically unsound. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: KE9_99medeth.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
of Colorado, Richard Lamm made the comment, "weve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all our machines and artificial hearts...and let...our kids build a
reasonable life" (Levinsky, 1998, p. 1849). More recently, in 1997, Peter G. Peterson, former US Secretary of Commerce said that "Medicare spends nearly 30% of its budget on patients
in their last year of life?often when attempts to prolong life merely delay a hospitalized death...sooner or later, we have to set limits" (Levinsky, 1998, p. 1849). While these
statements sound logical in the abstract, when it comes to applying them within the course of everyday life, one runs into all sorts of ethical considerations, which make any sort
of restrictions on health care ethically problematic. For one thing, thus far, no one has suggested that health care procedures be limited for any segment of the population except the
elderly. Since the elderly use a disproportionate share of the nations health care, they make an attractive target; however, young people with AIDS, middle-aged smokers and heavy drinkers also are
expensive consumers of health care?yet no one has proposed rationing medical procedures for such comparably costly groups (Levinsky, 1998, p. 1849). The fact is that many high tech
procedures are rarely performed on the elderly. Aggressive cardiovascular procedures and cancer chemotherapy are very rare among the nations oldest citizens (Levinsky, 1998). A 1978 Medicare study showed that even
if advanced medical care was denied, it would only save 3.5 to 6% of the Medicare budget (Levinsky, 1998, p. 1849). Even the most determined of those proposing rationing
would not deny all medical care for the elderly. If the rationing went to "where the money is," there would have to be a ban on providing the elderly