Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GovernmentShrinker
>> But there do need to be clear laws about when it's permissible to "unplug" a patient, or otherwise hasten death, or there will be an awful lot of private decisions to "snuff inconvenient patients".

I don't think government laws work, and I don't think they will do anything but screw up end-of-life decisions. That's not a prediction, it's an observation -- they screw things up now. Most of the end-of-life problems arise from financial interests. Before we can apply good human sense to these questions, it is necessary to get third-party payers out of the equation and out of the decision process, for they are concerned with the money and not with the patient's best interest.

115 posted on 06/30/2006 5:33:54 PM PDT by T'wit (It is not possible to "go too far" criticizing liberals. No matter what you say, they're worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]


To: T'wit

Financial interests are as likely to be those of relatives eager for their inheritance, and eager not to see their inheritance spent on an elderly relative's medical care, as of third party payers. And while getting the government out of the picture as a payer, and as a regulator of private payers is urgently needed, there will never be a complete elimination of third party payers in a free country. People buy insurance and then the insurer is a third party payer.


116 posted on 07/01/2006 8:24:10 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson