> they have to pay what it takes.
That's the4 question, though. One major source fo the rising cost of healthcare is that medical science allows people to live today who would have died yesterday... but that requires neato new expensive technology.
Consider this hypothetical: ten years from new, the tech is available to revive to verifiable life someone who has been shot in the head with a twelve guage. They'll be drolling, screaming morons, but alive nonetheless. Price tag: fifty million to turn 'em back on, and a grand a day for life support.
What to do?
I think many of the "right-to-life" folks also would eliminate any government spending thus translating into no problem for the incredibly rich, and no life for the average folk.
If there were no NHS in England the baby would not have survived this long.
Buy more shotguns?
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.