£250,000 for 1 kid - ethical?

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

aamcle

Landlord.
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
1,273
Reaction score
282
Location
Newton-le-Willows
I was watching something on the TV, they had take cameras in to a school(?) for severly disabled kids, one lad in particular struck me the poor thing was a wreck really really wrecked. It was Heartbreaking.

Apparently he was costing the state something like £250,000 a year and he will need life long care, that life may be a long one because of modern medicine.

Realistically, ie no Guardian readers fluff, he will never be able to contribute to let's call it "the common good" but that money (or a good chunk of it we don't throw people way) could support the education/training/health of many others who deserve a better chance than they are getting.


So is it right to blow the cash on one person or use some of it for kids in difficult schools, for health care, for.....?

Do you want to be on a trolley in a hospital corridor ?

Money can only be spent once and there will never be enough to do it all.

Your thoughts please.


aamcle
 
that money (or a good chunk of it we don't throw people way) could support the education/training/health of many others who deserve a better chance than they are getting.

I don't really understand why a non-disabled person who deserves a better chance in life is any more deserving of help than a disabled person who deserves a better chance in life. This looks like simple ableism to me.
 
How do they arrive at that figure? My cousin had muscular dystrophy. All he 'cost' was a wheelchair and the commitment of his working full-time parents. Docs said he wouldn't see his 20s. They were right... died at 19.
 
I'm happy to go before I become a burden. After all we all end up in the same place sooner or later. I do not want my children or the state to prop me up. Give me something painless and i'll sign up. - My Mother died at 50 from motor neurone disease far better to have gone from a heart attack IMHO. Quality of life not quantity is what's important and if I can't have the quality I don't want the quantity. (same appliers to beer)

You could make a living will for certain conditions for instance. Of course this doesn't address the question of those born severely disabled how can you ask those unfortunate souls what they want?

If you are able to enjoy life despite a major disability you should always have the right to exist.

For me the acid test would be can I wipe my own bum? If not put me to sleep please!
 
Well the NHS trial for PrEP is costing £10,000,000 not including all the costs of going through court to be forced to prescribe it even though its below 90% effective (and condoms are near 100%) looks even more immoral. But at the end of the day balancing the cost of keeping someone alive if they have an OK life is a moral dilemma I hope I never encounter personally.
 
Where I work, years back when the severely disabled were warehoused at my site, we had what we referred to as the "million dollar babies" As medical advancements were made, the doctors were able to save more and more lives of these babies that otherwise would have died at...or shortly after birth. The doctors would pat themselves on the back for a job well done...write a paper or two...get more prestige and money for their effort, and leave the "saved" child with the parents. Divorce rates amongst parents with severely handicapped children is about 90%. The cost to the system for repetitive surgeries and interventions is staggering....and this does not begin to include the monthly/yearly upkeep costs that continue to balloon every year. Im not drawing conclusions, or saying right or wrong, but, there is only so much money to go around and at some point, rational decisions must be made. I remember being at a society function where one of the doctors I referenced earlier was present. Many stood around ooing and ahhing as he spoke of the lives he "saved". I had to ask if he considered the lives and relationships he destroyed by playing God....and followed with "just because you can...doesnt mean you should".Mother nature has ways of maintaining an equilibrium and balance. Perhaps we should consider not interfering in what would otherwise be considered a natural order......
 
I agree, but the medical community should not step in when there is no good outcome for any of the principles involved.
 
It costs nearly twice as much to care for a young person who had severe behavioural problems or has been abused. Why don’t we euthanise them too? Or how about care for people with alcohol problems or smoking related diseases? Or can’t be bothered to get off their **** and get a job? Or pop kids out and have them taken off them by a state? Let’s just put them all down
 

Latest posts

Back
Top