So the question is; is one person really more deserving of medical treatment than another? Despite all of the grumblings to the contrary the answer has to be no. (What irritates me in particular in the linked article was the fact that the author categorically said that there should not be scapegoats should the NHS ration care yet what she herself proposes is replacing one scapegoat - the elderly - with a different one - the obese - which is just as bad.) Yes a person who has emphysema after years of chain smoking or someone who is twenty stone through over eating has done this to themselves, they have done it with a full knowledge of the risks, there was never a doubt about where it would end. And it is not fair that the elderly are being maltreated, ignored, denied basic care especially when they haven't done anything to cause their need for extra care apart from live to a ripe old age. But no matter how much we personally may disagree and disapprove of another person's choices these things do not change the fact that we all share the same innate dignity. We are, all of us, created in the image and likeness of God, all loved and cared for by Him and this never, ever changes whether we are young or old, obese or skinny, a smoker or non-smoker. Because of this dignity, the beautiful gift of life, the very marvel of our own creation we are all worthy of the same treatment, the same respect, the same love and care as everyone else. (This is why I get upset with myself when I think unfair things about others like that mentioned above...and spend half my life in Confession...) I totally agree that it is wrong that the elderly are marginalised when it comes to medical care but we do not improve things, make them any fairer or easier by inflicting that on someone else instead.
Nicely put!
ReplyDeleteWhat is often overlooked is that the "resource wasting" people who present with illness associated with smoking, overeating, drug abuse, etc. often engage in these damaging behaviours because they are psychologically unwell in the first place. The substance merely becomes a valid (if unfortunate) way of coping with underlying emotional distress.
One could also ask where we should draw the line when refusing treatment to people who are apparently responsible for their own poor health. What about someone who lives amongst smokers and develops lung cancer through passive smoking? What about the person who nips across the road without looking carefully enough and sustains terrible injuries after being hit by a vehicle? What about those who participate in "risky" sports and end up paralysed or losing limbs?
It's easy for the media to point the finger at people who have made what they consider to be poor choices, but they must remember that by calling for certain groups to be denied treatment, they are almost certainly going to be damning someone they love and care about along the way.
I'm a bit late commenting on this, but there's an interesting book been recently published by Damian Thompson (of the Catholic Herald) called "The Fix" about how our society pushes and feeds addiction of every type - food being one, unnecessary medication another.
ReplyDeleteSo the person who overeats is being given every enticement on the one hand to get hooked on the worst types of food, and is then given a good dose of moral disapproval by the very same people who've been encouraging them to get addicted in other ways.