The financial cost of saving a life: should it matter?

conorh91

I had this discussion with some friends earlier and would be interested in some alternative views.

A Meathman was last week denied access to €400,000-per-year life-saving drugs that his doctors have prescribed.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/couple-appeal-for-hse-to-fund-vital-treatment-30909318.html

His family have commenced an online campaign, as they feel the HSE have effectively put a price on the ill man's life. He has paid taxes all his life and now the family feel the State should fulfill its side of the deal.

I do sympathize with their frustration, nevertheless I'm a bit torn. A world of unlimited resources would be fantastic, but in the meantime, we sadly have to allocate resources in a way that hurts the least amount of people, even if that means that sometimes means witholding treatment.

What do people think? Should life-saving drugs be denied if they cost too much? Can we put a price on life?

Kristopherus

Its the manufacturer of the drug that is holding the HSE to ransom. They could, if they wanted, provide it for nominal cost and make their profit from the resulting goodwill.

Menas

Its a sad case.

400k for this medicine seems way OTT. I guess that is because of high R&D costs and little demand for the drug. But aside from the very few who have medicine costs covered thru private insurance there are few individuals who could afford this.

volchitsa

Kristopherus wrote: »

Its the manufacturer of the drug that is holding the HSE to ransom. They could, if they wanted, provide it for nominal cost and make their profit from the resulting goodwill.

Well, they could, but they probably wouldn't make a profit doing it.

If that is what we want that's the system we need to create. As it is, we expect drugs companies to be profit-making, or to go under, leaving the ones that do make a profit to clean up.

bb1234567

God such a tough decision. If he got the drugs every year and lived until 80 which is average life expectancy he will have cost the state almost 20 million euro :eek:

Amirani

There has to be a financial value assigned to qualitative life years, otherwise the state would be bankrupt.

The Peanut

Kristopherus wrote: »

Its the manufacturer of the drug that is holding the HSE to ransom. They could, if they wanted, provide it for nominal cost and make their profit from the resulting goodwill.

It's not quite as clear cut as this but, in essence, I suppose yes. All pharma companies report back to shareholders. Shareholders do not deal in emotion, they deal in business. Companies will make limited, but typically, well publicised concessions to allow medicines to be distributed to needy causes on very limited bases. This is good for business, good PR. On a regular basis, no. Sadly.

steddyeddy

Kristopherus wrote: »

Its the manufacturer of the drug that is holding the HSE to ransom. They could, if they wanted, provide it for nominal cost and make their profit from the resulting goodwill.

No they couldn't unfortunately. There are generally very good reasons that drugs are expensive. Governments can help by funding orphan drug programmes (funding drugs for relatively rare diseases) or by pumping a lot more money into research. Research could elucidate better drug targets and maybe cheaper drug synthesis pathways. Clinical trials however are likely to remain high.

whupdedo

bb1234567 wrote: »

God such a tough decision. If he got the drugs every year and lived until 80 which is average life expectancy he will have cost the state almyaost 20 million euro :eek:

That's true, but it shouldn't come into it, he has the same right to life as anyone with a medical condition that would be fatal without medical intervention, how much does cancer cost this country annually ?

Or if we're going down the road of medical costs, what about alcoholics who need a liver transplant ? or the alcoholic or heroin addict who needs treatment that's paid for by the state, These people have a choice not to drink or do drugs, but we don't let them die because they are a drain on the state

400000 a year is a paltry sum in a country such as Ireland to keep a man alive, and if that man can work and be a productive member of society after treatment, well better again,

how much money do we waste every year on life long dole scroungers, inept civil servant spongers and extortionate state pensions to undeserving politicians

If we let this man die for the sake of 400000 miserable grand a year we may as well bring in collective euthanasia for the terminally ill, anyone over 80 and the mentally retarded, that would save us billions in the long term

FalconGirl

I'd like to know if I was this sick one day that the state would look after me after paying a lifetime of taxes. You cant put a price on a persons life. Shame on the pharma company.

srsly78

OP unfortunately we live in a world/society with limited resources. The HSE is overburdened, money spent to save that man would mean less money available to save other people. So to flip your question around, why is that man more important than other people? Do other people also not deserve so have their lives saved? If that e400,000 could save the lives of 2 other people then surely the decision is justified.

