Posted on 10/17/2006 11:00:25 AM PDT by orionblamblam
Charlotte Wyatt, who has serious brain, lung and kidney damage, weighed only 1 pound and measured just 5 inches when she was born three months prematurely on October 14, 2003. The child hit the headlines soon after birth as her parents battled in the courts to force doctors – against their medical judgement – to provide artificial ventilation if her condition worsened.
Her parents won the year-long legal dispute, which cost the taxpayer an estimated £500,000 ($929,000). In addition, the girl’s medical treatment costs around £300 a day, and has totalled an estimated £1.1 million so far.
... Charlotte’s parents have separated and both say they cannot care for her and want foster parents to look after her. Both parents live on state benefits and have been described by hospital sources as infrequent visitors to the hospital that their daughter has never left.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
If the person is responsible for his own care, then the answer is easy. If he has made arrangements through savings or insurance to pay for it, of if he can obtain charity care, turn him back on. If he has not or cannot, do not.
However, if the state is paying for the person's care, the answer is hard. The state can obviously afford to pay, therefore there is no "can't afford it" mechanism. So the state has to step in and decide who lives and who dies, based on the state's criteria.
This is the reason state funding for medical care is so problematic.
However, in this case, the state has the burden. Therefore I want the state to pay whatever it takes. I do want to give the state the power to take her life, and by extension, my life.
There is a difference between taking a life and chosing not to extend a life by artificial means.
I have a very strong DNR in my health care directive: if I can no longer recognize my family, palliative care only. That's not taking my life, it is preventing the unnecessary prolongation of my death.
It seems to me that many people are afraid to meet their Maker.
You are free to make whatever directives and provisions you like. I think if somebody wants to spend 100% of their income during their lives and leave just enough money to put themselves down like a dog when they get ill, that is their business.
I just don't want the state calling the shots. If the state foots the bill, the state will call the shots.
> I want the state to pay whatever it takes.
Whatever it takes... to do *what?*
A note: "I want the state to pay whatever it takes," in any other instance, is a phrase that just *screams* "big government tax'n'spend liberal."
> obfuscation-of-the-year candidate.
Really? How do you figure?
I agree. That is why I want the state out of the entire business, entirely.
The state should pay absolutely nothing or absolutely everything. Any position in between grants to the state unacceptable power over the right to life of the individual.
Even if it means your taxes increase by 80%?
carolyn
It has nothing to do with the financial aspect. When I am called I am not afraid to go. Dying slowly at great effort instead of smoothly seems to me to be a bad idea.
So long as I can enjoy my family I'll fight..use trial drugs, whatever it takes, but when my "me" is gone, it's time for the rest to follow.
Good for you. Sounds like you have a plan, as well you should.
No. I would much rather have the state get out of the medical care business altogether, give me a tax cut, and let me make my own provisions.
But if the state is responsible, I want to state to pay whatever it takes. It's pillar-or-post.
Charlotte's web site has a series of MSM pieces painting the
parents in a poor light.
I choose to believe they are fighting for their baby's survival.
Left to the British authorities, this baby would have
never made it this far.
I believe there is a FReeper with that version
courtesy ping
If you can ask the question. It is already answered here.
As would I. I do medical billing, among other things, and the government has got things so screwed up, you wouldn't believe it.
Carolyn
As I always say... name one industry that has been made more efficient by a government takeover.
The government can cut costs only by limiting availabilty. As they become more and more inefficient over the years, they will have to limit availability more and more, to the point where actual care is more the exception than the rule.
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.