The Darker and Brighter Sides of Medicine
The very fact that physicians are beginning to consider the triage of of the dead and dying in a pandemic is more than a little frightening. It acknowledges that the idea of a pandemic itself from SARS and other flu-type diseases has begun to enter the zeitgeist of the masses. 
Curiously, the article fails to make any connection between a doomsday scenario where "'everybody will be thinking in the same way' when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits . . . to make sure that scarce resources — including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses — are used in a uniform, objective way" and the implications for the socialized medicine that the Democratic Candidates are advocating.
The Associated Press (via Yahoo News) brings us this glimpse of Doomsday:
"If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states.
To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:_People older than 85.
_Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
_Severely burned patients older than 60.
_Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
_Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield." The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force.
If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said.
A "political and legal minefield???" How about Ethical? I'm struck by the similarity of this list to the list of those elegible for Concentration Camps under Nazi rule in WWII. "Mental Defectives?" Those who "present a drain of limited supplies?" I work at a Dialysis Clinic. In case of a pandemic, do we just shut down the dialysis clinics as "a drain of limited supplies" and let millions of people die?
And at what point do these rules kick into play?
At the polar opposite of this scale is Wal-Mart, who has decided to take it's much heralded program to bring inexpensive medications to the masses and expand it!
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, announced Monday it would expand its discounted prescription drug program to offer 90-day supplies for $10 and add several women's medications at a discount. It also said it would lower the price of more than 1,000 over-the-counter drugs.
With the expansion, the company began filling prescriptions Monday for up to 350 generic medications at $10 for a 90-day supply at Wal-Mart, Neighborhood Market and Sam's Club pharmacies in the U.S. Almost all the prescription generics in the company's $4 program were included in the expanded $10 offer, said Wal-Mart senior vice president John Agwunobi.
In addition, the company will add several women's medications to its list of prescriptions available for $9, including drugs to treat breast cancer and hormone deficiency.
The difference here is that these "Pandemic Planners" are anticipating a worst-case scenario with apocalyptic implications. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, believes in the empowerment of the people with reasonably priced medications to do the right thing and take care of their own health.
Which appeals to you more?
(Take THAT, Wal-Mart haters!)
By the Way: If you want more information (such as a List of these inexpensive medications), CLICK HERE.
~~JD~~
