Organ donation can replaced a failing organ such as a kidney, lung, or heart. Waiting for a compatible organ can take a lot of time, time which some people may not have. If the option was available would you decide to purchase an organ if that mean't not having to wait? In Canada the buying and selling of organs is illegal. This law however doesn't stop people from purchasing body parts abroad. If you were put in the position to purchase an organ outside of Canada to save a loved one or even yourself would you do it?
The world health organization stated "Payment for... organs is likely to take unfair advantage of the poorest and most vulnerable groups, undermines altruistic donation and leads to profiteering and human trafficking. Another consideration is that those living in poverty may decide to sell organs in order to support themselves and their families.
According to ER knowledge 93% of exploited commercial living donors sold a kidney to repay a debt and 85% reported no economic improvement in their lives as they were either still in debt or unable to achieve their objective in selling their kidney.
There is considerations that organs coming abroad may be through illegal organ trade by criminals who trick or kill people in order to profit. There is however medical tourist companies who harvest and sell organs humanely.
For many people who answered this question their decision was based on the circumstances. People who believed they would be supporting a poor family in need though it would be right. Others without considering if it was right or wrong said they would if it was for their child or themselves.
Would you be willing to purchase an organ from another country even if you didn't know the history and reason for the donation?
http://er.knowledge.ca/
http://www.who.int/en/
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Health Care Coverage
A lot of times when people think about health care coverage they compare Canada against the US. They consider medications and free health care. However health care coverage doesn't just address these areas. It can cover medical devices, treatment therapies, and other home care health services. The question is who decides what health care is covered and what isn't and why are treatment measures covered but preventative measures aren't?
An example of this shoes for diabetic clients, who are at risk of pressure ulcers and amputations. A pair of good shoes for a diabetic client can cost between 300-500 hundred dollars, which isn't covered by medical coverage. This client can't afford to pay for this product themselves and in the future require amputation of the foot since they had improper footwear. This client receives the operation which health care coverage will cover from 7,000-10,000 dollars. However this amputation could have been prevented by purchasing good quality diabetic shoes.
In regards to medications the majority of prescription drugs are covered depending on the health care and benefits you receive. Coverage can depend on what profession you have and the company that you are employeed with. A lot of people in Canada find it hard to access medications outside of the hospital due to the inflation of prices and little coverage. The majority of prescription medications are consumed by the geriatric population. Many must afford their medications through pension and retirement funds. There is a need for system sustainability in regards to medications, meaning to support continuing research and clinical trials many must pay the high prices on over the counter and prescription medications. Rare diseases have some of the highest costing treatments due to little consumption and use. In regards to common medications such as tylenol and gravol they are less expensive since they are more widely purchased.
Another issue is birth control. Most coverage regarding contraceptives involve the pill depending on the cover you have. Other forms of birth control including the nuvaring, condoms, and IUD's aren't affordable to teens. If a woman does get pregnant however, an abortion, which can cause between 400-600 dollars in the United States, is completely covered in Canada.
How come there is more coverage for treatment options, than preventive interventions, which in turn would cost less money in the long run? Wouldn't spending less money on treatments allow more money in other aspects of health care, such as being able to increase staff in hospitals and invest in new equipment and research.
An example of this shoes for diabetic clients, who are at risk of pressure ulcers and amputations. A pair of good shoes for a diabetic client can cost between 300-500 hundred dollars, which isn't covered by medical coverage. This client can't afford to pay for this product themselves and in the future require amputation of the foot since they had improper footwear. This client receives the operation which health care coverage will cover from 7,000-10,000 dollars. However this amputation could have been prevented by purchasing good quality diabetic shoes.
In regards to medications the majority of prescription drugs are covered depending on the health care and benefits you receive. Coverage can depend on what profession you have and the company that you are employeed with. A lot of people in Canada find it hard to access medications outside of the hospital due to the inflation of prices and little coverage. The majority of prescription medications are consumed by the geriatric population. Many must afford their medications through pension and retirement funds. There is a need for system sustainability in regards to medications, meaning to support continuing research and clinical trials many must pay the high prices on over the counter and prescription medications. Rare diseases have some of the highest costing treatments due to little consumption and use. In regards to common medications such as tylenol and gravol they are less expensive since they are more widely purchased.
Another issue is birth control. Most coverage regarding contraceptives involve the pill depending on the cover you have. Other forms of birth control including the nuvaring, condoms, and IUD's aren't affordable to teens. If a woman does get pregnant however, an abortion, which can cause between 400-600 dollars in the United States, is completely covered in Canada.
How come there is more coverage for treatment options, than preventive interventions, which in turn would cost less money in the long run? Wouldn't spending less money on treatments allow more money in other aspects of health care, such as being able to increase staff in hospitals and invest in new equipment and research.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)