nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Are some medical treatments too expensive to justify?

lazygal

There's a new cancer drug costing 85,000 per patient being approved. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0504/1224315592242.html It doesn't cure the disease apparently, but does offer some help. There's also cases of people being sent to other countries to avail of expensive treatments not available here and the HSE funding it. Is 85,000 for treatment for one person too expensive? Or is life something for which money shouldn't be a factor?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Monty Burnz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Easy to say. How would you feel if you were told you had weeks to live? Or someone you were close to? Believeme, in that instance you would gladly beg, borrow or steal for a couple of more months, regardless of age.

So how many life-saving treatments for young people should be cancelled to extend the life of a bed-bound 86 year old by a few months?

forfuxsake

Coffeeteasugar wrote: »

No,and why should a justification be relevant at all. If it's alleviating the individual's illness, all resources should be invested.

I quite agree. I suffer from macropenis(which is a bona fide medical condition). This may seem funny but it is very cumbersome and can be embarrassing, not to mention how difficult it is to get the b1tches out of bed the morning after.

I could have reduction surgery at €1000000 an inch, so for just €25000000 I could lead a normal life.

I asked social welfare for the dosh but all they did was send me a signed picture of Joan Burton, which somewhat remarkably seems to be doing the business.

Monty Burnz

Coffeeteasugar wrote: »

No,and why should a justification be relevant at all. If it's alleviating the individual's illness, all resources should be invested.

Because obviously we have unlimited resources and no need to tax anyone or divert the spending from education, law and order, or indeed vital treatments for other people... :rolleyes:

3DataModem

Stiffler2 wrote: »

We all know they found the cure for cancer a few years ago but that they can make more monies selling you the treatment.

If they cured you how would they make their monies.

watched a very cool doc a while ago in relation to cancer.
Basically all the chemicals they spray on food, additives, mobile phone radiation / masts is where cancer comes from.

rewind to 100 years ago when this technology did not exist and cancer also did not exist.

Cancer did exist. It was rarer, because people died younger. A LOT younger.

up for anything

CreepingDeath wrote: »

If it doesn't solve the problem and only gives patients a couple of more months, I'd say it isn't worth it, except maybe in exceptional cases eg. keeping a pregnant woman alive long enough to give birth.

If it had a chance of curing the cancer, that would be a different story.
But there's no claims that it's anything other than a glorified treatment for the symptoms but not the condition.

Also a factor in this should be the patients age, where old people near the end of their expected lifespan shouldn't expect expensive treatments.

There is something really wrong with the thinking behind what you've said there. I can't even begin to express what it is. It could be the cold blooded 'long enough' bit. Once she's served her purpose then to hell with her.

Would whether their life was worth extending depend on the usefulness of the person to society? Would it depend on whether they were too young or too old to be of use? What criteria would be used to decide who would live a little longer and who would die?

Capt'n Midnight

Clareman wrote: »

Rewind to a time with an average life expectancy of 49.3 for women and compare it to now with an average life expectancy of 82.6.

Give me some of that wonderful technology people it's killing us slower than not having, the b@stards

The big change has been in life expectancy from birth.

Once you survive childhood thanks to better sanitation, food, vaccines, lower accident rate things don't get that much better.

IIRC life expectancy for a 40 year old has only gone up by 10 years since 1840's (excluding famines and stuff)

forfuxsake

Only last week my aunt died of consumption.:eek::eek:

Clareman

Hasn't it been that due to the availability of more food/vegetables/vitamins etc. etc. for people (parents and children) mean that children are more likely to survive past childhood? Also the fact that information can be shared easier now than ever before that education, and as a result improvements in medicine

Averages never show the true reflection of anything, but I was just trying to make the point that all the sprays/mobile phones masts can be a good thing as well.

shopaholic01

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So how many life-saving treatments for young people should be cancelled to extend the life of a bed-bound 86 year old by a few months?

In an ideal word a choice wouldn't be necessary. I was simply making the point that it is easy to say non-life saving treatment isn't worth the expense. It's different when you/someone you love is dying. Money becomes irrelevant and you would do anything to buy some more time. It's difficult enough to watch someone die, knowing that there is treatment but it's deemed too expensive would be a very bitter pill to swallow.

Monty Burnz

Clareman wrote: »

Averages never show the true reflection of anything, but I was just trying to make the point that all the sprays/mobile phones masts can be a good thing as well.

There's no proof proof whatsoever that mobile phone masts have any health effects at all, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

Monty Burnz

shopaholic01 wrote: »

In an ideal word a choice wouldn't be necessary. I was simply making the point that it is easy to say non-life saving treatment isn't worth the expense. It's different when you/someone you love is dying. Money becomes irrelevant and you would do anything to buy some more time. It's difficult enough to watch someone die, knowing that there is treatment but it's deemed too expensive would be a very bitter pill to swallow.

Ok, that's a fair point. I'd certainly understand people spending their own money on such treatments, as opposed to limited public money.

trishasaffron

shopaholic01 wrote: »

In an ideal word a choice wouldn't be necessary. I was simply making the point that it is easy to say non-life saving treatment isn't worth the expense. It's different when you/someone you love is dying. Money becomes irrelevant and you would do anything to buy some more time. It's difficult enough to watch someone die, knowing that there is treatment but it's deemed too expensive would be a very bitter pill to swallow.

Perhaps that is how you operate - but adults need to be able to make choices - even very difficult and hard ones.

Clareman

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's no proof proof whatsoever that mobile phone masts have any health effects at all, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

I was once asked to support a local group's opposition to a mobile phone mast being erected in the locality, I took a phone, a palm treo and a data card out of my pockets and made it clear that I wanted the mast to be erected and if anyone ever was to prove there was anything wrong with the technology that I'd very interested to read up on it.

Coffeeteasugar

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because obviously we have unlimited resources and no need to tax anyone or divert the spending from education, law and order, or indeed vital treatments for other people... :rolleyes:

Well obviously I'm aware of such,but shouldn't health be given a priority over more superficial tax paying considerations?I'm certain you'd be thinking the same subsequent to spending a few nights on a hospital trolley in an overcrowded corridor!

shopaholic01

trishasaffron wrote: »

Perhaps that is how you operate - but adults need to be able to make choices - even very difficult and hard ones.

Not being able to afford treatment isn't a choice, it's a reality.
I don't understand what you mean when you say 'perhaps that it how you operate'. Do you wish all sick people to die asap?

Monty Burnz

Coffeeteasugar wrote: »

Well obviously I'm aware of such,but shouldn't health be given a priority over more superficial tax paying considerations?I'm certain you'd be thinking the same subsequent to spending a few nights on a hospital trolley in an overcrowded corridor!

Like education and stuff?

up for anything

shopaholic01 wrote: »

In an ideal word a choice wouldn't be necessary. I was simply making the point that it is easy to say non-life saving treatment isn't worth the expense. It's different when you/someone you love is dying. Money becomes irrelevant and you would do anything to buy some more time. It's difficult enough to watch someone die, knowing that there is treatment but it's deemed too expensive would be a very bitter pill to swallow.

trishasaffron wrote: »

Perhaps that is how you operate - but adults need to be able to make choices - even very difficult and hard ones.

No need to be so patronising. :rolleyes: She/he made a very valid point. I, for one, would be doing whatever lay within my power to extend the life of someone I loved and would understand anybody doing so and support them in whatever way I could and I'm an adult who has made very difficult and hard choices when necessary.

trishasaffron

up for anything wrote: »

No need to be so patronising. :rolleyes: She/he made a very valid point. I, for one, would be doing whatever lay within my power to extend the life of someone I loved and would understand anybody doing so and support them in whatever way I could and I'm an adult who has made very difficult and hard choices when necessary.

Does that mean that you would think it correct to have the state pay for treatment for your loved one utterly regardless to the cost and resultant impact elsewhere ? So for example all funds to be used to secure a few days extra life for your loved one at the cost of closure of more A&Es. Just looking to see if you envisage any limits on the costs to keep your loved one's life extended and if so what might they be? or is it literally the case as you say that you would do "whatever lay within my power to extend the life of someone I loved".

up for anything

trishasaffron wrote: »

Does that mean that you would think it correct to have the state pay for treatment for your loved one utterly regardless to the cost and resultant impact elsewhere ? So for example all funds to be used to secure a few days extra life for your loved one at the cost of closure of more A&Es. Just looking to see if you envisage any limits on the costs to keep your loved one's life extended and if so what might they be? or is it literally the case as you say that you would do "whatever lay within my power to extend the life of someone I loved".

That's a tough one but yes, I'd see ten A&Es closed down to extend the life of one of my children if they were dying but could be given extra time and I'd sell my house (and my extended life children) to keep my mother alive.

Capt'n Midnight

up for anything wrote: »

That's a tough one but yes, I'd see ten A&Es closed down to extend the life of one of my children if they were dying but could be given extra time and I'd sell my house (and my extended life children) to keep my mother alive.

Considering the "Golden Hour" where the sooner you get treatment the more likely you are to live or have lower risks of permanent damage you'd kill a lot of people if you closed any more A&E's

Monty Burnz

up for anything wrote: »

That's a tough one but yes, I'd see ten A&Es closed down to extend the life of one of my children if they were dying but could be given extra time and I'd sell my house (and my extended life children) to keep my mother alive.

Fortunately for all the other people's loved ones your choice would kill, you're not in a position to close our A&Es...

up for anything

I was asked a question and answered it! I'm sad for all the people that might die because of my decision but that's life or rather death.

Noreen1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fortunately for all the other people's loved ones your choice would kill, you're not in a position to close our A&Es...

Why do you assume that closing A&Es is the only option in obtaining funds?
Don't you believe that any other cost savings can be achieved?

Chuck Stone

Although modern pharmaceuticals are supposed to represent the practical payoff of basic research, the R&D to discover a promising new compound now costs about 100 times more (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it did in 1950. (It also takes nearly three times as long.) This trend shows no sign of letting up: Industry forecasts suggest that once failures are taken into account, the average cost per approved molecule will top $3.8 billion by 2015. What’s worse, even these “successful” compounds don’t seem to be worth the investment. According to one internal estimate, approximately 85 percent of new prescription drugs approved by European regulators provide little to no new benefit. We are witnessing Moore’s law in reverse.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/all/1

Maybe the estimate that '85 percent of new prescription drugs approved by European regulators provide little to no new benefit' is the reason the pharmaceutical companies spend so much on sales and advertising.

yore

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Although modern pharmaceuticals are supposed to represent the practical payoff of basic research, the R&D to discover a promising new compound now costs about 100 times more (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it did in 1950. (It also takes nearly three times as long.) This trend shows no sign of letting up: Industry forecasts suggest that once failures are taken into account, the average cost per approved molecule will top $3.8 billion by 2015. What’s worse, even these “successful” compounds don’t seem to be worth the investment. According to one internal estimate, approximately 85 percent of new prescription drugs approved by European regulators provide little to no new benefit. We are witnessing Moore’s law in reverse.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/1...ausation/all/1

Maybe the estimate that '85 percent of new prescription drugs approved by European regulators provide little to no new benefit' is the reason the pharmaceutical companies spend so much on sales and advertising.

Yeah.....I'd reckon the lack of cheap victims clinicial trial subjects from our now over-zealous orphanages have pushed up those costs. God be with the days when the companies could simply walk into the orphanage, inject all the kids with various cocktails and then come back in a week and see which ones didn't have adverse reactions.

Monty Burnz

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why do you assume that closing A&Es is the only option in obtaining funds?
Don't you believe that any other cost savings can be achieved?

I'm replying to a statement made by another poster that they would happily kill others to save their loved one, or extend their life for a bit.

Daveysil15

Yes they are. Scientists in Canada found a cure for cancer but they won't produce it because the pharmaceutical companies won't make a profit on it.

Min

We can bail out sick banks but not sick people?

Teyla Emmagan

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yes they are. Scientists in Canada found a cure for cancer but they won't produce it because the pharmaceutical companies won't make a profit on it.

Proof?

The state must make realistic decisions as to how it spends our limited funds. 85k to potentially extend the life of one person is just not justifiable. If you want the treatment, raise the funds yourself. Harsh, but fair, IMO.

Monty Burnz

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yes they are. Scientists in Canada found a cure for cancer but they won't produce it because the pharmaceutical companies won't make a profit on it.

Conspiracy theories board, tbh. Total nonsense.