I speak as the father of a child who died of cancer following five years of treatments in multiple hospitals. I can assure you that the cost would be least concern of his parents, regardless of who is paying. I often tire of Democrat anecdotes about the poor folks who lost their house because of medical bills. To us, it always seemed something of a no-brainer that you are better off broke than dead. But a state-run medical-legal regime that "Weigh(s) up the benefits and burdens of keeping the boy alive" will never, ever reach that same conclusion. To the government, it's always about dollars and cents.
So true, but the little American voters don't understand this.
You have my sympathy, and I absolutely understand your point about making decisions without any consideration for costs in the long run. But there is always going to be a limit to how far any medical treatment can go in terms of saving a person’s life. This is why, for example, there isn’t a single religious group on the planet whose moral theology includes an absolute mandate that a person must be kept on a mechanical life support system indefinitely, in the name of preserving human life.
It would be different with a private insurance company?
The poor boy has been on the Ecmo machine for a month. There has been no improvement, there is no hope of improvement and the doctors have had to sedate him more and more heavily to prevent discomfort. The mother does not dispute the conclusions of the medical team, but is holding out hope for a miracle. So how long to you wait for the miracle. How much suffering to you put the boy through while you're hoping for divine intervention?
Just because we can hook people up to machines and keep them 'alive' for years doesn't mean we should. The time comes when it's best for all to let God or nature or whatever explanation you want take its course.