The Florida legisture passes a law saying that, when there is a family conflict, the governor has the right to order liquid to be drained from patients with brain injuries, in order to prevent an unnecessary death.
Do you have a problem with such law?
The Florida legisture passes a law saying that, when there is a family conflict, the governor has the right to order liquid to be drained from patients with brain injuries, in order to prevent an unnecessary death. Do you have a problem with such law?
I probably would, in a number of ways:
- In some patients, draining of brain fluid could be harmful, and in many, unnecessary. I don't think the governor has the medical expertise to determine when such treatment is appropriate. By contrast, if someone is being deliberately dehydrated and starved to death, resumption of of hydration and feeding is guaranteed to do no harm.
- Refusing to drain fluid from someone's brain would not affect most people; someone from whom such fluid not critical but not drained would die of that medical condition. By contrast, refusal to resume hydration/feeding for someone who can't feed by mouth is guaranteed to cause that person's death independent of their medical condition.
- Jeb Bush's order isn't about him ordering a procedure that would not otherwise be done, but rather about him stopping a procedure (deliberate fatal dehydration) to deliberately kill someone.
Any more hypotheticals?