The Complete Lives System The allocation of healthcare has always been a huge issue in our society and the principles to allocate this resource also has come under fire. In the past it has always been "first come first serve" basis. Whether or not this approach is ethical is another question, but is it practical. The authors of "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" have discussed a new approach called the Complete Lives System.
The complete lives system posses five principles for allocation that Include: ingest first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and Instrumental value (Principles 6). The priority of this system Is to lad those who have not yet lived a complete life and will not be able to do so unless they get the aid necessary. This idea also considers many ethical factors such as saving the most lives possible, as well as a lottery, which takes into account the little information needed for recipients.
While this system is not practical for an entire economy at this point, it is a step closer to determining an appropriate approach to our health care system. The Complete Lives System is an ethically Justified and practical approach to health care because; it takes into account various practical approaches to healthcare, and it focuses on those able and capable to live a complete life with the public resources that they have used in the past. The Complete Lives system takes into account a variety of different principles used around the world.
Order custom essay Complete lives with free plagiarism report
As stated before, the core principle Is youngest first. The system focuses on "youngest first" by giving the priority to those between the ages of 15 and 40. The mall reason why this first approach Is ethically Justified Is that adolescents eve received substantial education and parental care, and these investments would be wasted without a chance at a complete life (Principles 6). These resources primarily schooling would be a waste if without aid necessary. Infants have not received this benefit so they should not be considered a factor for instrumental value.
They are also unable and incapable forming long term plans and values that some have already received before they turn 18. While alone this principle is impractical, the combination of prognosis and instrumental values makes this model ethically sound. Demand will always be larger than supply In the healthcare system it is almost an Inevitable factor when determining a correct model. The argument of which healthcare model should be used Is focused around who will receive the appropriate care, and who will be left out.
The abandonment of the "sickest first" Is ethically Justified based on the principle of prognosis. Factoring prognosis Into the model takes into account that large amounts of resources will not be use the majority of resources to those that can benefit the most? I believe so, and the tutors of this article also agree. If the care given to those terminally ill only give benefits of a couple of weeks or a few months compared to multiple years for those that are better off, it is hard to not see this as an ethically Justified model.
As I said before not every person is able to reap equal benefits of the healthcare system, no country possesses the resources capable of achieving this utopia. The most practical method is providing aid to those that can reap the most benefit from the care. Objections to the Complete Lives System is said to discriminate against older people. Everyone was once the age of 25 and able to seek the benefits of the system but why now that they are 65 that they cannot? Some tend to say that this is discrimination and "ageist".
The system was designed to give each person an equal responsibility of living a complete life, which has been accomplished at the age of 65. They have already had the chance to live a complete life and reap the benefits designed by society such as education e. T. C. When the system is maximized, it is designed to offer the greatest benefit to those that need it. An adolescent offers more infinite to society in the future then an elderly one would. As an economics major I have always thought to look at decisions based on the opportunity cost, or the cost associated with an alternative decision that is forgone.
What would be the opportunity cost of choosing to extend an elder life potentially 10 years, over an adolescent for maybe 50-60? Obviously it depends on the specific person but the benefit to society by one living another 50 years triumphs one that only has a few left. If the United States would switch to the Complete Lives system then my current enervation would benefit greatly from this change. We would be able to look forward to the high possibly of benefiting from a "complete" life.
It gives a sense of relief knowing that if I were to develop an ailment in the near future that I would be able to get the care I need to regain my quality of life. In contrast those that are past the age to be prioritize will not feel the same way about the system. One quote I found particularly interesting was the rule of rescue, "our moral response to the imminence of death demands that we rescue the doomed" (Principles 2). The Complete Lives System does not factor the sickest first, which usually is the elder generation.
Its hard to agree with the principle knowing that when I get older and my quality of life decreases, that I will not receive the same treatment as I once did. This is the only flaw of this system it does make you question whether or not it could be effective when it is put into action. Even with this flaw in the system it is still nice to know that the priority is given to those that have not lived a complete quality filled life. Recently I had a close family member of mine pass away at the age of 87. He had been dealing with various health problems the last 5 years or so and had been receiving pretty extensive medical care.
I definitely believe that under this system that he would not have received the same amount of care and most likely would not have lived as long. When the time came for my family and him to decide what the future plan of action would be, they decided he did not want to continue the treatment to only be in pain for maybe a couple extra months. When he passed it was very hard for all of us to accept the news and the decision but in the end it was to receiving the treatment he needed years ago under the Complete Lives System and looking at it now I probably would not want the system to apply.
I believe that this system is a step forward in the right direction for our healthcare system but any person is selfish in dealing with one of his or her own friends or family members. While I wouldn't have wanted the system to apply to my family member I could accept the fact knowing that the resources necessary too keep him alive could be better used on someone else to increase their quality of life. The Complete Lives System uses a variety of different principles to try and have a concise system in place to designate who receives the appropriate care.
At this time it would be hard to put a system like this into place in somewhere such as the United States, but if used appropriately for the correct system it could be considered as an ethical approach to this big question. Some of the opposing viewpoints accurately generate questions about various aspects of the Complete Lives, but I believe that it is a legitimate policy that factors in all aspects of morality.
Did you know that we have over 70,000 essays on 3,000 topics in our database?