parttimepro
03-24-2005, 05:03 PM
Is it possible to have an intellectually coherent belief that A) Terri Schiavo should be maintained on life support, and B) that Texas' Futile Care Law is a good and moral law?
Background for those who don't know about the Futile Care Law:
In the late 90's, George Bush as governor of Texas signed into law the Futile Care Law. This allows hospitals to terminate life support to nonresponsive patients who will not recover, regardless of their wishes or their families' wishes, if they cannot pay their bills. The law was just used recently to end the life of a 3-month old: Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934)
I think it's possible to make a case to maintain Terri's life support on the basis of preserving life whenever possible. I think it's also possible to make a case for the Futile Care Law by acknowledging that we have limited resources and we need to allocate them efficiently. I can't come up with any way that anyone could logically believe both of these things at once.
Anyone want to try?
Background for those who don't know about the Futile Care Law:
In the late 90's, George Bush as governor of Texas signed into law the Futile Care Law. This allows hospitals to terminate life support to nonresponsive patients who will not recover, regardless of their wishes or their families' wishes, if they cannot pay their bills. The law was just used recently to end the life of a 3-month old: Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934)
I think it's possible to make a case to maintain Terri's life support on the basis of preserving life whenever possible. I think it's also possible to make a case for the Futile Care Law by acknowledging that we have limited resources and we need to allocate them efficiently. I can't come up with any way that anyone could logically believe both of these things at once.
Anyone want to try?