how aggressively would you treat a terminal illness?

<p>These issues are very sticky. My folks are in their 80s. Dad is still working full-time because he LOVES it and in excellent health, as is mom. So far, both have excellent quality of life. Dad has an uncle who died at 107+ (his uncle had been playing doubles tennis and teaching at our flagship U through his 90s); should that be held against him? Mom is the last of her sibblings still alive; should that be held against her?</p>

<p>Should there be some maximum limit that people spend down against (lifetime maximum cap), after which they pay a higher co-pay? Is that “fair” to penalize folks who have conditions that are more expensive to treat than others? What about premies who are born many, many weeks too early and spend months and longer in the hospital at the beginning of life? Who decides how much care is too costly?</p>

<p>Thoughtful discussions get very colored by emotion when lives are involved and rational discussion becomes difficult.</p>

<p>Personalized medicine with the human genome may SOMEDAY help to pinpoint preciselyl which treatments are most effective for which conditions. Not sure how far off that is with other conditions, but with lung diseases, we have a VERY long ways to go.</p>

<p>Scoutsmom, Cardinal Fang, and HImom - all good points. But note: I’m not suggesting that medical care be banned for the elderly, but that the necessary government rationing of what we spend subsidizing the cost of medical care take advanced age into account. If a person wants to spend every possible cent on extending their life, I say that’s their business. If they spend every last cent and still want expensive care, then fine, they qualify. But what we do now is subsidize expensive medical care for those who have already lived a full life and have funds of their own, while children and “working-poor” young adults go without basic preventive health care. </p>

<p>I agree that there’s no “easy” formula" - but the formula we’re using is plainly irrational. If we had infinite resources to devote to giving every single human being the absolute best medical care from cradle to grave the analysis would be different. But we don’t. There has to be some way of rationing that care. That’s why it’s dumb to arbitrarily subsidize health care for the people for whom we typically get the least “bang for our buck” while leaving the young on a “pay as you go” basis. </p>

<p>Let me put in in a simple format: Scoutmom’s grandmother is 90 and her doctor suggests that she get a hip replacement. Joe Dirt is 19 and needs an MRI. You’ve only got enough money to pay for one. Which do you choose? Right now we choose grandma. Does that make sense? </p>

<p>Is 80 arbitrary? Of course. We use arbitrary ages all the time. Kids get kicked out of foster care at 18, tossed off their parent’s health insurance at 26. We have arbitrary age cutoffs for the right to vote, to drive, to be elected to office, to defer withdrawal from IRAs, to receive Medicare, Social Security, etc. I’ll repeat: I’m not saying that old people should be denied medical care. I’m saying that society’s responsibility to subsidize that care should taper off after Grandma has lived a full life, so we can devote more resources to the needs of Joe.</p>

<p>I play tennis with a woman who is 82. She plays doubles four or five times a week. Age is just a number. Rather than cut care options Based on age, I would up co-pays and treatment costs for those whose medical conditions are their own fault. Smokers with emphysema or lung cancer, obese with Type II diabetes, alcoholics with liver failure, etc. There should be no reason why the rest of us should pay for those who care so little for their own health.</p>

<p>There should be no reason why the rest of us should pay for those who care so little for their own health.</p>

<p>Don’t forget investment bankers with heart attacks, alcoholism, eating disorders & Crohn’s Disease & office workers who regularly clock overtime with obesity related disease, like diabetes.</p>

<p>TatinG: How about people who smoked in their youth but quit - and got lung cancer anyway (like my MIL) Just how much overweight do you have to be for diabetes to be “your fault?” And if you’re just a miserable, judgmental SOB, should dealing with your ulcer be on you? :D</p>

<p>I’m not proposing to “punish” or judge anyone. I’m just saying that after having your health care subsidized for the first 80 years of your life, you should start paying for more of it yourself, rather than the other way around.</p>

<p>There are 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 who have emphysema and chronic bronchitis through no known cause. What about those who have the hereditary form of emphysema? What about those who quit smoking decades before they started developing symptoms? Which of those folks should get the $1 million lung transplant without having to pay from own assets (if any)? What about people who have liver failure because of drug interactions or side effects?</p>

<p>As a practical matter, many/most 80+ year olders won’t be able to pay for the expensive medical treatments, so then who pays? If there is no coverage, does the patient then not get any treatment? What about early life care, like those premies? These are issues that our government has shied away from, as long as the patient has whatever coverage, the patient can have the treatment provided by the coverage.</p>

<p>Which conditions are the patient’s fault and should not be covered and which are random and should be covered? </p>

<p>Which conditions should be attributed to smoking–the following have been linked:
cancer (all kinds)
heart problems
diabetes
asthma
emphysema
chronic bronchitis</p>

<p>Does it mean if the person had one puff or smoked one cigarette, s/he thereafter CAUSED any of these conditions? If not one, how many & how recently?</p>

