Health care systems
I hear comparisons between the U.S. health care system and the European model all the time, and I find myself weighing the benefits of each. Is it better to have the best doctors and the best equipment but for only part of the population to have access to that know-how? Or is it better to have a decent, workable, but not really stellar, system which everyone has access to? The two systems are usually couched in financial terms, which highlights the unfairness of a system that allows the wealthy better health care than the poor. But I think it is also an ethical question about prolonging life. In the American system, the goal is absolutely to prolong life, to keep it going at all costs. When it fails, it fails spectacularly, after dramatic attempts at experimental treatments, after everyone has gotten their hopes up only to have them dashed. When it succeeds, it is a miracle, so much so that people stand back in amazement. I do not know enough about the the European (and Icelandic) system, but my impression is there is a greater willingness to accept the inevitability of decline, a resignation to the idea that something as complicated as the human body cannot in fact be controlled.
For those left behind after a death, both have their benefits. One can certainly take comfort in the idea that everything was done that could have been done. But one can also take comfort in the idea that life is always, no matter what, in God's hands.
Comments
But a lot of Americans belief that the health care system in the US boasts better technology and better doctors. I think that in many ways this is a view that has been held forth by conservatives who are against universal healthcare. They want people to belief that if the systems were to be changed the quality of care would diminish.
But this is just a myth, there is no truth to it. One of those "brainwashing myths" that seem to be so common. You can look at Scandinavia, Britain, France, Australia etc and find no difference.
Sometimes people are sent out of Iceland for treatment elsewhere but that is very rare. It has more to do with cost effectiveness, to treat something so rare elsewhere rather than maintain technology that is hardly ever used. Common for countries so small.
Another point, I think that when we are talking about prolonging life long after it would considered to be feasible it is not a question of technology but rather law, ethics and culture.
Hope we can organize something for march! How about late march and maybe meet at Solon or Caruso? I think both places have somewhat private rooms?
Disa :)