The Ethics of Withdrawing Life Support [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : The Ethics of Withdrawing Life Support

Lemur

01-04-2006, 20:21

Snowhobbit

01-04-2006, 20:26

I find it inhumane, and strangely related to the solidarity thread...

Crazed Rabbit

01-04-2006, 22:01

Wrong, just as it was wrong to kill Terry Shavio.

Crazed Rabbit

discovery1

01-04-2006, 22:13

First, is this true?

Second, the correctnes would depend on the attitude of the person in question. If not she said nothing, then her family. What was the feelings of her family, btw? The article doesn't mention it at all.

Viking

01-04-2006, 22:14

It is wrong if the pasient itself do not want it, and/or if he/she has possiblities for recovery.

If the pasient wants to die, then no problem; it`s no direct kill.

This case also points out some of the problems if you actually have to pay for vital treatment.

Vladimir

01-04-2006, 22:48

So are we to keep everyone alive indefinitely? It sucks I know but this isn't Star Trek. The patient, the hospital, the state, etc. can't afford everything for everyone all the time. We do what we can with what we have and in times of crisis rely on the good will of others. There's no good answer to this difficult question.

Goofball

01-05-2006, 00:49

Wrong, just as it was wrong to kill Terry Shavio.

Crazed Rabbit

Then why weren't the Bush family and the Republican party passing laws, bullying judges, crying "murder!" and generally doing everything in their power to prevent it?

Oh wait. Not an election year.

And it's a poor person.

Never mind.

Strike For The South

01-05-2006, 02:00

Then why weren't the Bush family and the Republican party passing laws, bullying judges, crying "murder!" and generally doing everything in their power to prevent it?

Oh wait. Not an election year.

And it's a poor person.

Never mind.

must.....not....agree....not...relavent.....but.......true:wall:

bmolsson

01-05-2006, 03:11

It it's true, I am pretty sure the hospital followed the law. Unfortunately, there will always be situations where it's insuffient money to save lives. It's sad, but we can't judge the hospital for it.....

KafirChobee

01-05-2006, 07:26

Stumbled across a disturbing article, (http://www.slate.com/id/2133518/) and I wondered what the Backroom would make of it:

A woman who couldn't pay her bills is unplugged from her ventilator and dies. Is this wrong?

Tirhas Habtegiris, a 27-year-old terminal cancer patient at Baylor Regional Medical Center in Plano, Texas, was removed from her ventilator last month because she couldn't pay her medical bills. The hospital gave Ms. Habtegiris' family 10 days' notice, and then, with the bills still unpaid, withdrew her life support on the 11th day. It took Ms. Habtegiris about 15 minutes to die.
A bill promoted, pressed, and sponsored by then Gov. Geo. Bush of Texas was put into law in Texas in 1998 that anyone not being able to pay their medical bills was not alowed to stay in a hospital or receive treatment there in. Basically, it was a bill against newborns whose parents were poor and black, but inevitably it turned against anyone that could not pay a medical bill. The AMA appaulded it as the first step in forcing people to respond to their financial responabilities ... to them. Much as the no bankruptcy laws now are.

It defies the hypocratic oath, but it responds to the AMA's desire to force those in need - regardless of their ability too - to die with out their aid if they cannot respond with cash. Seems money talks and talks and talks ... and the poor can just go make mo' babies. Screw ya'll. Need help? Don't bother calling a doctor in Texas unless you got the cash in hand.

It is true btw about Bush signing that into law. It makes the Shiavo case that more hypocritical for his participation.

The saddest part is that it would cost Americans 14 cents a day for full medical coverage ... if the government would allow it. The HMOs, and other medical insurances being sold cost the government about $10 a day (for the 50-60% of americans covered - because those in charge of the negotiations between the two have all worked both sides or they intend to). It's a joke ... but, unfortunately the joke is on all of us. Medicine is the biggest, most corrupt business in America - and no one in congress cares or is willing to stand against them (they'ld crush them like a nat).

Regardless, all it prove is if your poor .. you die. Don't matter if it is from a hurricane or your health ... if you can't pay in America ... die and get it over with. just get the f' outta the way of those that can make moneys. 'cause moneys is what the new america is all abouts ... screw the needy or being fair. Leave those behind that are use to being there. Why help those that can't contribute to the "party" (regarless of its name).

But, pulling the plug on those that can't pay is a uniquely Texan idea - and Bush signed off on it.

Samurai Waki

01-05-2006, 08:30

hmmm.... if I was in a vegetative state than I think I would prefer death. Even if there was going to be a cure for whatever was wrong in like 5 years, if I was to be treated, it would be almost impossible to associate to anyone or anything. If you are truly meant to die, then just get it over with. Now, if there was a certainty for a cure, and it only meant that you'd be in a coma for a little while, then I might be more optimistic.

...sometimes people just need to let go, and if they can't bear it, then it is just that someone step in, and be the bad guy.

Xiahou

01-05-2006, 10:14

Sadly, I find myself agreeing with alot of the point made by the author of the article. Particularly, the part about the hypocrisy of liberals from places like the "daily kos" who are apparently so outraged over this. I'm sure there's enough of them bitching now to have paid her expenses had they closed their mouths and opened their wallets instead. But, I guess it's better politics to wait for her to die and then start with the finger pointing. :wink:

master of the puppets

01-05-2006, 18:08

unforgivable, money shall save your life now adays not the goodness in someones heart, i doubt its like the show ER or anything, the patients are just another slab of meat that shoots ,money if you fix it. at least on the manegment level. so how do you fix a chicken that does not lay eggs for her daily feed...the AX, its a shame how easy it is to compare people to animals now a days, and to look at the polotitions and rich as the farmers with an ax and a milk pail...

