NationStates Jolt Archive

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050317-7.html

So if this is what Bush stands for, then why were there 152 executions in Texas while he was governor?

"It's hypocrisy at a thousand levels," said University of Houston law professor and death penalty defence lawyer David Dow. "I saw many, many cases where there was substantial doubt about whether someone was guilty or whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence, but he never said anything," said David Atwood, head of the Texas Coalition Against the Death Penalty. "I really can't say he cares about life."

See this article:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Texas-critics-question-Bushs-life-culture/2005/03/23/1111525196817.html?oneclick=true

He's a politician of course he doesn't.

What's more, he's not the sharpest tool in the box so I can't say I'm really suprised. :p

That and the bill he signed in Texas that lets the doctors pull the plug over the will of the parents.. and to be fair, it takes whether or not the patient can pay for the treatment into account.

...

It's politics, Swimmingpool. It's Rovian. I think even the Republicans can see it this time around.

You're right: Bush wants a "culture of life" only for guys who haven't completely violated the rights and dignity of others' or taken theirs. The bastard.

You're right: Bush wants a "culture of life" only for guys who haven't completely violated the rights and dignity of others' or taken theirs. The bastard.
I'm not trying to debate whether the death penalty is right or wrong. Claiming that he wants a "culture of life" kind of implies that culture encompasses everyone.

I'm not trying to debate whether the death penalty is right or wrong. Claiming that he wants a "culture of life" kind of implies that culture encompasses everyone.
No it doesn't. It kind of implies that life has value, so taking it from someone implies they lose a valuable asset.

He's a politician of course he doesn't.

What's more, he's not the sharpest tool in the box so I can't say I'm really suprised. :p

sharp tools are no good. could you imagine trying to use a sharp hammer?

That and the bill he signed in Texas that lets the doctors pull the plug over the will of the parents.. and to be fair, it takes whether or not the patient can pay for the treatment into account.

I admit that I haven't actually read the law - but what it seems to actually allow is for doctors to refuse to give a treatment they think is useless or needlessly prolonging the life of the patient. The parents are given something like 10 days to find another health care professional who will provide the treatment. It's really no different than having a doctor say no if you walk in and say "AMPUTATE MY LEG NOW!!" even though nothing is wrong with it. In the case everyeone keeps citing, I really don't think money had anything to do with it - it was more about the absolutely certifiably insane mother and the fact that the infant had no chance at all of survival in anything other than a short-term, incredibly painful state.

sharp tools are no good. could you imagine trying to use a sharp hammer?
Sure. Ever see those hammers roofers use? They have a hatchet looking thing on the back instead of a claw.

I admit that I haven't actually read the law - but what it seems to actually allow is for doctors to refuse to give a treatment they think is useless or needlessly prolonging the life of the patient.By the same token, it's needless to provide care for someone who is in a Persistent Vegetative State, as they will never awaken, and will never be truly concious ever again.

If you want to provide care for someone, and you have the legal right to demand it for them, it should be provided. Because they're human beings, and have that right.

Except when they can't pay for it.

Are you beginning to see how that's relevant?

Because the people executed were criminals.

Because the people executed were criminals.

Not all of them...

By the same token, it's needless to provide care for someone who is in a Persistent Vegetative State, as they will never awaken, and will never be truly concious ever again.

If you want to provide care for someone, and you have the legal right to demand it for them, it should be provided. Because they're human beings, and have that right.

Except when they can't pay for it.

Are you beginning to see how that's relevant?

You know, I've never thought about it in that light before...

The implications are in reality quite disgusting aren't they?

The US Healthcare system: Euthanasia - not when you want it, but when we can't be bothered to pay for your care anymore.

No it doesn't. It kind of implies that life has value, so taking it from someone implies they lose a valuable asset.

Always keen to see life in terms of property, ownership and entitlement, aren't you Arammanar? I'll give you points for consistency...

Always keen to see life in terms of property, ownership and entitlement, aren't you Arammanar? I'll give you points for consistency...
You can only argue with physical concepts. Maybe for you, arguing with abstracts is effective and logical, but not for the rest of us. And didn't you make a thread not to long ago about how you were leaving NS?

You can only argue with physical concepts. Maybe for you, arguing with abstracts is effective and logical, but not for the rest of us. And didn't you make a thread not to long ago about how you were leaving NS?

So if someone said you had no honor, or that you were not a kind enough person, you really wouldn't know how to react then, would you?

