Posted on 11/07/2008 12:13:12 PM PST by SJackson
“Shouldn’t the decision be made by whoever is paying the bills?”
Think about that as Obama takes RomneyCare and makes it national.
So an insurance company can decide when to pull the plug?
Or worse yet, nationalized healthcare?
I agree, as long as the financial resources are there. I wouldn't advocate payment of the bills by the state for what is probably a minority opinion.
One can understand the parents' point of view with the traditional Orthodox Jewish love of life, but to keep that body alive on machines for who knows how many years is much worse than dying now, IMHO. Nevertheless, the choice should belong to them.
Obviously utilization of resources is a major concern here. If he is taking up a bed that could be used by someone who can actually be saved, then they need to pull the plug no matter what.
However, if the family is not paying for every cent of his care then the hospital has a right to make the decision.
Insurance companies make that decision each and every day. Once a patient exhausts the insurance, the company stops paying the bills.
If the family wants to right the check to the hospital that is fine with me. But who ever is paying now has the right to stop forking over money.
It's not, there doesn't appear any medical hope for "recovery", some would have argued that with Schiavo.
The issues are clearer here, since you don't have a disagreement within the family.
The family opposes removal of life support, based on long standing beliefs, and are financially able to provide it. The state say no. Who decides. I say state rather than hospital since in some states this couldn't be done.
Probably.
Exhausted what limits?
Insurance companies DO try to deny care all the time -— because they’ve never made money paying a claim.
It doesn’t matter if they owe it or not. They will just lie and cheat to not pay.
Ariel Sharon has been kept alive for years.
My insurance policy has a Limit and after they pay out that limit they would stop paying for my care and treatment.
If there is a machine forcing his breathing and heart beat, wouldn’t that be understood by the rabbis and laws as “artificial?”
Artificial isn’t the issue, rather the removal of necessary sustenance. It’s my understanding nourishment, iv liquids and/or tube feeding are pretty clear, once started they can’t be stopped. Most medication, particularly those that impact patient comfort as well, even if they hasten death. You might get some disagreement on mechanical means, as is being used here, but the family’s position is sound. The issue isn’t the maintenance of life, rather it’s termination which isn’t our call.
I disagree with Jewish teachings about some areas of life … I feel that if the rabbis a millenium + ago had only seen an ultrasound image they would have ruled differently. And I believe G-d does rule differently.
The Orthodox/Reform disagreement over modern reinterpretation, not the place to get into that.
In all the articles I've read, the hospital acknowledges that there are no financial considerations, the bills are and will be paid. Also there are no ongoing utilization considerations, the facility is at about a 60% utilization rate.
These things have to be in writing, most importantly for those who want support continued, since that won't be the option the medical community advise. The issue isn't the quality of life, rather the fact that Judaism doesn't recognize that concept. Ultimately there's no basis to determine the worth of this boys life as being worth more or less than mine, it's simply not our call. Obviously other faiths would disagree, the Reform position would factor in the pain caused to the parents and would likely condone a different conclusion. As I noted earlier, I believe there are differing opinions on mechanical devices, like a ventilator. And extreme means may not have to be taken, but once taken can’t be discontinued. A position we all hope never to be in.
Yes, similar issue. But in Israel there'd be little controversy. Other than a Jewish doctor might refuse to disconnect support if asked by family members. But there are plenty of doctors.
The next of kin are the responsible parties for the decision, by law.
If the Orthodox faith defines death as no heart beat, then they have hope (the substance of things not seen).
God Bless.
So if a religion says that death is defined by the total decomposition of the body then a hospital should be forced to continue treatment of a rotting corpse?
My heart goes out to these parents. However, as painful as it would be, I will not prolong "non-life" for my children.
If that satisfies the Orthodox requirement for life, then so be it. (vastly different than your sophomoric counter-example)
The Hippocratic oath requires medical professionals to sustain life and do no harm, does this sound like they are attempting to sustain life in any definition other than the current secular version?
All too often we seem to be unable to grasp the depth of the tenacity of life. I certainly hope for a miracle, but often it is not to be. When to decide to remove sustenance or supporting techniques can only be left, in my opinion, to the counsel of the family and their faith.
Respect the wishes of the ones legally and morally responsible, do not attempt to force the situation, (especially if they are footing the bill, personally or via insurance). What is a life worth?
In other words, we should mind our own business and stop trying to force contrary beliefs on this family in this sad and grave matter.
God Bless
As an ICU nurse who has seen too many bodies being kept alive on machines far too long ...
its sad to see them literally rot before your eyes
in this case, it is a religious question thus I cannot question their faith. I can disagree, but I’m not the one making the decisions
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.