Medical facilities and personnel do not have unlimited resources, with which to pursue every possible treatment for every patient who has a small chance of benefitting. The stories in this article are cherry-picked. Reality is that nearly all patients who have a chance of benefitting from relatively inexpensive care (e.g. antibiotics, cooling a fever, etc.) get it. But when people need very expensive treatment, especially with a low chance of success, it simply has to be rationed. Unless, of course, they can pay for it out of pocket, in which case, I doubt they'd have any trouble getting it.
So who decides?
So you already admit that if your poor you're SOL? Just go die somewhere?
The question isn't whether or not they would "benefit" to go down that road is to concede the whole point - some lives are more valuable that others.
That's not a slippery slope, that's a bottomless pit.
Do we have to be in 'soilent green mode' before you figure it out?
It is clear that there is an attitude in the medical community that certain people should not be allowed to live in their 'conditions'. And they are WITHHOLDING treatment and care, like....food. Which part of the WITHHOLDING TREATMENT don't you get?