Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
- Thread starter t-dub
- Start date
WatTyler
Revolting Peasant
I too am proud of the healthcare provided to all in the UK. The best thing by far that my government spends my taxes on. It's not without it's flaws though, but there are flaws in every system. Fundamentally this one is the most ethical and sits best with my conscience.
It does mean that you have to accept the constraints of a system, but this isn't dictated by bio-ethicists or the faceless 'big man' of government. It's done quite transparently, involving committees comprised of experts from cross sections of medical, legal, philosophical, and theological experts, as well as representatives from communities and the public.
One interesting and not so pleasant quirk of our system is that is is managed on a local/regional basis, leading to what is called a postcode (zip code) lottery. I believe it is still the case that a treatment available for a condition to one patient might not be available to their neighbour, living just yards away with the exact same condition, because their home falls under the jurisdiction of a different NHS trust who have decided on different allocation criteria. I think that there is some kind of national guidance, though non-binding, giving the trusts the ability to be flexible to the local needs and conditions in that area. But it can be a tough pill to swallow for those patients that might be denied a treatment available to others on the basis of cost. I think this is still the case.
However, I believe the greater good is delivered through this service, and it IS one of the few times that our government fundamentally do treat us all equally. The only other time I can think of in principle is in the justice system, but in reality the flaws and inequalities inherent that are even more evident.
It does mean that you have to accept the constraints of a system, but this isn't dictated by bio-ethicists or the faceless 'big man' of government. It's done quite transparently, involving committees comprised of experts from cross sections of medical, legal, philosophical, and theological experts, as well as representatives from communities and the public.
One interesting and not so pleasant quirk of our system is that is is managed on a local/regional basis, leading to what is called a postcode (zip code) lottery. I believe it is still the case that a treatment available for a condition to one patient might not be available to their neighbour, living just yards away with the exact same condition, because their home falls under the jurisdiction of a different NHS trust who have decided on different allocation criteria. I think that there is some kind of national guidance, though non-binding, giving the trusts the ability to be flexible to the local needs and conditions in that area. But it can be a tough pill to swallow for those patients that might be denied a treatment available to others on the basis of cost. I think this is still the case.
However, I believe the greater good is delivered through this service, and it IS one of the few times that our government fundamentally do treat us all equally. The only other time I can think of in principle is in the justice system, but in reality the flaws and inequalities inherent that are even more evident.
technique
Well-Known Member
WatTyler said:
I would agree that despite its flaws the UK NHS system is one of the best things about our country but i have plenty of gripes with the legal system. As far as i am concerned with a wife and kid at home if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night he is far game regardless of what make shift weapon i grab, my family and their well being is all i see in such a situation and will try my best to ensure their safety. I dont want to list out countless problems with the system just wanted to highlight how it can be unfair.
WatTyler
Revolting Peasant
Aye, can't deny there're plenty of problems with our laws too. I kind of meant more that in theory we're all subject to the same laws of the land, Sir or serf, and in theory offered the same protections. But this principle doesn't hold up under too much scrutiny- the truth is that the legal and justice system is fundamentally corrupt in it's execution, and does favour the rich and powerful (especially so in terms of accessing the protection of civil law- lawyers aren't cheap)
With the NHS however, in principle and as far as I'm aware in practise, there's nothing that your social status can do to gain an advantage over someone else in the system and each case is addressed purely on it's medical merits. Not even the Queen. This sits well with me.
With the NHS however, in principle and as far as I'm aware in practise, there's nothing that your social status can do to gain an advantage over someone else in the system and each case is addressed purely on it's medical merits. Not even the Queen. This sits well with me.
WatTyler
Revolting Peasant
t-dub, I heard part of an interesting moral discussion programme on bbc radio 4 tonight on my way home. Here Wales are preparing to bring in opt-out donation whereby your organs are automatically up for grabs upon your death, unless you've expressly wished otherwise and completed the relevant forms. That's probably OK with me I think.
More controversially the British Medical Council has published a report supporting 'elective ventilation'. This is an entirely different scenario to the OP whereby a patient is kept alive purely to enable the harvesting of their organs. Currently this is illegal in the UK as the law dictates that treatment must be in the best interest of the patient, not the potential recipient. I'm not so sure how I feel about that one just now. But I bet I will be if I have a loved one in need.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion, but for some reason it's not available on bbc iplayer - might be because it's still scheduled for another airing on Sat at 22.15 GMT. The Moral Maze on Radio 4 you can catch the next broadcast on line if you're interested t-dub
More controversially the British Medical Council has published a report supporting 'elective ventilation'. This is an entirely different scenario to the OP whereby a patient is kept alive purely to enable the harvesting of their organs. Currently this is illegal in the UK as the law dictates that treatment must be in the best interest of the patient, not the potential recipient. I'm not so sure how I feel about that one just now. But I bet I will be if I have a loved one in need.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion, but for some reason it's not available on bbc iplayer - might be because it's still scheduled for another airing on Sat at 22.15 GMT. The Moral Maze on Radio 4 you can catch the next broadcast on line if you're interested t-dub
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Wat, thank you for taking the time to post this, I appreciate it very much. I am watching what you guys do over there with interest. I wonder if I lived in Canada or Europe if I would still get the drug I need, its over $6,000 per dose . . . and I am on a double dose right now.