I am surprised that you can claim to be a nurse when you cannot
even understand that the AMD is about respecting patient autonomy
and nothing to do with heakth economics. Or perhaps the long words
are too difficult for you.
There is a price for modern medicine and not everyone can afford
it. What is best treatment for the breast cancer patient in Medan
may be considered inadequate in New York, but it's the best
available given the Indonesian's circumstances. What kind of
treatment the Singaporean gets must depend on what she can afford.
The government should provide the level of treatment for the
poor that society is prepared to pay or able to afford.
I am surprised that you claim to be from Oxford.
If it was not about quality of life, they would not be using the
statements in the brochure:
" We tend to take many things in life for granted, including
life itself.
Often we wait till serious illnesses or accidents strike before we
start to think about life and death issues. To die naturally, in
peace and with dignity is what many would want in their final
moments. While medical advancement may help prolong life
artificially, it cannot stop the dying process. Making early
choices about our medical care in the event that we have a terminal
illness and are unable to make our wishes known will spare our
loved ones the difficult decisions that have to be made on our
behalf."
AMD is also about giving the patient autonomy . I am not
disagreeing with it. Primary reason is quality of life.
It will save the doctors from making the decision to prolong
the patient's life through unnecessary advanced medical
interventions because of secondary factors i.e. angry emotional
relatives who will have to foot the bill later.
In an economic rationalistic perspective, unnecessary and
inappropriate treatments will tie up limited medical resources when
someone with a chance of recovery should have got it . AMD
has an indirect link with economics .
You are talking about people tieing up the system for curative
treatment and I point out that no one can play God and say that a
patient will only survive for 3 months - sh*t happens, so does
miracles. Denying a patient life saving treatment in their own
country when it is available is unfair ,unless it is their own
fault like alcoholics wanting a liver transplant while they are
chugging tons of ethanol.
I believe in a system where affordable and reasonable
standards of healthcare should be made available for someone who is
not a terminal stage patient and have
a high probability of surviving the treatment with a reasonable
quality of life . If the doctor says that there is
a 30% chance, it is still a chance and should be provided to the
patient especially when the treatment is readily available in
Singapore, albeit the cost. Once we start denying curative treatment to those
we deem not worthy or cannot afford the cost , it will be a
slippery slope . What's next? Deny treatment to the physically or
intellectually disabled because they don't contribute to society
economically compared to someone who is not disabled?
If the patient have the money , they can fly out to New York for
the latest spanking new medical breakthrough of a treatment on
their own money.