Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gondring
Yes. Right to life; freedom to choose not to.

One problem with honoring the "right to die" is that it creates a moral hazard when providing care for someone ceases to be profitable, even (especially) if the person has paid in advance for such care and is thus rightly entitled to it.

If patients who are treated poorly are more likely to seek an "early exit", then caregivers that want to be rid of patients will have an incentive to make them miserable. By what means would you ensure that caregivers make a bona fide effort to keep unprofitable patients happy, thus causing them to live longer and cost more money?

108 posted on 03/03/2008 4:38:54 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
Removing the consumer's choice doesn't help the situation! If there's no incentive in honoring a patient's right to die, there's even less incentive in a system where he has no choice in the matter--after all, if he has no choice, then what incentive at all is there for a caregiver to make the patient comfortable?!?

By what means would you ensure that caregivers make a bona fide effort to keep unprofitable patients happy, thus causing them to live longer and cost more money?

Introduce the market back into the system (what a concept! A conservative one, at that!)

Before anyone says, "the poor would suffer," it should be realized that it wouldn't even have to be a fully monetary market. Even public funding can benefit from a ratings market, with compensation tied to patient-given ratings.

109 posted on 03/03/2008 5:04:06 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson