>>Why are we even spending resources figuring out how to extend the lives of people who have smoked a pack a day, for 30 years, and are currently in old age?
Slippery slope I guess (Plus it is immoral). Next somebody is gonna say why should certain kind of people get medical treatment instead of this other people who clearly deserve it more.
There's nothing inherently immoral about rationing healthcare. In fact healthcare is already rationed everywhere for most patients. In the US we mostly ration based on wealth, age, and employment status. But that doesn't necessarily mean other approaches are less moral.
> There's nothing inherently immoral about rationing healthcare.
That a subjective statement, it is only true for you and those who agree with you.
>In fact healthcare is already rationed everywhere for most patients.
That is not an argument for the morality of rationed healthcare.
We could make some sort of objective argument based upon ethics though. Suppose the smoker became addicted to cigarettes as a by-protect of being drafted into the military where he served in a distinguished role perhaps saving lives and protecting your freedom. Being a draftee and not particularly well educated, this persons means in retirement were quite limited, often depending on government assistance in various forms.
A different person was ensured to be wealthy by inheritance then draft dodging then engaging in tax evasion, illegal migrant labor, various kinds of fraud and strong arm tactics. Yet this person didn't smoke and is quite wealthy.
Slippery slope I guess (Plus it is immoral). Next somebody is gonna say why should certain kind of people get medical treatment instead of this other people who clearly deserve it more.