You don't know how a day can be pleasant without describing it in physical details? You cannot describe love but you know what features you like on your lover?

...How odd. I find that using abstracts is the key to understanding life's common experiences. I'm fairly sure Dobbs Town can say its a pleasant day without having to mention the exact temprature and talk about the minimal cloud cover with a 15mph wind coming out of the south-southeast...Can't you?

I must say that in my experience there are few people indeed who can only argue the physical constructs in existance, every human I'VE ever met has a solid knowledge and appreciatetion for abstract principles and experiences.

No it doesn't. It kind of implies that life has value, so taking it from someone implies they lose a valuable asset.If life is an object or a quality that can be given or taken, then abortion must surely be alright, since before viability the child - in every way, shape and form - is the property of the mother. I never suspected you were pro-choice, Arammanar!

By the same token, it's needless to provide care for someone who is in a Persistent Vegetative State, as they will never awaken, and will never be truly concious ever again.

If you want to provide care for someone, and you have the legal right to demand it for them, it should be provided. Because they're human beings, and have that right.

Except when they can't pay for it.

Are you beginning to see how that's relevant?

Payment has nothing to do with it. If the medical professionals decided that they would not care for someone in PVS because it is needless, then the patient's caretakers would have to go elsewhere and try to find someone who disagreed, regardless of how much money they had.

If this woman had been able to find a hospital which was willing to keep the infant "alive", then her ability to pay would have been a moot point - the hospital would have taken him.

Not all of them...

Eh. Close enough for Government work.

Bad joke, but justice won't ever be infallible.

So if someone said you had no honor, or that you were not a kind enough person, you really wouldn't know how to react then, would you?

You don't know how a day can be pleasant without describing it in physical details? You cannot describe love but you know what features you like on your lover?

...How odd. I find that using abstracts is the key to understanding life's common experiences. I'm fairly sure Dobbs Town can say its a pleasant day without having to mention the exact temprature and talk about the minimal cloud cover with a 15mph wind coming out of the south-southeast...Can't you?

I must say that in my experience there are few people indeed who can only argue the physical constructs in existance, every human I'VE ever met has a solid knowledge and appreciatetion for abstract principles and experiences.
Good post! *bows*

Payment has nothing to do with it. If the medical professionals decided that they would not care for someone in PVS because it is needless, then the patient's caretakers would have to go elsewhere and try to find someone who disagreed, regardless of how much money they had.

If this woman had been able to find a hospital which was willing to keep the infant "alive", then her ability to pay would have been a moot point - the hospital would have taken him.The point, Dem, is that the child could have lived longer. It's quality of life, or even the length of it's life - perhaps a week, perhaps a day, perhaps an hour - would have been less. But it would have lived longer. And ultimately, that's the point of a culture of life, right? To value and cherish and extend life as much as possible. If a human being's heart still beats - even if only because it's hooked up to several apparatuses - then treatment for that human should continue, regardless of how long he or she will live, or how well she'll live.

But that's not what George W. Bush thought while governor of Texas, at least. He thought that if a child was receiving treatment and s/he was doomed to perish no matter what the medical professionals did, they should have the ability to cease treatment if they chose; even if the parents wanted the child to continue to receive treatment.

It's like Schiavo, only Bush thought and acted in a manner diametrically opposed to the way he thought and acted in Texas.

The point, Dem, is that the child could have lived longer. It's quality of life, or even the length of it's life - perhaps a week, perhaps a day, perhaps an hour - would have been less. But it would have lived longer. And ultimately, that's the point of a culture of life, right? To value and cherish and extend life as much as possible. If a human being's heart still beats - even if only because it's hooked up to several apparatuses - then treatment for that human should continue, regardless of how long he or she will live, or how well she'll live.

But that's not what George W. Bush thought while governor of Texas, at least. He thought that if a child was receiving treatment and s/he was doomed to perish no matter what the medical professionals did, they should have the ability to cease treatment if they chose; even if the parents wanted the child to continue to receive treatment.

It's like Schiavo, only Bush thought and acted in a manner diametrically opposed to the way he thought and acted in Texas.

I am not arguing that it is not a hypocritical position. I am simply pointing out that it had nothing to do with anyone being "poor".

I am not arguing that it is not a hypocritical position. I am simply pointing out that it had nothing to do with anyone being "poor".That was a part of your post I chose not to touch.

