First, he's not in favor of making care decisions based on a person's ability to function as a citizen:
Is he saying, as Palin and others have suggested, that those who aren’t “participating citizens” should have no guarantee to health care?
“No,” Emanuel says, “and I think I made it pretty clear I wasn’t endorsing that view, I was analyzing that perspective and what it might mean in practical terms. The rest of the text around that quote made it made it pretty clear I was trying to analyze it and understand it, not endorse it.”
Second, he was discussing rationing in the context of organ transplants, a situation in which there is a scarcity. He and his co-authors examined 8 different views and found them all wanting. "They combined five views to create the “Complete Life” theory. One of the arguments it that the younger patient should get the liver before the older patient -- though Complete Life theory makes exceptions to that rule."
In general, he opposes rationing because, except in special situations like organ transplants, there's no need for it:
About 15 years ago he did think rationing was necessary because of cost issues but he has come to change his mind. “The more I’ve looked into it the less I think it’s true,” he says. “We spend a lot of money and resources -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- for unnecessary care, care that doesn’t help patients,” and in some case might make them sicker by exposing them to hospital-acquired infections.
“We don’t have to raise the issue of denying care, or choosing which people gets services,” he says.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment