Interesting article published today in the L.A. Times about dialysis treatment for illegal immigrants in California and other states:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-dialysis29-2008oct29,0,5272809,full.story
If Mexico can only provide Toribio treatment if she is able to provide enough cash, should U.S. hospitals treat her? Deporting her to Mexico may likely result in renal failure and death from the lack of viable treatment, but treating her here will create a "burden" for tax paying Californians. The article mentions that the United States can't treat the world, especially for dialysis, which can be costly. But is the U.S. treating the world, or simply helping a marginalized group fleeing economic and social struggle?
I am of the opinion that it is the moral obligation of our country to provide treatment for illegal immigrants, though seemingly costly. And for those who have "embraced their inner capitalist" dialysis treatment outside of the ER is cheaper, so really everybody wins...but not quite.
Of course, the argument remains that we ought to instead deport illegal immigrants-after all they are NOT Americans and DO NOT have the birthrights which come with being born on American soil. I do not think that this perspective is without merit. It solves the problem, in a sense. The economic burden is lifted off taxpayer’s shoulders, and hospitals don't have to worry about long term costly treatment, just enough treatment to get the patient back to their home country-that patch of soil on which they were born. Yet in reality, the problem isn't solved, because the problem is human suffering. Toribio would not be magically cured upon flying into Mexican airspace. It is in the interest of all humanity, perhaps physicians most of all, to prevent suffering which can be avoided.
Many who feel inwardly perturbed by the prospect of treating illegal immigrants with tax dollars understand something very important: the healthcare system isn't working properly. Treating Toribio and other illegal immigrants isn't right because the system is wrong: we need a means of absorbing marginalized individuals like Toribio for the long term, in a manner that will not create an unsustainable burden. But for now, how can we send a patient to preventable death?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Wow, Steve, well said.
ReplyDeleteAs I read this article, I just thought, "What are we trying to accomplish here?" I'm getting weary of so many articles talking about saving money...of course, we DO need to control costs. But isn't money the means to an end, and not the end itself? I thought society created money so we could trade more easily. Trade 8 hours of work a day for dialysis, for example. So why do we focus so explicitly on merely saving money, without talking about what that money is buying us?
I am also concerned about the portrayal of healthcare spending as a choice between two options: for example, treat Toribio or treat a child dying of cancer? I think there are more options; I don't think we can pretend there is no waste in this country. Can we really allow this 29 year old to die so that we can have our HDTVs and squeaky new sneakers (or your favorite unnecessary item of choice: non-food, clothing, shelter)?
I can't say it as eloquently as Steve, but I think he points out many of the logical fallacies inherent in these arguments against treatment of immigrants: the domino theory that once you treat one person, the whole of Mexico will show up, or the argument that sending a person to another country somehow negates our responsibility, as human beings, to help other human beings who are suffering.
Many of us are around the age of Toribio. I try to think of myself as being tied to a machine to stay alive. This is frightening, but I think I might be able to get used to living this way, as long as I can trust that machine to always be there for me.
And then I try to think of myself as someone totally dependent on the mercy of a foreign government--the decision of whether I will live or die completely out of my power. Tomorrow, they can send me home; if they do, I will die before I turn 30. And I can't actually think of myself in that situation...there is way too much fear in that thought to even approach it.
Isn't there a way to sacrifice things, instead of people?