<p>I am not going to ask what comes first the chicken or the egg because my daughter already answered that.
[We</a> Draw January | Jess: Chicken or Egg? I?ve always thought this…](<a href=“Jess: Chicken or Egg? I’ve always thought this... - We Draw January”>Jess: Chicken or Egg? I’ve always thought this... - We Draw January)
But for instance I have fibromyalgia, osteoporosis & arthritis.
Exercise helps those conditions, but those conditions make exercise very difficult.
Should my health care be covered? How much exercise do I need to do before it is? Who is going to keep track?</p>

<p>People who play tennis into their 80s aren’t able to do so because they have always made the right health choices. They may just have great genes. Should we penalize the people who don’t?</p>

<p>We aren’t all George Burns
[George at 98](<a href=“The Ultimate Cigar Aficionado | Cigar Aficionado”>http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/The-Ultimate-Cigar-Aficionado_6004&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>There’s no straight line correlation between being overweight and having diabetes either. Heredity plays a huge role in the development of diabetes, and sometimes it’s just dumb (bad) luck. I know - I was diagnosed with diabetes at 47 with NONE of the risk factors, except that one of my parents had the disease. </p>

<p>Sorry, but even the most environmental of diseases is complicated, and rarely is disease ALL your own fault. pet peeve rant: I am really tired of people using “diabetic” as a shorthand for “lazy,” “fat,” and/or “stupid,” since I am diabetic but am not any of those other things.</p>

<p>I have stage 4 colon cancer and did nothing to “cause” this disease. I have never smoked, don’t really drink, eat a pretty healthy diet, and exercise regularly. I have battling cancer for five years and am currently 53 years old. I thought I was cured a couple of years ago only to have the cancer return in my lungs. I’ve had a couple of surgeries on my lungs and I am again doing well. (knocking wood) I plan on continuing to treat my cancer aggressively. My feeling is that if you can get a couple more years you never know what cure will come around during that time.</p>

<p>I don’t think you’d know what you’d do until you were faced with the situation.</p>

<p>Individual medical policies cost more if one is obese or smokes, for example. I’m just saying that it makes more sense to incentivize people to have better health habits by increasing co-pays or having the obese or smokers pay more out of pocket than penalizing those who just got old. In the first instance, we have control. Getting older should not be penalized.</p>

<p>An acquaintance of ours has been diagnosed with lung cancer. Never smoked anything. Has young grandchildren. She is fighting with all she has to get better or at least to see a few more years.</p>

<p>My mother had CLL. She fought. ONE WEEK after I buried her they announced a new drug for CLL.</p>

<p>I have survived breast and thyroid cancer…five years. I have another issue. I don’t have grandchildren yet. I’m in it for the long haul. </p>

<p>“You live…you live longer.” Maybe, should I be so fortunate to live to my 90s I might have a different perspective. But for now…I’m in it, as is our acquaintance for the long haul.</p>

<p>

But should it be rewarded? Like I said above, society pays for a 90 year old’s hip replacement but not a 29 year old’s MRI. Why shouldn’t grandma have to pay for her own medical care (if she can afford it) when Joe Dirt has to?</p>

<p>I’m still waiting for a coherent answer to that question.</p>

<p>Kluge,
Perhaps there is a tendency to think that since grandma is too old to work, she should not have to pay for it???</p>

<p>Anyway, this is such an important discussion for all reasons, ranging from political to spiritual to financial to emotional, to familial…</p>

<p>Knowing how to deal with old age, with terminal disease does not just “happen.” And, while each case is different, going down the learning curve individually with all this seems to be a pretty inefficient approach.
My personal experience with all this started when my super-healthy 77 year old mom was diagnosed with Stage 4 of a very rare, never really ID’d type of cancer. There were no warnings, no symptoms, no other tumors, except the metastic ones they discovered in her spine after a neck-ache!</p>

<p>This was a HUGE shock, as we all expected my mother to outlive my father by a long shot for many reasons. In her case, the oncologists at one of the top 5 cancer centers re-diagnosed her, and then turned her away and said she should get her affairs in order. She and we were so confused… ? NO treatment for her? Well, they said she could do nothing to save her life, that she was too far along, and that there were no treatments for the types of cancers she may have had, and that any chemo would at best extend her life by 2-3 months. Meanwhile she was feeling FINE, and really wanted, needed to do something to fight this disease!</p>

<p>Yet her wish was not to travel around looking for new treatments and clinical trials. And my father refused to consider alternative treatments, most of which would have entailed travel, anyway. On and on, these wishes circumscribed what actually happened. How informed were my parents about the medical issues- not very! The availability of chemo options was very limited in the area where she lived, so that was another factor…</p>

<p>Anyway, she was put on chemo locally and had a good three months, then began to decline, lose her hair, and such, at which time the chemo was stopped. Then she lived another four months, and while it was not super painful, it was a living hell for her. My father never really understood that she was unhappy being alive if it meant being a weak bed-ridden invalid. He seemed to need to feel that he was keeping her going, the extending her life at all costs was the goal… Meanwhile, I personally think the chemo may have killed her, not the cancer. Who knows, that may have been a mercy since tumors in bones create nightmarish pain and breaks, and that never happened to her, thankfully…</p>

