£250,000 for 1 kid - ethical?

[strange-steve]

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.....?

I have no doubt that if your child was in such a situation then you would know the answer to that

 

[aamcle]

I'm officially disabled and both my kids had full educational statements and yes I fought to get those statements.

Now I have said nothing about euthanasia a comment thrown in by either the over emotional or those who don't want to think about difficult issues and want to nobble any discussion.

So I'll grind this down to the core of the issue, there is a limit to the amount of cash the state has and there always will be a limit.

Should so much money be spent on one person that other deserving people are let down?

When does the good of one person permit taking resources and thus life time opportunity's from other deserving people?

I know there is a line somewhere, I just don't know were it is and I'd very much like to.


aamcle

 

[Gunge]

For someone who has family in this situation and works in this field, I think a thread suggesting the euthanasia of disabled children is hideous.

For sure. All I'm questioning is why so much money? The cousin I mentioned earlier was almost completely paralysed in the later years and his parents did everything for him around the clock with very little, if any, outside help. I don't know the story of the child in question so will probably get shot down, but a quarter of a million?? Surely it could be more sensibly spent so other unfortunate children could benefit?

 

[MyQul]

So I'll grind this down to the core of the issue, there is a limit to the amount of cash the state has and there always will be a limit.

There's ALWAYS money when those at the top deem it necessary.

Need to bail a failing bank out? No problem.

Need for fund an MPs vanity project. No problem

Need to bribe an Irish political party to prop up a Prime Minister. No problem



Basically what's being discussed here, whether they be disabled or not it what price is a human life?

 

[MarkBowie]

For sure. All I'm questioning is why so much money? The cousin I mentioned earlier was almost completely paralysed in the later years and his parents did everything for him around the clock with very little, if any, outside help. I don't know the story of the child in question so will probably get shot down, but a quarter of a million?? Surely it could be more sensibly spent so other unfortunate children could benefit?

The amount of parents I work with that are in that situation with no help is horrible and no family should be left like that. I don’t doubt for one minute that council and NHS budgets can be spent better. For example I used to work with young people that had been abused and were either on there way in to or out of secure units and needed their level of care assessing etc (won’t go in to it in too much detail) but that was charged to the local authorities at 250,000 for a 3 month placement. Now even though we were specialists in that field when you consider you only need one to do assessment the local authorities could employ their own for a tenth of the cost. The tone of the OP and subsequent posts about doctors not treating babies etc are where the issue is, not saying budgets could be better spent. The tendering process for Council Work would be a good place to start but that is a different conversation all together.....

 

[Saisonator]

aamcle I think Hitler had the same idea....and extended it to most of Europe. ..whether they were disabled or not.

9 posts in and we get the predictable Godwin's Law.

 

[MyQul]

9 posts in and we get the predictable Godwin's Law.

I did notice that :lol:

 

[terrym]

I know there is a line somewhere, I just don't know were it is and I'd very much like to.

As I see it there is no single line, a 'one case fits all'.
Individual cases are driven by (and in no order)
- money
- emotions
- technical issues (equipment, drugs etc)
- wider social pressures
- local resources
- medical advancement
There will be more.
And each one of these changes with time. So what may be good today, is not good tomorrow and vice versa.
Which sadly is not the answer you are looking for.

 

[Dexter101]

I know its not the same amount of money but "able" bodied people make conscious decisions every day that cause cost to the state.
Living sedentary lifestyle- £12,500 for just one hip replacement
Smoking- £350,000 for double lung transplant
Vitamin D deficiency- currently costing the state in excess of £100,000,000 per year

I also know of someone who had heart and lung transplant and that extended their life for 5 years. Not sure that would be a "worth while" cost but I bet the family consider it money well spent.

 

[Thumper]

The problem is you're trying to reduce a moral question to one of simple economy. Money spent on healthcare is not an investment, we don't do it on the understanding that the patient will put more back into the state's coffers than their healthcare cost. We do it because we all understand that allowing someone to die early or suffer a lower quality of life when we can do something to change that is deeply immoral.

It is, in my view, entirely right that we do this. I do not want to live in a country that views people as nothing more than a resource.

And it's not the case that we can't afford to do this. We are constantly being told that we have no money and have to make cuts. So we cut public services like healthcare, mental healthcare, drug and alcohol treatment, unemployment benefits, disability allowance, police budget, defence budget. Cut cut cut, we have no money!

But when the people voting for these cuts need some money to bribe a bunch of terrorists to keep themselves in power, they can find it. When the seats in parliament are getting a bit tatty or Buckingham palace needs a lick of paint, they can find it.

This is not a question of money, it's a question of priorities.

 

[aamcle]

And in the real world we are controlled by the priorities of those in power whether they are good or bad those priorities impact us.

We live within those boundaries although every so often we get to change the government their ability or desire to institute real change seems to me to be limited. Often by world wide forces of politics and economics that we cannot buck.


So the question remains :-

When there is going to be �£XXXXXXXX spent on social/health care, should hundreds of thousands be spent on one person or on a number of people?


The sum of �£XXXXXXXX may have been set by some evil corrupt scum or by a paladin champion of the people but that's how much there is to spend.


As for me I'm still no closer to an answer and I think I may never find one.


aamcle

 

[GerritT]

There is no answer.
But there are tests. Tests that can predict in a very early stage what the medical costs might be of the child once it's born.
And then there are insurance companies.

 

[aamcle]

And then there are insurance companies.

Now things are getting really dystopian.


aamcle

 

[pms67]

I think this should be locked

 

[MyQul]

I think this should be locked

For what reason? Although some members may have views that are distateful to other members, the thread doesnt break any forum rules.

 

[pms67]

Fair enough
Each to their own I guess
Apologies

 

[Thumper]

And in the real world we are controlled by the priorities of those in power whether they are good or bad those priorities impact us.

We live within those boundaries although every so often we get to change the government their ability or desire to institute real change seems to me to be limited. Often by world wide forces of politics and economics that we cannot buck.


So the question remains :-

When there is going to be �£XXXXXXXX spent on social/health care, should hundreds of thousands be spent on one person or on a number of people?


The sum of �£XXXXXXXX may have been set by some evil corrupt scum or by a paladin champion of the people but that's how much there is to spend.


As for me I'm still no closer to an answer and I think I may never find one.


aamcle

Your question isn't relevant to the real world situation. We are not confined to spending 250k on one person or 50k on five. We can do both. A budget is just that: a budget, not a hard limit. There is more than enough money to provide a tolerable quality of life for every disabled person within the UK. As long as that is possible, that is exactly what we should be doing, and I can not foresee a real world situation in which it ever becomes impossible.

Your original question was whether or not it is ethical to spend a large amount of money on healthcare for one disabled person. The short answer is: yes, it is.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Your original question was whether or not it is ethical to spend a large amount of money on healthcare for one disabled person. The short answer is: yes, it is.

:clap:


.

 

[aamcle]

Your original question was whether or not it is ethical to spend a large amount of money on healthcare for one disabled person. The short answer is: yes, it is.

Not quite, when resources are limited it's right to spend very big on one person or use that £ to help a number of people.

For example :-

1/4Million to help one person or drugs for the young mum with something terminal and a few new hips for Grannys.


Yes more ��£ could be brought in but let's face it it's not going to be, so this a situation faced by hospitals day by day. Doctors face choices of how to allocate resourced each and every shift and people live and die by that decision.


aamcle

 

[strange-steve]

When Dave Gorman talks about "the bottom half of the internet" is this thread the sort of thing he means?

:whistle: