My suggestion is this. Given that social resources and medical talent are limited relative to the health needs of people, should we be devoting so much time, money, and talent to transplant techniques, development of artificial organs, or even to the cure of diseases—to techniques for salvaging those who have already become ill? These spectacular but costly techniques, once developed, face us with the moral dilemma that Harris has indicated, as well as with problems about whether all those who can benefit from such treatment should receive it, regardless of cost. Would we not, as a whole, be far better off if a major portion of our resources were shifted into preventive medicine, the creation and preservation of health—basic nutrition, pre-natal and postnatal care, elimination of pollution, regular medical check-ups for all, and so on. [sic] This would entail a major change in the whole focus of the medical profession, and in so far as this might entail less personal glory for the spectacular high-cost cases, one could expect some resistance. Furthermore, there is no question that this would be, in its own way, a terrible choice. We should have to place the health of many above the immediate 'cry for help' of those who are already sick and dying. But we should remember that even now we are causing many to become sick, and we are certainly not applying the best available techniques of cure to all those who need them. There will always be some cries for help which will be ignored. Would we not do better to ensure that there are fewer such cries?
(Carolyn R. Morillo, "As Sure as Shooting," Philosophy 51 [January 1976]: 80-9, at 88-9 [italics added])
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 