<p>The experience with hospice was interesting. She held on to life (as it was) at home until I was able to help her organize her possessions, but then wanted to go to the local hospice. This was her signal that she needed to leave this life. By then, she and my father had dealt with all the legal aspects, and it was just a question of time. But he kept trying to get food into her, which revealed his urge to keep her alive.
He was very very upset about the hospice experience, but this may have been my mother’s choice, as discussed by many others above. He felt they drugged her up with much too much stuff as soon as she got there- he says she was already gone and she never came back from that super-medicated state, and he never really got to say good bye. She passed away during the short time my father was not present at her bedside, although other family members were there. I think she was also very worried about how he would go on take care of himself without her…</p>

<p>Death is such a complicated thing. As a society, we need to have much more exposure to it, the options, the process, the legal choices, the spiritual attitudes, the medical techniques… My family went through a crash course in cancer, then in death in one long and agonizing year. It has changed me forever, but I wish I had known more before it all started.</p>

<p>To all here, a good life, AND a good death.
Be informed. Enjoy every minute. Be prepared.
And exercise your choices!</p>

<p>Most of the time, grandma can’t afford her overpriced medical care. What 90 year old can pay the 100,000+ that most of these procedures cost?</p>

<p>The 29 year old has insurance and many earning years ahead of him. He might have to pay 20 grand for his co-pay, but he will be able to make it up. Grandma is already living on a fixed income, and once her savings runs out, there is no more. One has to be fairly wealthy (1%) to be able to afford medical care at today’s prices. </p>

<p>Personally, I’d like to see the day when we don’t have to choose between grandma and the 29 year old. I think there is a way. I just don’t think we have the will, as a society to make the required changes in our tax structure or in the way our care is administered through our for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. The entire system is just too expensive. </p>

<p>I just received a bill for the monthly medication that is keeping my disease stable.<br>
I receive three injections a month. Three shots. They are billed at $1900 apiece. The agreement for in-network care chops off a portion of that, and I’m left with $3200 a month. I’m 61, healthy except for this one issue and fortunately have a DH who still has some earning years left. But that’s a huge amount of money for people to come up with, whether they are 29, 61 or 90. Why are drugs so expensive in the US when those same drugs can be had much cheaper in Canada and Europe? And why should any 29 year old be denied an MRI when the CEO of his insurance company makes millions a year?</p>

<p>*The 29 year old has insurance and many earning years ahead of him. *</p>

<p>Many workers don’t have ins. I am not sure if my 29 yr old daughter has it or not- she is currently in grad school, but before grad school, her job didn’t give her enough hours for coverage.</p>

<p>With temporary workers on the rise, we need affordable health insurance for everyone.
[Business</a> & Technology | Temp jobs likely here to stay | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017551887_tempworkers20.html]Business”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017551887_tempworkers20.html)</p>

<p>Yes, we need affordable health care for everyone. I’m not so sure private insurance is really a cost-effective way to go for the country as a whole- but given that insurance companies are not going anywhere soon, I agree we need affordable health insurance for everyone.</p>

<p>

“About 21 million people ages 18 to 34 have no health insurance, according to Young Invincibles, a national advocacy group for 18- to 34-year olds. That age group accounts for 42 percent of uninsured Americans under age 65.” I can’t vouch for th accuracy of that statistic, but it seem reasonable. Medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. Major medical expenses are no laughing matter for the young.

That’s why I suggested that the subsidy for the elderly should ramp down, with a means test for those who can’t afford it. By subsidizing health care for all elderly we’re just pumping up the inheritances of people whose extreme medical care is paid for by society. If you’re old and rich you can choose between a new hip or leaving more cash to Johnnie Jr. I have no problem with substituting that decision from a young family choosing between paying the medical bills or paying the rent.</p>

<p>Again - does that really make sense?</p>

<p>I don’t see how age enters into it. We shouldn’t be giving hip replacements and knee replacements to elderly people who will never get out of bed out after the surgery, but we also shouldn’t be paying for NICU care for desperately ill babies just to prolong their horribly painful lives another two weeks. And we shouldn’t be paying for painful chemotherapy to give someone a horrible three months of miserable life instead of a chemo-free one month of life, if they don’t want the chemo. </p>

<p>We shouldn’t be paying for cardiac stents, in the cases (many many of them) when research shows the stent does nothing to extend life or health.</p>

<p>And we shouldn’t be paying for expensive tests and surgery for women dying of cancer, when their doctor says the tests can’t possibly tell anything useful. (This happened with an in-law of mine. She was dying of cancer. She insisted on some sort of expensive test or surgery, I forget what, though it was clear nothing could be done in her case. She had the test and died a week later.)</p>

<p>What I’m saying is, we need to go for the low-hanging fruit first. We need to figure out how to deny unnecessary care, especially unnecessary care to people who are dying, and we need to figure out how to deny useless care even when the patient insists on it.</p>

<p>60 Minutes had a story on last night. Some studies show that moderate depression isn’t helped at all with drug treatment. The studies showed that exercise had the same mood elevating results. British NHS is no longer going to pay for those prescriptions, ie. Paxil for moderate depression. </p>

<p>There are probably lots of unnecessary prescriptions written based on either flawed studies or flawed diagnosis. Could be some of that low hanging fruit.</p>