Centerfield

It's only a tough question if you insist that "we" have to pay for it, which gives us the right to override the decisions of the individuals involved.

Well there are more then enough people who feel that brain dead people should be keep alive no matter what the cost so I'm not sure I understand the question. The fact is that there will increasingly be people keep alive at a cost to whoever who are brain dead, who can be keep alive only thought the intervention of increasingly expensive medicine and equipment, and people for whom cures can be developed but at a cost so high that no one could pay it.

The question will be when do we as a society say, “sorry, it’s too much for one life” without being accused of being part of the “culture of death”? I mean we make trade offs every day, would could make highway guard rails much safer and able to save thousands of lives but somewhere someone does a cost benefit analysis and says, “no, the cost is too high for the small increase in the life saving capability in the design. Same thing with simple drugs like aspirin, which cause thousands of deaths per year, but to make it a prescription would inconvenience millions. What about pollution, which causes cancer, going to start telling industry to stop filling the air with particulate matter in order to reduce death?

We can’t save everyone. Sooner or later hard choices need to be made and if anyone start to try and even start a discussion they are thrown the “culture of death” camp and labeled heartless savages.

Fact is there are a lot of fatal and seriously debilitating diseases that could be cured right now but the number of people who get these diseases are too small to recoup the development of treatments. Should we fund all of this out of the public treasury?

Good luck

If a "cure" leads to productivity in excess of the cost of the cure, then this is an easy question. The family unit might be considered here in the suggested cost/benefit analysis.

When a "cure" is more expensive than the gain in productivity and the subsequent ability of the cured ( family unit) to pay the cost, the next consideration appears to be quality of life. If society wants to redistribute monies to “cure” at a financial loss, to provide expensive treatment to prolong pain or coma is not a winning economic policy any more than the old Welfare system was. The Right appears confused as to the moments a “personality” is born and when such “individual awareness” has died.

Sometimes chasing "cures" are stepping-stones in understanding and curing other pathologies. The benefit of the progress of medicine may involve chasing many cures, even if gains in productivity or even distributing such cures never materialize.

The end game to all this should be clear. Imagine a moderately expensive treatment for extending longevity. (some argue treatment is available already) Should the government promote the ultimate "happiness" for most citizens, which is MORE TIME BEING ALIVE? Ten more years for $200,000? Now that could clearly be seen as paying for itself, One might argue the Democrats are way ahead on this issue. Stem Cells are only a minor aspect of this debate. Shouldn't the government spend far more than in Iraq to provide a "cure" for pre-mature death? And what criteria shall we use for “pre-mature death”, reality or achievable possibilities? Religion cannot stop the primary affirmation of biological systems. No, not sex, but survival. Religion might provide a rational for death, but it will not be able to provide an argument against living indefinitely.

I can't imagine this country holding together while 1. Any elected government prevents the advancement of longevity or 2. The rich pay to LIVE LONGER, while the poor die sooner without such "cures". I wonder the role of media here. This is the real ideological battle that some on the Far Right have already addressed. "It is immoral to delay Judgment and the inevitable meeting with God". Even the Kossaks can triumph over that logic nor can conservatism/religion stop those first to the life extension grail from making a make a fortune.

My question is this: What would it cost to provide what was state-of-the-art health care 20 years ago to people who can't afford health care today? I graduated from high school 20 years ago. The world didn't seem all that primitive to me then. And the treatments that were thought to be great then but were since found to suck have been weeded out.

OK Max you have me confused. Now which is the far right position

This is the real ideological battle that some on the Far Right have already addressed. "It is immoral to delay Judgment and the inevitable meeting with God".

The Right appears confused as to the moments a “personality” is born and when such “individual awareness” has died.