To: Alberta's Child
What makes them so difficult is that they involve two contradictory impulses on the part of a person's family and others with a financial stake in the outcome of the medical care. I think the question here is one of who makes that decision, the family based on their beliefs, or the state. The decision is clear to the Brodys, this is not prolonging life "unnecessarily", removing him from life support would be killing, not necessarily murder.
10 posted on
11/07/2008 12:37:01 PM PST by
SJackson
(http://www.jewish-history.com/emporium/)
To: SJackson
Shouldn’t the decision be made by whoever is paying the bills?
12 posted on
11/07/2008 12:43:20 PM PST by
BamaGirl
(If I give Obama 76 cents will he stop clamoring for change?)
To: SJackson
This is why the state should never be involved in medical care in the first place. Once you turn over the financial responsibilities for your medical care to the state, you will always run the risk of having the state make some very calculated, pragmatic decisions like this.
15 posted on
11/07/2008 12:45:09 PM PST by
Alberta's Child
(I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson