Free Penthouse Rejects

Who determines the value of a human life?

With all the discussion about healthcare, you get to a point where it raises the question: "What is the value of a human life?"

Who can, who can determine whether the preservation of human life, with 100,000 or a million francs will be limited. For a caring health system, as exists in Switzerland you cross time soon after politics. Not because the doctors do not trust them or nachsagt secret, they would operate too much. The policy is the one instance that ultimately distributes the money. Thus, it has a decisive veto .. It is by a recent ruling by the Federal Court supports such that the compulsory basic insurance does not have to take any medical therapy. Despite continually rising health insurance premiums so no unlimited resources are the therapy of diseases.

Swissinfo quoted this decision the federal judge with an example: It had to judge whether a health insurance company for payment of the drug Myozyme for Pompe disease may be required. The annual cost per person amounted to around half a million francs. The annual cost per person is around half a million francs. The court found several reasons for the rejection of the remedy, which is not listed on the specialty list. So for Myozyme is not a high therapeutic benefit was reported. ( Swissinfo )

Ergo this results in practice, a regulation of the means used. We can not pay all that is possible. In a nutshell - the available funds are as fair as possible to distribute, so that costs do not run totally out of control. The BG speaks of proportionality. The higher the therapeutic benefit may be, the higher will be the cost say the cash.

I know from personal experience, for example, that the consideration for transplantation of a donor heart in the small number of annual available 25 - max. 30 donor hearts is not necessarily intended for a 60-year-old. Here it is both understandable if you are more oriented to a father in middle age. This is perhaps at first a shock to those affected, but the consensus as mentioned above, understandable. Whether it is humanly feasible, is another piece of paper.

has today nearly one in two senior a hip replacement or other joint replacement value. Here, the doctors can not take the decision out of hand. But when it comes to specific treatments, which cost several hundred thousand francs per year and may be refused only reason we should not themselves have to decide for the patient, the patient is currently the treatment of the most important person for us. For that person, we want to do everything we can. In such cases, we can not be both judge and party. "

be whether there are future for such action rules, I would personally doubt still more. Who says "Because yes, there no". come here to carry a moral authority that can hold not just in ceilings.

The first steps had happened politically long ago. So be at the Federal Office of Public Health initiative under way to establish an institution that measures the cost effectiveness of medical checks and they are funded or not. You try to ethical way to deal with these issues, as otherwise saved for those people will know that they defend themselves the least, or can. By the way, is already in the total health care costs so included not only health and healing, but also education, training and research. Not to mention the labor input and costs of employees.

The policy puts the answer to that question long before him. Too long for my taste. How hot coals they are transferred from the predecessor to the / successors. Definitive, innovative solutions are missing today. Human worth is seen every life to be saved. Questions still remain unanswered enough. The voter can still see the policy determine / select, but he himself would take such a high ethical responsibility, if it were up to the limitation of health care or a related person?

57 percent of Swiss want the unity fund (Tagesanzeiger.ch)
The introduction of a single fund would, according to an online survey a good chance.