Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
So sad. I fear the Death Culture Panel will be making these decisions and, when the Government is paying, the parents will be powerless.
ha. karma's got your name.
This story is BS. It makes it sound like the Doctors make those decisions. They don’t. The parents do. The Doctors are just being more direct and honest than they have in the past. The families still make the final call. Again, this is people blaming the system for decisions that should be making for themselves.
I’m pro-life, but I dont have a big problem with this as long as the parents can veto any decision. Often times, when the doctor has decided to save the baby over the parents objections, the parents sue the hospital to help pay for the millions of dollars caring for a severely and profoundly incapacitated child. The Catholic Church recognizes such decisions, and does not advocate for life support for the hopeless cases.
For example, at his hospital, most very sick babies who are in "stable" condition -- meaning they aren't obviously dying while on life support, but might have extensive brain damage -- don't have that care taken away.He said that's because poor, religious parents at his hospital seem to be more okay with the idea that their child might survive, though remain very impaired.
There really is no justification for treating some babies as less than human. Irrelevant factors are routinely used as the sole reason for withholding or withdrawing humane care.
Even if we were to put ethics and morality aside, what kind of arrogant stupidity is this? Have doctors become merely technicians?
We are moving so quickly in the wrong direction.
I agree. Even if the baby is brain damage; the baby deserves the chance to live.
This is disgusting. The pride & arrogance of these doctors is on full display. Yet you will still see the pro-death trolls defending such.
I pray for these people. They think they’re so enlightened, but really they’re just fools.
I agree. This is outrageous.
The question is one of whether we are extending life or merely prolonging the dying process. Every case is different and needs to be examined on its own merits.
On one extreme you’ve got a severely brain damaged child who might, using the latest technology, be kept alive for years or even decades in great pain, and obviously at great expense, diverting resources from others who might actually be helped by them. What is the point of prolonging such a “life,” other than perhaps to let others feel they are morally superior for doing so?
On the other extreme we would start ending “lives unworthy of life,” people with relatively minor disabilities, deciding that their lives just aren’t worth living and so we should take action to end them. With such a policy the severity of the disability needed to provoke such action will continue to go down.
Slippery slopes obviously exist on both sides of this issue. There is no single easy answer. Which is why I contend each case needs to be decided on its own merits, not on glib soundbite answers.
We have never had, and never will have, the financial resources to provide the utmost in medical care to every person who needs it. As medical technology continues to develop, the gap between our technological capability and our financial ability to pay for it only becomes greater.
If we are going to provide the ultimate in medical care to every person, how are we going to pay for it? The only two options are increased medical insurance premiums or taxes. Which do you prefer?