Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
Message-ID: <1828@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 01:17:06 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1828
Posted: Fri Nov 23 01:17:06 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Nov-84 05:43:10 EST
Lines: 40

#R:pyuxd:-27200:inmet:7800185:177600:2003
inmet!nrh    Nov 21 06:46:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 12:01 pm  Nov 18, 1984
>It seems to be the prevalent opinion that, as a compassionate and responsible
>society, we cannot let people die because they are too poor to pay for
>medical care. You can try to change this perception by writing about how
>silly this is, but in the meantime, you're stuck...

I believe he was writing about how silly it was to FORCE people to 
pay for the poor and sick.  If we are a "compassionate and
responsible" society, surely no force need be levelled against our 
citizens to accomplish this (save the force of moral obligation).

On the other hand, one hears often from those who would advance
goals (not allowing people to die because they cannot afford medical
care) without considering consequences (one must decide how much
money may be legitimately spent, and how much is "too much"
(for example -- should every person in jeopardy by a virus receive
the (last I heard) frighteningly expensive interferon?  

How much money should be spent on medical research, considering
that all the money in the world might not end death, and given
that one cannot spend all the money in the world in this attempt,
how can we (in conscience) limit medical spending?  After all,
another dollar spent might increase the average lifespan by a
fraction of a second.

How DARE we not spend every DIME on extending the human life span?
After all, some multi-millionaires cannot afford to send up in the Space
Shuttle raw materials for medicines that can only be made in
microgravity, but need they DIE, just because the multi-millionaires are
too poor to do this?

You get the drift, I'm sure -- every good cause (and every bad cause)
must compete for our attention.  The only excuse for not spending
everything on ONE cause is that resources are finite -- and there
are all these other causes.  Oddly, those who would leave choices
up to individuals tend to be criticised by those same people 
busily pointing out how "moral" society is.