Economics is the ___ science?
This is ugly business. They’re quoting a doctor who specializes in pancreatic and gastrointestinal surgery as saying (1) that it’s common for someone who had the cancer Jobs had to subsequently get cancer in their liver; (2) that liver transplants are not proven to help in such cases; and (3) obtaining a liver transplant in such cases is therefore controversial because it’s taking a liver that could otherwise have been put to better use by someone with some other type of liver ailment. There is no other way to read this than as an implication that Steve Jobs may have gotten a liver that should have gone to someone else.
“This is ugly business.” By which we mean:
–That there are not now, nor will there ever be, enough livers for everybody?
–That this will always be the case, no matter how much money, especially other people’s money, is thrown at the problem?
–That choices therefore have to be made, and that health care resources therefore have to be rationed — just like every other good and service throughout the rest of the economy?
–That the only real question is therefore who gets to make the choices, for whom, and by what standard?
I guess economics is not only the dismal science, but also the ugly science too.
Via Kevin, MD.
1 response so far ↓
Link Brandon Berg // Jun 28, 2009 at 1:30 am
Actually, a partial liver will regenerate, so a piece can be taken from a living donor and transplanted. It's not as safe as kidney donation (liver donation has a fatality rate of about half a percent), but it's low enough that I think that cash payments could persuade enough people to eliminate the need for any kind of rationing.