Quote:To expand on this point, there are other related age factors. It is well known that with increasing age, the body's ability to endure stress and to recover from medical insult decreases. So, in your example, in addition to the reduced benefits to the older patient is the increased risks of dying during the operation, of not being able to tolerate the anti-rejection medication, and of not recovering from the surgery. The cost-benefit relationship must include these dangers as costs.Indeed. On a related note, some studies have shown that, even for perfectly healthy people, moderate waiting times can actually reduce mortality. Both doctors and patients have a propensity to want too much treatment too quickly (than is statistically optimal), and that slight delays can actually prevent more deaths due to errors and complications than immediate surgeries. Treatment is always to be judged vs. the alternatives - there is no panacea, only different states of being with different survival rates and quality of life. Sometimes, the disease is more gentle than the cure. Often times not, but it's not always easy to tell.
Quote:One thing that is important, though, is to have flexibility. I don't know how flexible a state run system would be. I do know, from personal experience, that there is some flexibility in our system. When I was first diagnosed with leukemia, I was told that I only qualified for a mini-transplant because of my age. However, the resistance of my leukemia to chemo removed the possibility of the mini-transplant. On the other hand, my resilience to three major rounds of chemo convinced the doctors at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance that I was strong enough to risk a myeloablative transplant. Had they not re-evaluated the situation, the Lounge would be one grumpy old fart less.:)I'm really not sure. I've seen plenty of people, both elderly and young, make it through various types of cancer in the Canadian system - and some deaths as well. Cancer doctors in Canada seem more or less like doctors anywhere - concerned primarily with finding treatments for their patients that work. I don't see anything inherent about doctors whose paycheque eventually comes from the state being less flexible about the types of treatment one receives. Without comprehensive statistics and good case studies, it would be hard to tell if this is a problem. Would your experience have been different in Canada, or the UK, or Sweden? I hope not, and I don't see any immediate reason to presume it would have been. But it is certainly a legitimate concern.
And I'm happy to still have everyone's favourite curmudgeon lounging around. Maybe someone took a peek at your "contribution" and decided that brilliant people should be kept around.:)
-Jester