GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: We don’t want to pay for oldies, say Belgians

domingo, 24 de marzo de 2019

BioEdge: We don’t want to pay for oldies, say Belgians

BioEdge: We don’t want to pay for oldies, say Belgians

Bioedge

We don’t want to pay for oldies, say Belgians

by Michael Cook | 24 Mar 2019 |

According to reports in the Belgian media of a survey of attitudes towards health care, 40% of Belgians (more amongst Dutch-speakers than French-speakers) believe that the social security expenses need to be kept in check "by no longer administering costly treatments that prolong the lives of over-85s".

The obvious consequence of this, notes Le Soir newspaper, would be a two-tier health system. Poorer patients would have to make do with government medicine; wealthier patients would be able to cover the cost of operations and medicines. Le Soir says that in the Netherlands, pacemakers are no longer provided for people over 75.

By comparison, only 17% are in favour of withholding subsidies for illnesses that are the consequence of personal behaviour such as smoking or obesity.

Clearly ageism is at work. According to the survey, 69% of Belgians consider it legitimate to spend 50,000 euros for a life-saving treatment, but only 28% agree if a patient is over 85 years old. Dutch speakers are much more likely to exclude people over 85 from more expensive care. "These percentages in favour of exclusion are shocking," notes Professor Mark Elchardus, who led the investigation for Inami, the Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

This is not an appropriate venue for a discussion of my age, but I think that most readers will sympathise with my occasional interest in turning the clock back a few years. What if the hoary adage, "you're only as old as you feel", could have the force of law?

Last year, a flamboyant positivity guru tested this theory in a Dutch court by applying to have his legal age changed from 69 to 49. To no one's surprise, he lost, but the reasoning for the adverse judgement was peculiar (as reported in the media, anyway). The court declared that too much government paperwork depends upon an agreed biological age. At a time when self-identification for gender is widely accepted, this line of reasoning is surprisingly weak.

Which brings me to an intriguing article in the Journal of Medical Ethics (see below) which supports the notion of self-defining age. The author bases it on the need to prevent discrimination on the basis of age, or ageism. I wonder how the courts will respond to this argument.