Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).


This statement by Dr. Emanuel, IMO, is quite disturbing.

Ya... hopefully that dang oath won't get in the way of our new healthcare system.... ;)

BTW... Love the "REAPER CURVE".. lol.. unreal.

I don't think that his philosophy is entirely applicable but there is certainly some ideas worth considering.

As someone who is the same age as Senator Kennedy was, I agree with some of this thinking. If an older person has a cancer that has metastasized through their body, and is obviously incurable, applying the current cutting edge treatments is a waste medical resources. Why not just focus on pain and suffering and make the final time comfortable. We really need to recognize when a treatment is useless and unless the patient spends his/her own money, medical care should be adjusted.

Actually, insurance companies do this all the time. I have a friend who is a retired doctor that makes these decisions as an employee of a health insurance company.

Sounds a bit like Soylent Green?

I choose Beethoven's Seventh.