This blog is a random collection of information, partly in support of my quotations web site. Other topics include wine, military news, economics, history, libertarianism, and other random things which happen to strike my fancy. Backup site is at http://quotulatiousness.blogspot.com/ (if there are no posts showing, hit the backup blog for explanation). Comments have been turned off, as the spam was getting too much to handle. Comments can be emailed to me for posting.

February 09, 2006

Medical ethics or cost-benefit analysis?

A brief news article in Canadian Press today illustrates the inevitable end of fully socialized medicine — allocating care only to those who follow medical orders:

A New Brunswick man has been told he has to butt out before doctors will perform the surgery he needs to get back on his feet.

Robert Randall, a fisherman from southeastern New Brunswick, says he has smoked for over 30 years. Randall says there's no way he can give up cigarettes prior to the surgery required to further repair his previously broken knee and leg.

[. . .]

Dr. Ruth Collins-Nakai, president of the Canadian Medical Association, says doctors understand addiction and would never deny care in an emergency situation. But she warns that when it comes to elective and non-urgent care, physicians may have to start saying no to patients with potentially dangerous lifestyle habits like smoking.

Or eating fatty foods. Or not exercising regularly. Or failing to go for regular checkups. Or pick your common human frailty.

As long as there's only one healthcare provider — the state — they get to set the conditions under which you'll be eligible for care. And there is never enough money or resources to provide all the care that is required. So, the healthcare bureaucracy will ration care, based on whatever criteria they think they can get away with.

Is anyone really surprised?

Posted by Nicholas at February 9, 2006 03:10 PM
Comments
In private insurance systems they do it less specifically but broader. Deductables need only be nudged for most to never choose the treatment. Premium at a certain age being set at such a premium that only the basic coverage is claimed. Consider the poem on Writers' Almanac today: http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2006/02/06/#thursday Posted by: Alan at February 9, 2006 07:59 PM
There is never enough healthcare to meet all of the demand, so there has to be rationing of some sort . . . it's just that normally they're not so upfront and above-board that this happens. Posted by: Nicholas at February 10, 2006 10:35 AM
Like Tommy Douglas was, I am for rationing. We also have to realize that we cannot keep up with the cost of medical science's amazing inventiveness. That being said, I would prefer they treated the smokers and sued the ciggie companies like BC and Newfie are. Posted by: Alan at February 10, 2006 10:58 AM


Visitors since 17 August, 2004