In a pretty bad mood suddenly; a tree fell on my apartment, and the electric company swung by and turned off the power (I can't blame them; as-is was very dangerous). Landlord: out of the country, so it may be awhile until a work crew is summonable to remove the tree so power can be restored. No internet at home = grumbly! All I could do is sweep the bits of tree that missed the roof off the sidewalk. Added minus: I wanted to do laundry tonight, which is now out of the question. I hope I can find some clean things to wear to work tomorrow. Also, everything in my fridge might go bad. Gah.
Looking over some more PDFs I've stashed over the years, I've been reading about the ethics of healthcare. The author starts with the (obvious) idea that rationing of care given limited resources is part of the field, no matter who's making the financial decisions (insurance companies, public systems, private citizens paying out of pocket, whatever). One of the more interesting contrasts he drew was between a massive (and expensive) rescue effort mounted to rescue someone who tried to sail around the world (whose efforts failed due to hurricane-level winds), and funding for relatively unexciting medicines that reduce the likelihood of death from certain common conditions. He did the math, and showed there to be a greater cost/life efficiency for a specific case of the latter, and noted that we routinely don't fund these kinds of medicines but are willing to spend a lot of money on the occasional rescue. Does this make sense? ( Read more...Collapse )