16 May 18
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/01/16211/
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
Is this right? Did this really happen? if so, it is just?
16 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyOnly Texas has such a law in the United States; "
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/01/16211/
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
Is this right? Did this really happen? if so, it is just?
No other state gives such power to doctors and hospitals, a fact that has drawn national attention. " https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Judge-lets-one-of-a-kind-futile-care-law-stand-12222399.php
You'd have to ask the right wingers down there why they want such a law and haven't repealed it.
Originally posted by @whodeyOf course it is right. When you can't pay for your own medical treatment you rely on others to pay for you. Since money is not unlimited, someone has to make a determination of at what point further treatment is futile or best spent elsewhere.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/01/16211/
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
Is this right? Did this really happen? if so, it is just?
16 May 18
Originally posted by @quackquackSure, it's perfectly reasonable and moral for "someone" to decide if A dies based on how much money A has. If A doesn't like it, he should have earned or been born with more money.
Of course it is right. When you can't pay for your own medical treatment you rely on others to pay for you. Since money is not unlimited, someone has to make a determination of at what point further treatment is futile or best spent elsewhere.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderIt is certainly not reasonable for society to pay infinite amounts of money to keep people alive. As we can perform more complex operation or create new synthetic medicine or change thing operations could cost millions of dollars. At some point, even you realize that if an individual can't afford a certain medical procedure then they cannot take all of society's resources to pay for it.
Sure, it's perfectly reasonable and moral for "someone" to decide if A dies based on how much money A has. If A doesn't like it, he should have earned or been born with more money.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @quackquackBut if they can pay for it, they can take all of society's resources?
It is certainly not reasonable for society to pay infinite amounts of money to keep people alive. As we can perform more complex operation or create new synthetic medicine or change thing operations could cost millions of dollars. At some point, even you realize that if an individual can't afford a certain medical procedure then they cannot take all of society's resources to pay for it.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThey are using their personal resources and contributing it to society's economy.
But if they can pay for it, they can take all of society's resources?
Originally posted by @quackquackDoctors, hospitals, etc. aren't someone's "personal resources."
They are using their personal resources and contributing it to society's economy.
Being treated in a hospital doesn't add value and isn't a "contribution" to the economy.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @quackquackKinda like the secret death lists at the Arizona VA.
Of course it is right. When you can't pay for your own medical treatment you rely on others to pay for you. Since money is not unlimited, someone has to make a determination of at what point further treatment is futile or best spent elsewhere.
Interesting.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderBut....but....but....Obamacare.
Sure, it's perfectly reasonable and moral for "someone" to decide if A dies based on how much money A has. If A doesn't like it, he should have earned or been born with more money.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderSo you would call these death panels?
Only Texas has such a law in the United States; "
No other state gives such power to doctors and hospitals, a fact that has drawn national attention. " https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Judge-lets-one-of-a-kind-futile-care-law-stand-12222399.php
You'd have to ask the right wingers down there why they want such a law and haven't repealed it.
16 May 18
Originally posted by @quackquackSociety creates a system where doctors are trained to provide medical care for the members of that society. What care is provided to an individual should be that which is medically necessary. Of course, care has to be rationed in some ultimate sense, but it should be rationed based on a patient's need and medical judgment not based on how many pieces of paper are in someone's wallet.
It is certainly not reasonable for society to pay infinite amounts of money to keep people alive. As we can perform more complex operation or create new synthetic medicine or change thing operations could cost millions of dollars. At some point, even you realize that if an individual can't afford a certain medical procedure then they cannot take all of society's resources to pay for it.
Originally posted by @whodeyEthic committees are a standard feature of hospitals throughout the United States.http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2016/05/mhst1-1605.html
So you would call these death panels?
Yet Texas alone has a law with these type of provisions:
The law gives doctors the authority to remove life support in cases doctors deem futile as long as a hospital ethics committee agrees with the recommendation and loved ones are given 10 days to find a facility to which to transfer the patient.
No other state gives such power to doctors and hospitals, a fact that has drawn national attention.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Judge-lets-one-of-a-kind-futile-care-law-stand-12222399.php
Granted the law is better that the UK law (mis?)interpreted in the Gard case which allowed doctors to block life sustaining treatment at any hospital, even ones willing to provide it, if the doctors determined death was in the patient's "best interests", Still, I'm kinda shocked that such a law exists in the US.