It's not solely based on the wealth of the person being treated. But the idea behind the law was that if a child is being treated and he is doomed to die, and the parent(s) wishes to continute treatment, the doctors have the ability to decide whether or not to do so, as ultimately the continuation of treatment is a "fruitless" drain on hospital funds and insurance.

How can the state foster a culture of life when that same state is executing criminals?

A culture of life in which foreign life is worthless.

Rrrright. :rolleyes:

A culture of life in which foreign life is worthless.

Rrrright. :rolleyes:

You should hear the way my Great Aunt and Uncle (her son) talk about foreigners...

Bush sux!Die Bush! :sniper:

So if this is what Bush stands for, then why were there 152 executions in Texas while he was governor?

152 x $35k/year = $5.32 Million that Texas taxpayers won't have to spend every year supporting people who likely had no regard for the people they Murdered.

What took em' so long?

Regards,
Gaar

How can the state foster a culture of life when that same state is executing criminals?
What about the securing of that "culture" from people who would Murder the people in it don't you understand?

Regards,
Gaar

"and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities."

Hmmmmm didn't Texas execute many retarded criminals under his watch?

You should hear the way my Great Aunt and Uncle (her son) talk about foreigners...
I'm scared to ask...

But then Australia is extremely racist. It's just beneath the surface, well at least in the city. That said country people can be a lot more welcoming, or a lot more racist. Depending where! :p

Yeesh. I've heard about that, but I had doubts.

152 x $35k/year = $5.32 Million that Texas taxpayers won't have to spend every year supporting people who likely had no regard for the people they Murdered.

What took em' so long?

Regards,
GaarI rest my case.

152 x $35k/year = $5.32 Million that Texas taxpayers won't have to spend every year supporting people who likely had no regard for the people they Murdered.

What took em' so long?

Regards,
Gaar

When you consider the amount of time it takes a death sentence case to wind its way through the courts, between legal fees and manpower and all that, it actually costs the government more to put someone to death than to incarcerate them for life. And no, I don't have a link to statistics for this, but presumably they're out there. Or I'm wrong. That's what I've heard from many sources, at the very least, if not the precise truth.

And also, the death sentence has not shown any success in deterring criminals. If it doesn't prevent more crime, and costs more than locking them away for life, why do it?

Bush honestly does not give a rat's ass about people in critical condition, especially if they are poor. The only reason he tried to intervene in the Schiavo case is because saving her life would further the agenda of his Fundamentalist support base.

Keeping Terri Schiavo alive would have set a precedent that killing a mindless organism if it still functions is against the law. And can you think of any other kind of mindless organism that can still function? (And please, I can see the cheap shot coming from a mile so save yourself the post.)

That's right. A fetus.

Keeping Terri Schiavo alive would have set a precedent that would have allowed Bush to overturn Roe v Wade.

152 x $35k/year = $5.32 Million that Texas taxpayers won't have to spend every year supporting people who likely had no regard for the people they Murdered.

What took em' so long?

Regards,
Gaar

sigh

5.32 Million x 65 = about 2.3 million x 152

http://www.bushkills.com/facts.html

"In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, which is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell with the highest level of security for forty years."
It costs them more to execute people then to keep them in prision for 65 years. Given the average life expectany in the US is about 71 and a person must be 18 before they can be executed. They would all have to live to be about 83 and be sentenced when they were 18 for the cost of life inprisionment to be even almost equal to the cost of the detah penalty. This is all highly unlikely. In summary death penalty costs more then live in maximum security prision.

sigh

5.32 Million x 65 = about 2.3 million x 152

http://www.bushkills.com/facts.html

"In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, which is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell with the highest level of security for forty years."
It costs them more to execute people then to keep them in prision for 65 years. Given the average life expectany in the US is about 71 and a person must be 18 before they can be executed. They would all have to live to be about 83 and be sentenced when they were 18 for the cost of life inprisionment to be even almost equal to the cost of the detah penalty. This is all highly unlikely. In summary death penalty costs more then live in maximum security prision.
Thanks for being arsed to do the research. :p

www.bushkills.com, eh? Has a nice ring to it.

www.bushkills.com, eh? Has a nice ring to it.
I noticed that too, but then I thought I'd let it slide and wait for one of the pro-Bushers/pro-capital punishmenters to pick it up. :p


*gasp* You're working for them aren't you? MOLE!!!

When you consider the amount of time it takes a death sentence case to wind its way through the courts, between legal fees and manpower and all that, it actually costs the government more to put someone to death than to incarcerate them for life. And no, I don't have a link to statistics for this, but presumably they're out there. Or I'm wrong. That's what I've heard from many sources, at the very least, if not the precise truth.

And also, the death sentence has not shown any success in deterring criminals. If it doesn't prevent more crime, and costs more than locking them away for life, why do it?
Sorry that is irrelevant, they get those "Appeals" whether they are put to Death or not...

So we pay that amount regardless of what happens AFTER the Appeal. So you like it that they continue to cost us more over the years, just to keep Murderers alive?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry that is irrelevant, they get those "Appeals" whether they are put to Death or not...

So we pay that amount regardless of what happens AFTER the Appeal. So you like it that they continue to cost us more over the years, just to keep Murderers alive?


You should probably note that those appeals simply don't happen for lifers nearly as often, they aren't facing their own excecution.

If a) it makes no sense not to kill them...Then b) it should make sense to kill them.

But...You haven't said anything about WHY they should die. You've have no "b)" at all. When it costs more to kill them and has no effect on the rest of the population at all, why DOES it make more sense to kill them? Why so bloodthirsty? Is it simple vindictiveness or a genuine feeling that these men should die for what they did, consequences be dammed? Do you like seeing people die, even though its at great cost to the public?

I noticed that too, but then I thought I'd let it slide and wait for one of the pro-Bushers/pro-capital punishmenters to pick it up. :p


*gasp* You're working for them aren't you? MOLE!!!

Damnit, don't blow my cover!!!

That was a part of your post I chose not to touch.

It's not solely based on the wealth of the person being treated. But the idea behind the law was that if a child is being treated and he is doomed to die, and the parent(s) wishes to continute treatment, the doctors have the ability to decide whether or not to do so, as ultimately the continuation of treatment is a "fruitless" drain on hospital funds and insurance.

But all mortals are doomed to die. If that logic is taken to its conclusion a doctor could refuse treatment to everyone except the gods.

Conventional medical ethics say that a hospital has to provide treatment to anyone who comes in to its doors and that is the way it should stay. This ethic does put money into play when searching for a second opinion, however. A hospital has to treat anyone from coming in, but there is nothing that says a hospital is obliged to accept a transfer from another hospital that is perfectly well equiped to treat the patient.

Sorry that is irrelevant, they get those "Appeals" whether they are put to Death or not...Hey, you know what makes it really hard to appeal your conviction? Being dead. Yep, really hampers the process.

But all mortals are doomed to die. If that logic is taken to its conclusion a doctor could refuse treatment to everyone except the gods.I'm not justifying the law. I'm just describing it.

Hey, you know what makes it really hard to appeal your conviction? Being dead. Yep, really hampers the process.
Understood...

That's why they wait until you have exhausted your entire Appeal process, only then can they "execute" your Sentence.

Regards,
Gaar

That's why they wait until you have exhausted your entire Appeal process, only then can they "execute" your Sentence.You know who that didn't do any good for? The men and women exonerated post mortem by DNA evidence.

I think the main point here is not that Bush signed so many death warrants when he was governor of Texas, rather it's the fact that he gave so little time and consideration to each case before committing them to death. 15 minutes on average. To carefully read all the court transcripts and carefully weigh up all the evidence.
Yes, quite.
This is hardly what anyone could consider a proponent of 'culture of life'. If you are in a position where you have to make such a life and death decision (literally), and you claim to be pro-life, you then need to be absolutely certain that you are making the right decison.
To give yourself just 15 minutes to read possibly years of court transcripts, police reports, psychologist reports, prison reports, letters from the inmate as well as the victim's family, etc etc is pathetic and basically an insult to those people.
The only way I can see Bush could justify putting aside such a pittance of time was by saying he had the upmost faith in the judicial process to reach the right decision.
Yet this is the exact opposite of what he was preaching over the Schiavo case. By forcing a bill through Congress and signing it into law, he was in effect saying that all those court cases and appeals were incorrect.

Sheer hypocrisy either way you look at it. But unsurprising, considering everything else he's done.

I'm not trying to debate whether the death penalty is right or wrong. Claiming that he wants a "culture of life" kind of implies that culture encompasses everyone.

Some fella who sends people to other nations for war while managing to skip being conscripted himself.

Conventional medical ethics say that a hospital has to provide treatment to anyone who comes in to its doors and that is the way it should stay. This ethic does put money into play when searching for a second opinion, however. A hospital has to treat anyone from coming in, but there is nothing that says a hospital is obliged to accept a transfer from another hospital that is perfectly well equiped to treat the patient.

