Anyone who has witnessed a friend's or relative's demise from disease knows how difficult that moment is when we switch from a hope for recovery to hope for a speedy end. If we could see the future it might not be such an emotional ordeal. But many times that hope for recovery lingers longer than it should. And the cost to the patient, insurance company, or some government program keeps going up.
It's almost enough to make an observer appreciate the British death panel system that makes the decision regardless of what the patient, family, or friends want. But not quite.
The idea that the government can decide whether a person should live longer or die sooner is a bit disturbing. A few years ago Australians came up with a checklist of 29 indicators on which they would base a decision of whether a patient would live another 12 weeks. And the patient failed the test, he/she would get counseling, but not treatment. See 'Death test' could predict chance of dying within 30 days -- subhead: "Health experts say a new test will prevent futile and expensive medical treatments which prolong suffering."
We are seeing this played out in the case of Alfie Evans, the kid the British government declared should die in Britain instead of going to another country for treatment. Dailysignal sums it up nicely in UK Government Seeks to Play God in Denying Alfie Evans Life Support.
Libertarians and conservative have long decried governments' tendency to pick industry winners and losers. But bureaucrats picking winners and losers among the sick is a proposition that should frighten us all.
1:57 PM 4/29/2018