[quote author=aquascoot link=1356911027/39#39 date=1357006388]gold . i can see your point but let me give you quite a common scenario.
a homeless alcoholic with no next of kin will fall over and crack his skull and has a deep brain bleed
now here is a guy society has absolutely and totally ignored , except perhaps the salvos
![Wink Wink](http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif)
.
now he will arrive in casualty and the doctors will know that he is going to be a vegetable after checking the scans.
he will then be transferred to an ICU where he may well last a few weeks and will have maybe $50,000 spent on him (of which he is totally unaware as he is in a coma).
now wouldnt it have been more sensible to spend that $50,000 on him to provide him with some of the basics like food and shelter.
i have trouble understanding how the current system is sensible in this regard and i think the public need to be involved in a debate on if they want spending early on "quality of life" or late on "prolonging life" its a difficult question.[/quote]
i would oppose that to my last breath. it all sounds nice and good when you are young and heathly but when you are older...? not so happy, wondering if some 25yo doctor is going to determine if you live or die. or your estranged family etc.
we value all life or we diminish everyone. the right to life it THE PRE-EMINENT human right. when we screw around with that, we devalue the rest of our rights as well. The homeless man deserves the same treatment that a PM does and one thing about Australia that has set us apart from so many other countries is that IS how we treat people.
while pansi is off lauding Thai hospitals she conveniently forgets that they treat those who can pay - and no one else. thousands die on the roads outside those hospitals because they cannot afford to pay. is that really the state we want to acheive?