Should Life or Death Be Decided by the Government?

Tweet

I have talked at length in the past about many of the reasons why universal health care is a bad idea and why a for-profit medical system such as we have here in the United States is not only better care, but also "patient decisional" care. There is the case in a Royal London hospital of 11-year old Archie Battersbee who has been essentially on life support since early April, who has been diagnosed as "brain-stem dead." According to the doctors caring for him and the hospital, there is no hope for Archie to ever recover. As such, the costs to care for him are very high, and there is no telling how long the boy could be on life support. It's not an issue of "life" or even "death" per se, but an issue of money, and because the UK has a universal healthcare system, the decision being made by the courts is not necessarily on the families concerns nor wishes, not on life, but on cost to the taxpayer ultimately. The court has ruled that life support may not continue. It can be appealed. But ultimately the court has decided on the medical discourse of Archie. While my position is that the doctors are probably right, and that life support should probably be stopped considering the likely prognosis, in a for-profit system this is something more left up to the family or patient involved. Granted, someone has to pay up—insurance companies, patients, patient's guardians or whoever else, and decisions may be made in that regard depending on one's ability to pay. Despite the obvious hippocratic oath of all doctors, one must keep in mind who the doctor is officially working for. Is it the patient? Or the taxpayer? Because ultimately the one he answers to is the one paying the bill. This is not an argument for or against universal healthcare. It is simply something to keep in mind when we discuss it. Keep in mind that the boy has only been on life support for a little over two months and the government is already deciding he must die.