Beirut

01-05-2006, 19:00

Ending someone's life because they can't pay the bills is murder. (If that is actually why it happened.)

Ending someone's life out of compassion is reasonable and necessary. Been there done that. The sanctity of life is just that, but the cold, hard necessity of death, at times, sits aside that sanctity and is inseparable from it.

Welcome to the human condition.

Rodion Romanovich

01-05-2006, 19:10

BDC

01-05-2006, 20:09

People die. Should be due to medical reasons, not fiscal though. But if you have a health service like in America it is inevitably about money too.

Proletariat

01-05-2006, 22:21

Wow, if this is true then capitalism has started going a little too far, like all ideologies sooner or later unfortunately tend to.

It's like saying that a human being is only entitled to live as long as he/she as a machine pays bills and taxes.

Too bad without capitalism the technology to keep her alive so long wouldn't have existed. Swing and a miss.

Zalmoxis

01-05-2006, 22:39

This is not right. Now, if hospitals were funded by the government, this would not happen.

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-05-2006, 22:53

Right. She would have died long before by government mismanagement.

:shame:

Kaiser of Arabia

01-05-2006, 22:56

Rodion Romanovich

01-05-2006, 23:13

Too bad without capitalism the technology to keep her alive so long wouldn't have existed. Swing and a miss.

It was not an attack on moderate capitalism, it was an attack on extreme capitalism. Most ideologies get nasty when they get extreme, even though most of them are failry decent when they're not exaggerated.

Papewaio

01-06-2006, 02:38

Salvi was stunned to get this hand-delivered notice invoking a complicated and rarely used Texas law where a doctor is "not obligated to continue" medical treatment "medically inappropriate" when care is not beneficial.

Even though her body was being ravaged by cancer, this family says Tirhas still responded and was conscious. She was waiting one person.

"She wanted to get her mom over here or to get to her mom so she could die in her mom's arms," says her cousin Meri Tesfay.

The law can only be invoked where care is not beneficial...

However she was still conscious... so was she a vegetable at this point? Seems like she was dying of cancer.

Maybe the real story was that this was the Doctors way of assisting in euthansia legally?

I hope so, otherwise they are just a bunch of highway men... your money or your life.

Soulforged

01-06-2006, 04:39

A woman who couldn't pay her bills is unplugged from her ventilator and dies. Is this wrong?Of course it's wrong. We cannot make this at two levels: 1- Because it's not our desicion to make. 2- Because you cannot save one life at the expense of other, even less in this rational way, like bureaucracy.
Notice that I'm not even considering the economical problem wich is proposterous at any rate. It surprises me to see people tolerating this kind of behavior, it really escapes all my knowledge.

Major Robert Dump

01-06-2006, 05:19

I don't know whats funnier, all the conservative babble over saving a brain dead and blind woman(yes the good Senators diagnosis via television was incorrect), or the fact that while this was happening a Republican congress scaled back Medicare (which was paying for part of Schiavos care) and also made it more difficult for private citizens to declare bankruptcy (half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.). You guys are really funny sometimes.

Ja'chyra

01-06-2006, 09:19

Seems to be a pretty biased article. Sounds like she was dying of cancer and the doctors done her a favour, but without all the details we will never know.

Because you cannot save one life at the expense of other, even less in this rational way, like bureaucracy.

Of course you can e.g. two patients and one life support machine, who should have it? The one with the chance of pulling through or the one with no chance at all? I'm sure these decision are made every day in hospitals, and rightly so.

Oaty

01-06-2006, 23:07

...Tirhas still responded and was conscious. She was waiting one person.

Still able to talk and gets the plug pulled

Goofball

01-06-2006, 23:16

Ok, someone owes me money. I give them 10 days to pay. On the 11th I put a bullet in their lung, causing them to writher and die in agony. I get charged with murder and go to jail.

Now, I am a doctor. Someone cannot pay life support bills, so I take them off. They die in agony. I get away with it scot free because the Government is a breeding ground for hypocracy.

Sweet-Mary-Mother-Of-God-Praise-The-Lord-And-Pass-The-Ammunition!!!!!

Kaiser, not only have you stated the heart of the matter with simple, graphic accuracy, but I think it's the first time you and I have ever been in full agreement on an issue.

Well said, my friend.

~:cheers:

Soulforged

01-07-2006, 02:30

Of course you can e.g. two patients and one life support machine, who should have it? The one with the chance of pulling through or the one with no chance at all? I'm sure these decision are made every day in hospitals, and rightly so.Care to show some proof, I'm pretty sure that without the consensus of the victims familiars or tutors it's unethical to do such thing, but if you find a legitimate case about that then I'll automatically give you the reason.
Even if you find that proof take this in account: I was not refering to two or more lives at stake at the same momment but in separated times, when the doctor mades the decission of calculating life chances and taking decision for the pacient (however if also find that this person was without doubt dying of cancer and there was another pacient that could use her bed then I'm all for it) based on monetarial reasons, there's such lack of ethics that it's not worth answering.