In her letter “Age & organ transplants” (June 12 and TribLIVE.com), nurse Mona GaNung wished that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama's former chief health-care adviser, would use his influence on health care.
Too late — he already did, when he wrote along with two co-authors in the Jan. 31, 2009, edition of The Lancet: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. He wrote in the Hastings Center Report (November-December 1996) that medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens ... . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
The Lancet article he co-wrote also said: “Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.”
John R. McDonald Jr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- He’ll tax, we’ll pay
- Not clean enough
- Wolf’s taxes
- Renaming in order?
- Tarentum demolition
- Find hilarity in the headlines
- Export more oil
- Teachers’ rights
- ‘PC’ Ebola approach deadly
- Confidence in our courts
- Vandergrift killing Olmsted’s vision