Conventional medical ethics also says that a doctor should not harm a patient. In many cases, prolonging life does more harm than good. As such, a medical professional should be able to state this and stop doing harm.

By your logic, I could walk into a hospital, say "AMPUTATE MY LEG NOW!!" and the doctor would *have* to do it, because it is treatment I want.

152 x $35k/year = $5.32 Million that Texas taxpayers won't have to spend every year supporting people who likely had no regard for the people they Murdered.

What took em' so long?

Regards,
Gaar
It's well known that in America at least it costs more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life.

What about the securing of that "culture" from people who would Murder the people in it don't you understand?

Of course the public should be protected from murderers; I'm not suggesting that they should be let off. Ever heard of "life imprisonment"?

Conventional medical ethics also says that a doctor should not harm a patient. In many cases, prolonging life does more harm than good. As such, a medical professional should be able to state this and stop doing harm.

By your logic, I could walk into a hospital, say "AMPUTATE MY LEG NOW!!" and the doctor would *have* to do it, because it is treatment I want.

If you could pay to have your leg amputated, certainly. It happens all the time. Of course, insurance doesn't often cover elective procedures.
If I Went to a plastic surgeon asking for liposuction, a face lift and breast implants he'd certainly do the first two. He'd look at me strange but he'd do the third procedure if my money was good. But I'm talking about life extending procedures and you're talking about elective cosmetic surgery.

If you were to run into an ER wanting your leg to be amputated then they would send test you from drugs and possible put you on a mental hold before sending you away and telling you to make an apointment with your regular physician.
If you were to run into an ER bleeding from a gunshot would they would treat you immediatly.

Medical ethics do not allow a physician to decide when a patient live or dies, even in the those paradigms that support assisted suicide.There is a good reason for this. People have to trust their doctors and when your doctor could let you die even while you are begging for help there is no trust.
Quality of life is subjective and it is not up to a physician to make that decision, it is up to the patient. Doctors are professionals and they should act like professionals. Professionals do their jobs, perform their duties, and fufil their obligations despite their personal opinions.

If you could pay to have your leg amputated, certainly. It happens all the time. Of course, insurance doesn't often cover elective procedures.

Actually, it does not happen all the time - and any doctor who amputated a person's leg when they did not need it would be brought up on ethics charges and would lose their license.

Medical ethics do not allow a physician to decide when a patient live or dies, even in the those paradigms that support assisted suicide.There is a good reason for this. People have to trust their doctors and when your doctor could let you die even while you are begging for help there is no trust.

We are not talking about deciding when a patient lives or dies, but deciding when treatment is doing more harm than good and being able to stop giving it at that point - something a doctor would know more about than a layperson. The patient will still live or die naturally.

Meanwhile, the law allows for someone to get a second/third/fourth/etc. opinion and try to find a doctor who disagrees with the prognosis - they are given a certain amount of time in which to do so.

Actually, it does not happen all the time - and any doctor who amputated a person's leg when they did not need it would be brought up on ethics charges and would lose their license.


The AMA would disagree with you about elective ampulations. The only reason to deny one is that it potentially is a sign of an underlying mental disorder. One must assess the competence of the patient but there is no reason not to comply with the wishes of a fully competant patient.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/6262.html


We are not talking about deciding when a patient lives or dies, but deciding when treatment is doing more harm than good and being able to stop giving it at that point - something a doctor would know more about than a layperson. The patient will still live or die naturally.

Meanwhile, the law allows for someone to get a second/third/fourth/etc. opinion and try to find a doctor who disagrees with the prognosis - they are given a certain amount of time in which to do so.

We're not talking about deciding when a patient lives or dies. We are just talking about when to treat a patient who would otherwise die.

Consider this. Due to an unfortunate turn of events you find yourself homeless andliving on the streets. You are stabbed in the chest in a dispute over a can of tube socks. The wound is not imediatly fatal but you will certainly die without treatment so you drag yourself to the nearest emergency hospital. When you get these the doctor refuses to treat you because he believes that homeless people are better off dead. Would you be happy that he decided to let you die naturally? You could get a second opinion, o fcourse, but that would require walking to a hospital in another town 70 miles away. You'd probably blees to death long before you get there. But you can get a scond opinion.

