Cutting Medical Costs of Death to Provide More Care for Living

Schram claims that he would cut the cost of death to provide health care for the living. On the surface, it may be a worthwhile goal. But the actions which he advocates do not cut the cost of death, they merely shorten the lives of terminally ill patients.

First, it is impossible to predict when a patient will die with any accuracy even in the case of the terminally ill. New drugs and techniques are often tested on the terminally ill. Experiments on the very ill expand treatment possibilities for society.

My younger brother died in November of AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Before the hospital began chemotherapy, he signed papers to the effect that he would not be placed on life support systems. Many patients refuse life support when they believe there is no hope. However, in reality there was no hope once my brother received the AIDS diagnosis. Should he have been refused treatment? Without it he would have died years ago. When the decision to die was made, it was his own.

Schram’s argument is erroneous. He points to a patient whose life was prolonged and says, patient X died so our money was wasted. That is easy to do after the patient is dead. But to use the argument Schram must ignore all of the patients who survived an illness or injury.

It should remain the decision of the terminally ill to decide how far treatment should go.

JONI DAHLSTROM

Santa Barbara