Right to die

[watervole]

I know an American lady (We'll call her Mary) and a member of her family is dying. There is nothing that can be done for him. He has a month or two left at most.

Her medical insurance does not cover hospice care. When he becomes unconscious, it will probably take him ten days to die if they withhold food and longer if they do not.

The cost of him dying is something that I can't see her ever being able to pay.

Am I the only person who thinks that the American cultural ethos of keeping people alive as long as possible, even when they have no hope of recovery, is not only cruel to both patient and family, but generates a hell of a lot of money for the medical profession?

I start getting very cynical when large sums of money are involved.

Just for the record, if I'm ever dying of something incurable, my husband and family have my full permission (indeed, my specific request) to try and get the plug pulled the moment I'm incapable of recognising them. They also have my full permission to donate any organs that may help someone else.

Comments

[del-c.livejournal.com]

While the atrocious Terri Schiavo circus was taking place in Governor Jeb Bush's state of Florida, a young black girl in former Governor George Bush's state of Texas was taken off life support to die, against the wishes of her family, because they couldn't pay for the support. No 'pro-life' groups went to the hospital to protest.

Hell yes it's about the money.

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

I agree with you 100%!!! It's a sad day when the almighty dollar determines who can be alowed to die peacefully. I think that things like hospice care should be given to those who can't afford it - anything less is barbaric.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I am likewise revolted by the way insurance companies have turned sickness and death into a gigantic racket.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

though where people with insurance have prolonged dying, it would seem that the hospitals benefit and the insurance companies do not.

[alphekka-alpha.livejournal.com]

And the case of 'assisted suicide', the lawyers benefit...

I'm not sure I'd want to go that far but it does seem both stupid and inhumane to try to cure a life-threatening infection in someone with no quality of life/terminal illness - in effect *making* him live.

If it were an animal, we would try to minimise suffering.
--

[watervole.livejournal.com]

seem both stupid and inhumane to try to cure a life-threatening infection in someone with no quality of life/terminal illness - in effect *making* him live.

I couldn't agree more. I had some friends with an elderly dalmatian and they kept that dog alive through sickness, front leg paralysis, back leg paralysis and god knows what else. I thought they were prolonging its pain and confusion through misguided love. I feel exactly the same regarding people. When there is no quality of life, it is cruel to *make* people live.

As long as there is quality of life, there is a point to the fight, but I for one do not want to live through pain, paralysis, incontinence, amnesia, and the heartache of my loved ones. When my time comes, I want to go (and I don't believe there's anything waiting for me after I die).

What I can never understand about the religious (some of them) insistance on keeping people 'alive' even when they are brain-dead is that they are keeping these people from whatever after-life they believe in. I can never reconcile belief in an after-life with such extreme reluctance to make the journey.

[lexin.livejournal.com]

I can never reconcile belief in an after-life with such extreme reluctance to make the journey.

This has always puzzled me, too. I put it down to my unrepentant atheism.

[kerravonsen]

What I can never understand about the religious (some of them) insistance on keeping people 'alive' even when they are brain-dead is that they are keeping these people from whatever after-life they believe in.

I don't understand that either.
The only thing I can think of which would make sense of that would be if it was tied in with the prohibition against suicide. Because suicide is a big no-no, since, if God is still keeping that person alive, it's going against God's will to kill them, even if they want to die.

[alphekka-alpha.livejournal.com]

Because suicide is a big no-no, since, if God is still keeping that person alive, it's going against God's will to kill them, even if they want to die.

This suggests a lack of understanding of an omnicient divine spirit.

I think Madame de Stael had it about right there: tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner. 8-)
--

[kerravonsen]

To know all is to forgive all? Sure, but better not to do that which needs forgiveness in the first place, isn't it?

[watervole.livejournal.com]

That still doesn't make sense to me. These people are being kept alive by aritificial means, so withdrawing treatment (apart from painkillers) isn't killing them, it's simply restoring what would normally happen.

[kerravonsen]

I know, I don't understand it either, it's just a guess on my part.

Then you get the other extreme, with some religions and sects, who don't want to be treated at all (like, no blood transfusions, for example).

[alphekka-alpha.livejournal.com]

better not to do that which needs forgiveness in the first place, isn't it?


errare est humanum; ueniam dare diuinus est

[kerravonsen]

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
(Romans 6:1-2)

[alphekka-alpha.livejournal.com]

Well, in the end, it all comes down to freedom of choice, doesn't it? 8-)

One can choose to "sin" and take the consequences, or choose not to sin. Forgiveness does not necessarily absolve one from making atonement to those against whom one has "sinned".
--