This story is about the "National Health Service" in Scotland not allowing a treatment to prolong the life of cancer patients simply because it costs too much money. But should the Scotland "National Health Serviice" or anyone else be able to play God?
I was in favor of a universal health care system in the US. I've watched closely at what both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have proposed to establish a universal health care system in the US, if either one of them become President. But ,now after reading this story ,about what has transpired in Scotland, I am having reservations and second thoughts. I wonder now, if the same thing that happened in Scotland, could happen here in the US, if we go to a universal health care system.
My heart goes out to those cancer victims in Scotland, and their families, who now must watch their loved ones suffer needlessly because the Scotland "National Health System" simply doesn't want to spend the money on a drug that has been proven to work and is available to all US cancer patients.
What seems harsh to me here is the fact that the average Scotch worker would be pre-cluded from being able to afford private health care, because they could not afford to contribute both their tax dollars to the "National Health Service" and their remaining earnings to a private plan. The article states that the "National Health Service" is spending the available money for the benefit of the majority and that the cancer victims more or less have to be sacrificed (my own choice of words) for the good of all.
It amazes me that nations always seem to find the money for wars, no matter how high the price tag, yet health care is budgeted even if people die because of it. Anyway, this is something going on in Scotland, that we in the US, of course have no control over. But as we ponder the prospects of adopting universal health care in the US, we should at least wonder if we too would end up with a "National Health Service" that too would play God.
