Should the Health American Care System Continuously Strive to Extend Life?
Do you need academic writing help with your homework? Let us write your papers.
Order a Similar Paper
Order a Different Paper
As you know we have been looking at the pressures on the budgetary process and how that pressure can and does affect the policy making deciders. A week ago we looked at the issue of aging and discussed the high percentage of costs that go into the final years of life for our aging population.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines
Order Paper NowPerhaps we need to explore the issue from a cost saving and, if possible, philosophical perspective. I would like you to read the two articles listed below:
Should the Health American Care System Continuously Strive to Extend Life?
Yes: Miguel Faria, from “Bioethics and Why I Hope to Live Beyond Age 75 Attaining Wisdom!—A Rebuttal to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s 75 Age Limit,” haciendapublishing.com (2014)
No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, from “Why I Hope to Die at 75: An Argument That Society and Families—and You—Will Be Better Off if Nature Takes Its Course Swiftly and Promptly,” The Atlantic (2014)
Physician Miguel Faria contends that lives can be productive and fulfilling and worthwhile past age 75 and that there is a difference between aging and infirmity and illness.
Physician, bioethicist, and vice provost of the University of Pennsylvania Ezekiel J. Emanuel disagrees and claims that society and families would be better off if we died at 75 rather than be incapacitated and unable to live a full life.
I excerpted this from another textbook. What I am asking you to do is to read the two articles. Once you have done that you need to prepare a 5 page or so analysis of the policy implications here- APA writing style. If Emanuel is correct then life is really not worth living due to the hardships of life and nature. If Faria is correct then arguably life is worth living in a limited sense and the cost would be a very significant for the population.
So, here is your question, What do we do as a policy? Should we have single payer health for all people up to age 75 and then perhaps employ deductibles? Perhaps remove medicare B from healthcare based upon the fact that any real treatment after that is really futile…. In essence how should our economy try and balance, if feasible, the dilemma of technology, morality and the costs of extended care. These costs are multiple… e.g. spiritual, economic, ethical etc. Please be thoughtful in your response. Please cite at least three sources.
