Posted on 12/19/2007 5:00:27 AM PST by paulsy
"Paulo Melo, 29, has been in a coma at the Royal Darwin Hospital for two weeks, after severing his spinal cord in a car crash." - read more below: doctor requested, family objected, court granted
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
So, you don’t mind paying for services you won’t receive? It’s okay to force you to pay for an insurance policy, with the understanding that it will pay for your medical care, and when it comes time for you to collect, you get killed instead. That’s okay with you?
But they are artificial means.
I still cannot believe that God would want my body kept alive by machines, when it would die on its own.
You may disagree. I would not impose my beliefs on you - that is between you and your God.
Exactly.
i have to say, that over the past few years I had become rather dissappointed with my native US given how some things have shaped up there for me personally after a divorce, and politically.
But seeing this happen here in Queensland, and the lack of local media coverage, makes me really appreciate home (US). This same thing would NOT happen back home in Austin.
“Where does it say that this man is a “vegetable”?” - yep. And again, why is it even an issue here? Why should a family have to file a lawsuit in a hostile court, in order to keep a murdering doctor from showing such lethal compassion? It’s really sick. I hope the US doesn’t follow suit with similar governments in the future. Mostly though, I hope this person the court has ordered doctors here to kill changes its mind; and I hope the public here (and elsewhere) slows down for long enough to do something about it.
It's their country not ours. I think we ought to butt out of their affairs and stop acting like the worlds homeowners association.
The "policy" in this case explicitly says that I won't be covered whenever, in the estimation of the "insurance company," there's no reasonable chance that any further treatment will produce any beneficial result.
Do I strongly suspect that the "insurance company" opinion might be more motivated by financial concerns than any sincere desire to be helpful? You bet. But that's the deal the citizens of Australia have given themselves. If they don't like it, they should change it.
I think Australia has nationalized health care, and in such cases, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Which is a major reason not to have nationalized health care.
When I lost my right to life in deference to your desire for a right to die, your beliefs were forced on me. There was a time, not very long ago, when the right to life was recognized, and the desire for life was understood. You could forfeit your rights by putting it in writing, but they couldn’t be taken from you on the assumption that you didn’t value your life as most people do.
Well that settles it! It's a consensus, it must be right if more than 20 specialist agree. /s
Thanks for the post and the ping
It only took the Australian government 2 weeks to work all the way up the system and decide to kill him?
Small wonder they banned guns...
I'm sorry, but watching a court murder someone doesn't settle well no matter where I am witnessing it. Being here makes it all the more real.
Then feel free to stomp your feet in protest
So, he deserves to be murdered, because he lives in a place where it can happen. He didn’t single-handedly prevent this possibility, so he should live with the consequences (or die with them.) We should have the problem because we didn’t change it, but we shouldn’t try to change it, because we should have to have the situation we allowed. Strange circular reasoning you have there.
There you have it.
Your right to life requires that others don't kill you. It does not require they pay for your cancer treatment, nor that they pay your rent or grocery bills.
I think this is the quote of the day!!
Each individual is fully responsible for himself—even in socialist countries. Just because your government makes things difficult for you is no excuse.
Now, if you want me to criticise the government and politicians of Australia, I'm happy to do that too: Socialized medicine is murder. There, happy?
Liberal doublespeak.
Everyone has the power to put their wishes in writing, and the right to have those enforced.
In the absence of those instructions, I don't want the state to start telling my family what choice they must make (in either direction).
The right to life used to be recognized without need of a lawyer, documents and a public relations campaign. Just because someone hasn’t hired a lawyer and filled out documents stating they don’t wish to be tortured to death, doesn’t mean they do.
When the minority view became the default, the rights of the majority were cast aside.
tortured to death
Emotional appeals don't exactly help your argument - they're more liberal claptrap. Taking somebody off mechanical life support is not "tortured to death." Words mean things, after all.
When the minority view became the default, the rights of the majority were cast aside.
That might not be the best argument you could make - I think you'll find that wanting the choice to be taken off a respirator is the majority view.
Besides, shouldn't the default be that the family makes medical decisions? If the state's call (either way) is the default, that's wrong.
The majority want a choice. The majority choose to live. The majority do not want to be denied basic care.
Do you have a clue what torture is? Stop eating and drinking, and then tell us how “euphoric” it is. It’s real easy for some folks to believe it’s no big deal when someone else suffers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.