[Arguendo]

As long as you’re willing to put your only money toward the “futile” care, instead of demanding that the hospital/insurance company/government fund it, I don’t see what the problem is.

[wagglebee]

As long as you’re willing to put your only money toward the “futile” care, instead of demanding that the hospital/insurance company/government fund it, I don’t see what the problem is.

Just a few thoughts:

1. This is the UK we're talking about (though it will be the same in America soon enough if Zero gets his way) and they pay incredibly high taxes for socialized medicine. Socialized medicine was sold to the British people with the promise that it would pay for EVERYTHING, not just what they wanted to pay for.

2. Many futile care laws in the United States (Texas for instance) have NOTHING to do with cost, a hospital is simply allowed to decide that a person need no longer be treated.

3. Once we allow the door to be opened to define futile we can never close it AND we have also opened the door to alter the definition of futility to suit the circumstances. What do we do when a heart attack or stroke is defined as futile even though the sufferer might have decades longer to live if treated properly? What if ANY patient over a certain age is defined as futile?

[BykrBayb]

The problem is when they decide the patient is futile. They won't come right out and admit that, but they claim the care is futile, despite the fact that it absolutely isn't. This is what they're actually saying, but in terms today's public is willing to swallow:

"60,000 Reichsmark is what this person
suffering from hereditary defects costs
the community during his lifetime.
Fellow Germans, that is your money,
too. Read 'New People', the monthly
magazine of the Bureau for Race
Politics of the Nazi Party."