The only solution to what you propose is to give the HSE an unlimited budget, which for obvious reasons will not happen in any country.

ancapailldorcha

Kristopherus wrote: »

Its the manufacturer of the drug that is holding the HSE to ransom. They could, if they wanted, provide it for nominal cost and make their profit from the resulting goodwill.

Thing is, you're not just paying for that drug. You're paying for drugs that make it all the way to Phase II trials before failing leaving a shortfall that needs to be made up. I've got my gripes with Big Pharma but lazily labelling them as being inherently evil won't help.

mikom

FYI............

Alexion accused of "moral blackmail" in Belgium

In April and May 2013, Alexion was involved in a national controversy in Belgium when media revealed that the government refused to pay for a seven year old boy's treatment on the account that the drug he needed to stay alive, Soliris, was too expensive. The boy's medicine cost 9,000 euros every two weeks.[13] Several politicians stated that the company was attempting to 'blackmail' the government,[14] charges which Alexion denies. On May 4, 2013, the newspaper De Standaard reported that a PR agency working for Alexion had helped the boy's parents communicate their story to the press.[15] This story was confirmed by other news organizations, and it was also reported that the parents had believed their benefactor was a Dutch organization for patients and that the PR agency acted with permission from Alexion.[16][17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexion_Pharmaceuticals

My name is URL

FalconGirl wrote: »

I'd like to know if I was this sick one day that the state would look after me after paying a lifetime of taxes. You cant put a price on a persons life. Shame on the pharma company.

Society is pretty much based on putting prices on peoples lives.

candy-gal1

I thought the answer here would be pretty obvious, of course theres no price on life and anyone with a fatal illness should be allowed access to the drug/s that will make them better/live longer.

As Ive said before, and I know a lot of people may not agree with me at all on this, but Science should get concentrating on cures for the incureable/hard to cure and hopefully with any luck a live forever or for hundreds of years at years kind of drug for those who would like to partake

conorh91

srsly78 wrote: »

OP unfortunately we live in a world/society with limited resources. The HSE is overburdened, money spent to save that man would mean less money available to save other people. So to flip your question around, why is that man more important than other people? Do other people also not deserve so have their lives saved? If that e400,000 could save the lives of 2 other people then surely the decision is justified.

The only solution to what you propose is to give the HSE an unlimited budget, which for obvious reasons will not happen in any country.

I believe I mentioned that resources are limited, and I didn't propose the HSE giving the man access to the drug.

Ave Sodalis

It shouldn't matter but it does because, for a long time, society has placed more value on little scraps of paper/plastic/whatever its made if these days, and on imaginary figures on a screen than on a life.

Gael23

Normally I would say absolutely No but this case is different where it isn't feas to provide this drug.

mad muffin

Then we spend millions keeping people alive that have no chance of any meaningful recovery or that are at end stage and are in constant agony.

Roger_007

FalconGirl wrote: »

I'd like to know if I was this sick one day that the state would look after me after paying a lifetime of taxes. You cant put a price on a persons life. Shame on the pharma company.

So, the logic of your argument is even if the cost was €400 million a year to provide the treatment, you would still expect it to be provided?

ancapailldorcha

sup_dude wrote: »

It shouldn't matter but it does because, for a long time, society has placed more value on little scraps of paper/plastic/whatever its made if these days, and on imaginary figures on a screen than on a life.

Well, drug discovery is entirely privatised. Also, a drug can perform amazingly well in cell line and animal tests only to be found unsafe, ineffective or both at human testing. There's an expression; "fail early, fail cheap". If you find out at human trials that you've a dud on your hands, that constitutes a waste of time (several years) and a massive dent in your R&D budget which will need recouping.

Kristopherus

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, they could, but they probably wouldn't make a profit doing it.

If that is what we want that's the system we need to create. As it is, we expect drugs companies to be profit-making, or to go under, leaving the ones that do make a profit to clean up.

The Peanut wrote: »

It's not quite as clear cut as this but, in essence, I suppose yes. All pharma companies report back to shareholders. Shareholders do not deal in emotion, they deal in business. Companies will make limited, but typically, well publicised concessions to allow medicines to be distributed to needy causes on very limited bases. This is good for business, good PR. On a regular basis, no. Sadly.

steddyeddy wrote: »

No they couldn't unfortunately. There are generally very good reasons that drugs are expensive. Governments can help by funding orphan drug programmes (funding drugs for relatively rare diseases) or by pumping a lot more money into research. Research could elucidate better drug targets and maybe cheaper drug synthesis pathways. Clinical trials however are likely to remain high.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thing is, you're not just paying for that drug. You're paying for drugs that make it all the way to Phase II trials before failing leaving a shortfall that needs to be made up. I've got my gripes with Big Pharma but lazily labelling them as being inherently evil won't help.

Guys my point is that on this occasion Alexion could be a lot more magnanimous than levying €400,000 on an Irish patient's chance of a decent life. Notwitstanding the risk of setting an unwelcome precedent in their opinion. I'm just suggesting that a decent offer from them would have a more positive result than spending millions on advertising the drug.

Polar Ice

The field of study is called health economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_economics

Basically, the state only have X money for healthcare per year.
If you allocate €400,000 for this cause, then you have to withdraw the same funding from elsewhere. They're tough rationalisations that's a part of funding the heathcare system.

whupdedo

ryanf1 wrote: »

Normally I would say absolutely No but this case is different where it isn't feas to provide this drug.

I'd imagine your opinion would change if he was a member of your immediate family

ancapailldorcha

Kristopherus wrote: »

Guys my point is that on this occasion Alexion could be a lot more magnanimous than levying €400,000 on an Irish patient's chance of a decent life. Notwitstanding the risk of setting an unwelcome precedent in their opinion. I'm just suggesting that a decent offer from them would have a more positive result than spending millions on advertising the drug.

Pharma firms spend double on marketing that they do on R&D. Marketing are the people who convince doctors and states that the drug is worth buying so cutting their budget isn't a smart move. If they sell the drug for less, they'll set an unwelcome precedent as you've noted.

Soliris is their only drug meaning that this is the only opportunity for the company's backers to get a return on their investment. Also, since this disease is so rare, they have to charge a fortune to make a profit. This figure will have been carefully calculated as too much will price out some states like Ireland by the look of things.

gordongekko

Kristopherus wrote: »

They could, if they wanted, provide it for nominal cost and make their profit from the resulting goodwill.

I tried paying my mortgage with goodwill. The bank manager told me to f off.

Kristopherus

gordongekko wrote: »

I tried paying my mortgage with goodwill. The bank manager told me to f off.

Maybe his bank was backing Alexion:D:D:D

namloc1980

They've had similar issues in the UK where this drug costs £340k per patient on the NHS. If the powerhouse NHS is unable to negotiate a cheaper rate then the HSE haven't a hope. Linky

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

I had this discussion with some friends earlier and would be interested in some alternative views.

A Meathman was last week denied access to €400,000-per-year life-saving drugs that his doctors have prescribed.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/couple-appeal-for-hse-to-fund-vital-treatment-30909318.html

His family have commenced an online campaign, as they feel the HSE have effectively put a price on the ill man's life. He has paid taxes all his life and now the family feel the State should fulfill its side of the deal.

I do sympathize with their frustration, nevertheless I'm a bit torn. A world of unlimited resources would be fantastic, but in the meantime, we sadly have to allocate resources in a way that hurts the least amount of people, even if that means that sometimes means witholding treatment.

What do people think? Should life-saving drugs be denied if they cost too much? Can we put a price on life?

He is 33 only. So not paid so many taxes.

hjkl

Cut the wages of every TD by just under 2500 per year and this mans life could be saved at no added cost to the state. Doesn't seem like a whole lot when you put it like that.

mikom

Let's call Kenya and see what they think.

hfallada

In economics there is the term opportunity cost, which is the cost of a item not in financial costs, but in terms of the item foregone. Although €400k for a life may seem reasonable for some to save a life. €400k could probably hire about 10 extra nurses, which would improve the lives of hundreds of patients. Where as the cancer drug will only directly improve the life of one person.

If we used all the "miracle drugs " on the market, we would have an extremely drug bills with a minimal improvement to life. HSE not willing to write blank cheques to drug companies for these drugs, as their success is quite limited. There is only such much in the healthcare budget. We can give everyone miracle drugs, but staff numbers will have to be reduced or we will have to start paying more taxes. Sometimes people have to die, for everyone to have a higher standard of care

whupdedo

Deleted User wrote: »

He is 33 only. So not paid so many taxes.

Meanwhile, scum with multiple convictions and never having worked a day in their life get medical cards, social welfare and remain safe in the knowledge the idiot taxpayers will take care of them if anything bad should happen to them

steddyeddy

You get into dangerous territory when you start talking about who deserves health care more.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

He is 33 only. So not paid so many taxes.

I didn't say whether or not it was a lot. I don't know what he earns, but it obviously isnt 400k.

The point is that he has done everything asked of him like a responsible citizen.

Anyway this is beside the point. Most people with intellectual disabilities are not taxpayers in any meaningful sense of the word, but we wouldn't countenance witholding medical treatment from them on that basis.

Waerobic Woxajack

This is a perfect example of the uncaring, atheist society we live in. Healthcare is not a luxury and ideally should be free funded by tax. Failing that, it should be cheap. It is up to a society to do this. Obscene salaries can be paid to ordinary penpushers in the HSE and elsewhere and 33 trillion can be provided for an evil war in Iraq. So, the leaders of our world should get their priorities right and do the decent thing and save lives.

mikom

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

This is a perfect example of the uncaring, atheist society we live in. Healthcare is not a luxury and ideally should be free funded by tax. Failing that, it should be cheap. It is up to a society to do this. Obscene salaries can be paid to ordinary penpushers in the HSE and elsewhere and 33 trillion can be provided for an evil war in Iraq. So, the leaders of our world should get their priorities right and do the decent thing and save lives.

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

This cruel and atheistic show that has no love for and makes fun of participants should not be supported. Making entertainment out of people's upset is no better than what terrorists do.

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

No, I never ever watched a full 'Late Late Show' in my life. It is, along with 'The Voice of Ireland' and all the other reality TV shows that hurt people, the very essence of all that is wrong in Ireland: a breed of atheism that is non-caring, corrupt, self serving and rude.[

Waerobic Woxajack wrote: »

The Late Late Show is an atheistic, capitalistic propaganda tool piping into our houses

Book yourself into the nearest nuthouse, there's a g'lad.

Waerobic Woxajack

mikom wrote: »

Book yourself into the nearest nuthouse, there's a g'lad.

I do not need to. Those who support wars that have killed millions, TV shows that mock and make fun of people and who are non-caring when it comes to the ill do need to however.

One eyed Jack

whupdedo wrote: »

That's true, but it shouldn't come into it, he has the same right to life as anyone with a medical condition that would be fatal without medical intervention, how much does cancer cost this country annually ?

Or if we're going down the road of medical costs, what about alcoholics who need a liver transplant ? or the alcoholic or heroin addict who needs treatment that's paid for by the state, These people have a choice not to drink or do drugs, but we don't let them die because they are a drain on the state

400000 a year is a paltry sum in a country such as Ireland to keep a man alive, and if that man can work and be a productive member of society after treatment, well better again,

how much money do we waste every year on life long dole scroungers, inept civil servant spongers and extortionate state pensions to undeserving politicians

If we let this man die for the sake of 400000 miserable grand a year we may as well bring in collective euthanasia for the terminally ill, anyone over 80 and the mentally retarded, that would save us billions in the long term

€400k every year to prolong the life of a man who has a terminal illness?

I empathise with the man and his family, but there's no way in hell to justify those sort of costs to keep one person alive for another few years.


€400k per year is neither miserable, nor paltry, unless you have no concept of economics, which, reading the rest of your post, indicates that you don't.

Karl Stein

The government granted monopoly (patent) on medicine is the problem. Before the screaming TINA's arrive there are indeed alternative ways of stimulating research.

Capt'n Midnight

conorh91 wrote: »

What do people think? Should life-saving drugs be denied if they cost too much? Can we put a price on life?

A very very rough rule of thumb is €40,000 per year for the remaining life expectancy.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You get into dangerous territory when youstart talking about who deserves health care more.

Since the health services have finite resources it's always been that way.

You can't save everyone so you have to maximise what you can do.

There's an argument that some people should be taken off live support if someone in A&E urgently needs one. I didn't catch the program but it was about premature babies needing long term care vs. those who would need it for a shorter time.



Drug companies typically send multiples of their R&D spend on marketing. And that's with the funnelling as much money into R&D as possible because of the tax writeoffs available. Some companies probably spend more on fines than on R&D.



