I have heard and read a lot of discussion about Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard. I am a father, and I certainly understand people's revulsion to the notion that the government will tell someone that he has to let his son die. I too fight the gag reflex when hearing about this.
However, most of the things I've read/heard about these two tragic cases are pushed by opportunistic hucksters who use this tragedy to push their own views about "the magic of the free market" as applied to medicine.
My simple question to all concerned is this:
Is it better or worse, morally, for a patient to be denied care by a government because that care is deemed ineffective or not worth the money, OR for the patient to be denied care by the private sector because that patient doesn't have the money to afford it?
Stated another way, if a patient dies from a treatable and curable malady because he can't afford the treatment, is that an avoidable tragedy or a glorious exercise in free market economics?
I suppose where you sit in life likely determines where you stand on this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment