It's happening again.
A person is in danger of being put to death because it's too expensive to keep her alive.
This time, the family members all want to keep her alive. But, the doctors have, apparently at the urging of the insurance company, decided to sedate the patient so she can't protest.
That's right. Keep the soon-to-be-deceased-if-we-have-anything-to-do-with-it in la-la land, then, with a straight face, claim that she hasn't protested removal of care. Nothing to see here - move along.
Her sister is trying to get media attention; the story is posted at the Democratic Underground. Beth, of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, has an excerpt from the post - please read it.
You know, I'm still tired from battling a respiratory infection, but I have to join the fight. It's too important.
Lord knows, I'm not a big fan of going all-out to try to prolong the dying of extremely elderly persons. No grudge against them, but there comes a time to let go. Peacefully. With appropriate medication and comfort care. Not starving them to death, but allowing nature to take its course.
But, darn it, the technology exists to make good-faith efforts to save these relatively young people. The bias should be in favor of life. Even if it's expensive. Especially when the family requests it.
Now, it's possible that this woman is just too far gone, and the family is in denial. In that case, why doesn't the hospital work with them? Would a delay of a few weeks be unreasonable, if at the end of it, the family was in agreement about the futility of keeping the woman alive?
Only if the goal is to gain the right to kill patients before their time.
Tags = Euthanasia