At the other extereme
Keeping some people alive and in pain and letting other die early just because of differing health insurance is insane.

One eyed Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

I didn't say whether or not it was a lot. I don't know what he earns, but it obviously isnt 400k.

The point is that he has done everything asked of him like a responsible citizen.

Anyway this is beside the point. Most people with intellectual disabilities are not taxpayers in any meaningful sense of the word, but we wouldn't countenance witholding medical treatment from them on that basis.

Could you explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense of the word", because as I understand it, "tax payer" is two words, and a person either pays tax, or they don't, and people with intellectual disabilities are quite capable of contributing to society, and paying taxes, and none of these people have ever cost the State €400k per annum, nor have they ever demanded that the State "fulfill it's side of the deal".

conorh91

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A very very rough rule of thumb is €40,000 per year for the remaining life expectancy.

where did you get that figure?

The idea of any kind of universal figure for all categories of drugs used in the treatment of serious illness regardless of cut-off ages seems ridiculous.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean by "in any meaningful sense of the word", because as I understand it, "tax payer" is two words, and a person either pays tax, or they don't

Taxpayer is a single word. As far as I am aware, most people with intellectual disabilities do not work as employees, and thus do not pay tax in any meaningful sense of the word, i.e. make a net contribution after welfare transfers are accounted for.

whupdedo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

€400k every year to prolong the life of a man who has a terminal illness?

I empathise with the man and his family, but there's no way in hell to justify those sort of costs to keep one person alive for another few years.


€400k per year is neither miserable, nor paltry, unless you have no concept of economics, which, reading the rest of your post, indicates that you don't.

How would you feel if it was your child, spouse or parent, its not outside he bounds of possibilities.

I may not know much about economics, that's true I don't, but neither do I think it's right to let a cognitive, able human being die for the want me 400 grand a year, I must admit it surprises me if you think 400 grand is a lot of money, in the grand scheme of things its merely a pittance to a wealthy western civilised society, yes I did say wealthy!!!!

How much do we send out to African dictators to keep them in the lifestyle we have paid them to become accustomed to, how much do we spend on military intervention in places we have no business being.

If this young man dies because of a ****ty 400 grand a year, what next ? Letting mentally handicapped kids die, introducing pay caps for ill patients who are deemed too costly to try to save ? Hopefully not, and hopefully not to someone you love and care about

One eyed Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

Taxpayer is a single word. As far as I am aware, most people with intellectual disabilities do not work as employees, and thus do not pay tax in any meaningful sense of the word, i.e. make a net contribution after welfare transfers are accounted for.

That's fair enough, I can't argue with that, but I think it's important to stress that this isn't for the lack of wanting to gain employment. There are discriminatory factors there that are the greatest barrier to intellectually disabled people gaining employment that they could become one of those taxpayers you speak of in the meaningful sense of the word, and I think it's simply an unfair comparison to make between intellectually disabled people who want to work, and one taxpayer who feels the State should pay for their exorbitant medical costs.

conorh91

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's simply an unfair comparison to make between intellectually disabled people who want to work, and one taxpayer who feels the State should pay for their exorbitant medical costs.

It wasn't a comparison. I was pointing out that a person's taxpaying history is not a salient factor when allocating life-saving medical resources.

I am very doubtful as to whether this case merits public money, but there is a distinct tone of blaming the ill man coming from your statement.

Just as the intellectually disabled might want to work, this man wants to be healthy. It isn't a lifestyle choice. He's doing what many of us would do in his situation. I doubt we'd all be reclining in our armchairs thinking "No, I will die before I become a burden on the Exchequer"

One eyed Jack

whupdedo wrote: »

How would you feel if it was your child, spouse or parent, its not outside he bounds of possibilities.

I've been there, my family member would never have survived a heart and lung transplant given their condition. There are some decisions where as hard as it is to accept them, we just have to. Reality can be cruel like that, and as much as you want to do for the person, sometimes it's just not feasible.

I may not know much about economics, that's true I don't, but neither do I think it's right to let a cognitive, able human being die for the want me 400 grand a year, I must admit it surprises me if you think 400 grand is a lot of money, in the grand scheme of things its merely a pittance to a wealthy western civilised society, yes I did say wealthy!!!!

€400k is a lot of money in any man's language, and even more so when it's going towards sustaining the life of a person who is terminally ill. That's even before you have to accept the reality that the HSE simply doesn't have that kind of money with hospital closures and people lying on trolleys in corridors for want of a hospital bed.

If this young man dies because of a ****ty 400 grand a year, what next ? Letting mentally handicapped kids die, introducing pay caps for ill patients who are deemed too costly to try to save ? Hopefully not, and hopefully not to someone you love and care about

It's not a shìtty €400k for a start, that money could be used to provide many more essential treatments for people who have a more realistic prospect of survival. The rest of that paragraph, people have to make decisions like that all the time. You're just not aware of them because they don't all cost €400k per year to keep them alive.

As far as I remember at the time, a heart and lung transplant would have cost €100k and was still a very experimental procedure. My brother made the choice for themselves and never expected the State to cover their medical costs.

One eyed Jack

conorh91 wrote: »

It wasn't a comparison. I was pointing out that a person's taxpaying history is not a salient factor when allocating life-saving medical resources.

I am very doubtful as to whether this case merits public money, but there is a distinct tone of blaming the ill man coming from your statement.

Just as the intellectually disabled might want to work, this man wants to be healthy. It isn't a lifestyle choice. He's doing what many of us would do in his situation. I doubt we'd all be reclining in our armchairs thinking "No, I will die before I become a burden on the Exchequer"

Not in so many words, no, but there are many people who favour euthanasia over prolonging their life if only to suffer in constant pain from their illness. I'm sure you're no doubt aware of the case of Marie Fleming.


Just reading up about this condition, and came across this -

However, just as many pharmaceuticals designed to treat rare diseases, eculizumab is controversial due to its high cost. Manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals under the brand name Soliris, is among the most expensive pharmaceuticals in the world, with a price of US$440,000 per patient per year.[12] Because there is insufficient evidence to show that eculizumab therapy results in significant improvement in life expectancy, statistical calculations have shown poor cost-effectiveness. For example, a 2014 Canadian study calculated the cost per life-year-gained with treatment as CAD$4,618,561 (US $4571564) and cost per quality-adjusted-life-year as $2,134,156 (US $2,112,398).[13] New Zealand's government pharmaceutical buyer Pharmac declined a proposal to subsidize the drug in December 2013, after Alexion refused to budge on a NZ$670,000 (US$590,000) per patient per year price and Pharmac's economic analysis determined the price would need to be halved before the drug was cost-effective enough to subsidize.[14] Pharmac's decision upset many New Zealand PNH patients,[15] although Pharmac has not ruled out reviewing the decision at a later date, or funding it on a case-by-case basis under the Named Patient Pharmaceutical Assessment (NPPA) programme.[14]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxysmal_nocturnal_hemoglobinuria

Wildlife Actor

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've been there, my family member would never have survived a heart and lung transplant given their condition. There are some decisions where as hard as it is to accept them, we just have to. Reality can be cruel like that, and as much as you want to do for the person, sometimes it's just not feasible.

€400k is a lot of money in any man's language, and even more so when it's going towards sustaining the life of a person who is terminally ill. That's even before you have to accept the reality that the HSE simply doesn't have that kind of money with hospital closures and people lying on trolleys in corridors for want of a hospital bed.

It's not a shìtty €400k for a start, that money could be used to provide many more essential treatments for people who have a more realistic prospect of survival. The rest of that paragraph, people have to make decisions like that all the time. You're just not aware of them because they don't all cost €400k per year to keep them alive.

As far as I remember at the time, a heart and lung transplant would have cost €100k and was still a very experimental procedure. My brother made the choice for themselves and never expected the State to cover their medical costs.

There's your answer OP.

bnt

whupdedo wrote: »

How would you feel if it was your child, spouse or parent, its not outside he bounds of possibilities.

So? That argument applies to every person in the country. What if it was the child of the Health Minister - would you be in favour of special treatment then? Family connections should not get you any favours, that would be nepotism. That's why decisions of this sort should be made impartially, by people with no personal connections to those affected - otherwise you have the personal taking priority over the public.

lila1

God it would be terrible if that was happening to anyone my own family I was on medication costing 5,000 per month for about 3 years, but then had major brain surgery costing 60.000 sterling and was able to come off the medication, saving the hse money in the long run.