The judgement that a patient would be better off dead is not the doctor's to make. It is the patient's. The patient can refuse life saving treatment but a doctor can never refuse to administer it. Remember, you can you can always let a person die but you cannot ressurect the dead. If the patient is kept alive now but chooses to die later then that is fine.
If a doctor decides to let a patient die and a miraculous cure is discovered a week later then it is too late.

The AMA would disagree with you about elective ampulations. The only reason to deny one is that it potentially is a sign of an underlying mental disorder. One must assess the competence of the patient but there is no reason not to comply with the wishes of a fully competant patient.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/6262.html



We're not talking about deciding when a patient lives or dies. We are just talking about when to treat a patient who would otherwise die.

Consider this. Due to an unfortunate turn of events you find yourself homeless andliving on the streets. You are stabbed in the chest in a dispute over a can of tube socks. The wound is not imediatly fatal but you will certainly die without treatment so you drag yourself to the nearest emergency hospital. When you get these the doctor refuses to treat you because he believes that homeless people are better off dead. Would you be happy that he decided to let you die naturally? You could get a second opinion, o fcourse, but that would require walking to a hospital in another town 70 miles away. You'd probably blees to death long before you get there. But you can get a scond opinion.

The judgement that a patient would be better off dead is not the doctor's to make. It is the patient's. The patient can refuse life saving treatment but a doctor can never refuse to administer it. Remember, you can you can always let a person die but you cannot ressurect the dead. If the patient is kept alive now but chooses to die later then that is fine.
If a doctor decides to let a patient die and a miraculous cure is discovered a week later then it is too late.

So why don't we just freeze everyone with aids? (just a jab.)

There comes a point where medical science can no longer return a state of quality to a person's life. If you think people should be kept in a vegitated condition... I don't exactly call that "alive." You're right, though, that a doctor can NERVER refure to administer life-saving medical attention. However, the doctor's responsibilities are to stabilize a patient... I don't think people want to sit and rot and eat through an IV for 40 years before a cure is found. But that's just me.

So why don't we just freeze everyone with aids? (just a jab.)

There comes a point where medical science can no longer return a state of quality to a person's life. If you think people should be kept in a vegitated condition... I don't exactly call that "alive." You're right, though, that a doctor can NERVER refure to administer life-saving medical attention. However, the doctor's responsibilities are to stabilize a patient... I don't think people want to sit and rot and eat through an IV for 40 years before a cure is found. But that's just me.

You wouldn't, I would. That's the point. It should be up to the patient to decide when the quality of life is so low that death is preferable, not the doctor. A doctor shouldn't force treatment on a patient who doesn't want it and a doctor shouldn't deny necessary treatment to a patient that does want it.

Consider this. Due to an unfortunate turn of events you find yourself homeless andliving on the streets. You are stabbed in the chest in a dispute over a can of tube socks. The wound is not imediatly fatal but you will certainly die without treatment so you drag yourself to the nearest emergency hospital. When you get these the doctor refuses to treat you because he believes that homeless people are better off dead. Would you be happy that he decided to let you die naturally? You could get a second opinion, o fcourse, but that would require walking to a hospital in another town 70 miles away. You'd probably blees to death long before you get there. But you can get a scond opinion.

Your analogy is a complete nonsequitur for several reasons.

(1) We are not talking about situations in which treatment would save a life, but situations in which treatment would simply prolong it slightly longer. Ihate to break it to you, but a deformity in which a person's own lungs cannot fit into their rib cage is not going to magically get better.

(2) The law states that the doctor must treat that person *until* they can get a second opinion. In fact, they have 10 days in which to do so (at which time the wound is already treated.)

The judgement that a patient would be better off dead is not the doctor's to make. It is the patient's. The patient can refuse life saving treatment but a doctor can never refuse to administer it. Remember, you can you can always let a person die but you cannot ressurect the dead. If the patient is kept alive now but chooses to die later then that is fine.

Again, we are not talking about life-saving treatment. We are talking about life-prolonging treatment.

If a doctor decides to let a patient die and a miraculous cure is discovered a week later then it is too late.

I hate to break it to you, but miraculous cures don't happen in the real world.

You wouldn't, I would. That's the point. It should be up to the patient to decide when the quality of life is so low that death is preferable, not the doctor. A doctor shouldn't force treatment on a patient who doesn't want it and a doctor shouldn't deny necessary treatment to a patient that does want it.

Define: necessary treatment.

You have already demonstrated that you don't know much about how the medical community works - do you really think *you* are qualified to define it?