Posted on 03/11/2011 3:23:18 PM PST by wagglebee
Clearly, for some, there are very strict limits.
Right. You’re on our side. You shout your disdain for people based on disabilities, and insult people for standing up for the right to life, but that’s just your endearing way of opening up, so we can see you’re only human. You really don’t mean any of it. You’re as pro-life as they come, but you have “concerns.” Uh huh.
You have no arguments, no proofs, only more fantasy and lies. You think you’re a mind reader, and you have no coherent thoughts. Uh huh. Ridiculous. Pathetic.
Post 130 : Poor ol' Lastchance didn't bother to read what I wrote, either. He just immediately went into self-pity mode
You ridicule someone who admits to having MS and then claim innocence. You are a nasty piece of work.
Sorry yes I believe you do favor the death of this woman. I don’t claim you overtly favor it. You favor it because the primary issue for you is one of payment. We do not know the family circumstances. We do not know what payment was demanded from the hospital. We do not know if the family attempted to make arrangements. Your concern was not on the action that would cause this woman’d death but on the inaction of the hospital being compensated. (Which by the way no one has said they should provide service for free.)
What we do know is that care for for this stroke victim cost lost of money. Though the cost of providing hydration and nutrition is certainly not extraordinary in terms of ethics or budget. Now the reason the guardian withdraw the nutrition and hydration was very simple she thought the woman was taking away valuable health care resources from another theoretical patient. Keep in mind we are not talking about someone who is brain dead and being kept alive by artificial means. This woman decided on her own that any and I emphasize any care to this woman would be futile care.
What makes it futile? Could it be because the woman is now disabled and her quality of life is severly impacted? Do you know that is a favorite argument of those who support death panels and the philosophy behind them? Did you know that the disabled are most vulnerable to such actions? Did you know that disability rights groups filed Amicus Briefs in the Terri Schiavo case just for that reason?
Disabled people do take up more health care resources. We often can not afford private insurace. I self ration a lot of care. I do not receive MS inteferon drugs both because of bad reactions and because of the high cost. I have rejected certain treatments because the cost is too high. Even with the pittance Medicare reimburses the cost is too high. Look up Tysarbi costs. Now say I am in this woman’s position. I stroke out. Do you think in the hands of an guardian such as she has I would have any chance of receiving even hydration and nutrition? The answser is no.
We are told to have a health care surrogate but that did not help this lady as the hospital (I think it was they) took away the family’s power to make medical decision for their mom. She would not be in the position she is in if the court had not appointed this current guardian.
There is no reason that the hospital could not have pursued all options available to them to collect payment even going to court. That is their legal right The family could declare bankruptcy if they truly can not pay.
It is not self pity to point out that under your guidelines, money first life giving care second, I would be more vulnerable to a decision that would end in my death.
The woman in the article is certainly going to die if food and water is not restored to her. That must basic of care should not be debatable when their is no medical reason to believe such care is not futile. Futile as in the patient is truly terminal and food and nutrition is now a burden to her organ systems and her body is unable to process the same.
By the way cupcake I am a she.
To: lastchance
I am so sorry your disease has made you disagreeable and unable to grasp simple concepts.
54 posted on March 11, 2011 8:17:51 PM EST by La Lydia
*****************************************
Perhaps the above might be a clue for you.
I’m sorry, I should have pinged you to my post #146.
That’s alright. Thanks.
In cases like this it's very expensive which begs the question; who should pay the bill?
Here’s my last blog post with update:
http://lesforlife.blogspot.com/2011/03/rawandan-grammy-survives-starvation.html
Yours was a well-articulated, intelligent post posing difficult questions that have yet to be answered.
Since this thread was posted last night there's been perhaps a thousand patients at hospitals across the country whose life support machines were turned off after decisions regarding their prognosis were weighed against financial concerns as well as the need of others for these expensive and very limited in availability life-supporting machines.
There's been perhaps another thousand patients who died last night because a life support machine was not available to them. It was either being used by another patient, having periodic maintenance being performed on it or in a state of disrepair and awaiting the funding needed to get it fixed.
Finally, there's most likely countless patients whose lives depend on one of these life support machines becoming quickly available and who will die if one doesn't.
Hard decisions must be made. These machines are very expensive and there's more people who need them than there are machines available to use. That's an ugly truth but a truth nonetheless.
“This thread is about the right to life”
As is my question. Despite your protestations, you continue to refuse to answer the question asked, you rather choose to personalize it and turn it into a question that makes you feel personally and morally superior.
Maybe you are morally superior, I don’t know, (except for that honesty problem you have).
The question remains:
Are there limits to charity? Should there be?
I see you have a new ally. An admirer actually. It shares your appreciation for honesty and your priorities on the value of life.
How'd you like that bit about rationing life support machines because they're in short supply? I guess the n00b was confused about the pro-life nature of this forum, after watching the culture of death promoted here. Here's what the owner of this site has to say about that. Welcome to Free Republic! America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activists! .
First of all, we are talking about a FEEDING TUBE, not life support.
Feeding tubes have been used with varying degrees of success for over FOUR HUNDRED YEARS. The early problems with them are entirely due to not having modern plastics to use and infections which are now irrelevant due to common antibiotics.
There is NO SHORTAGE of feeding tubes.
Hard decisions must be made. These machines are very expensive and there's more people who need them than there are machines available to use. That's an ugly truth but a truth nonetheless.
Actually, this isn't true at all. Feeding tubes are inexpensive to produce and cost about $700 a week to use.
You may not realize it, actually you almost certainly do, but you are pushing rationing and death panels. Your position is EXACTLY THE SAME AS OBAMA'S.
YEP
Unbelievable, I never thought I would see someone who claimed to be a conservative, or even a libertarian, suggesting that CHARITY should be limited.
***************************************
Devil's advocate? How many times have we seen this method used to advance an agenda?
Maybe 0h0m0 should appoint a Limits to Charity Czar, sounds like you're the man for the job.
I don’t know why anyone wants to be a devil’s advocate; sounds like choosing the wrong team!
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.