"Culture of Life"

[MtSmalls]

Once again, its been proven that the "Culture of Life" begins at conception and ends at birth. STORY (http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_348124802.html) Earlier this week, a woman in the Baylor Regional Medical Center, a legal African immigrant was killed by her doctors when they unplugged her respirator and allowed her to die.

Tirhas Habtegiris was a terminal cancer patient at the hospital. On December 1st, the doctors and staff at informed her family that she would be removed the respirator that was keeping her alive in 10 days. Ms. Habtegris had no insurance, and could not pay for her medical treatment, so, under a Texas law, signed by then Governor Bush, the Medical Center had the right to refuse to further treat the woman.

Ms. Habtegiris was conscious and alert at the time. It took more than 15 minutes for her to die, once the respirator was turned off. Her dying wish was to live long enough for her mother to be brought to the US so she could die in her arms. Her mother could not be located and brought to the US in the 10 days allowed.

She wasn't white. Politicians did not diagnose her via videotape. There were no protestors outside the hospital where she died. The President did not rush back from vacation to sign a law to protect her life. She died without seeing her mother one last time.

There wasn't a single person, other than her family, that fought for HER right to live.

Did the family offer to take her into their custody and pay for her care from there on out such as the Schiavos did?

[tripp0807]

Hippocratic/Hypocritic Oath: Do no harm, so long as they can pay.

If you really wanted a culture where life is valued above all else, would your first question be about paying hospital bills?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really wanted a culture where life is valued above all else, would your first question be about paying hospital bills?

[/ QUOTE ]


If you want to pay for her to stay alive, then go ahead and start a organization that is going to do this. Not to seem callous, but why do people who don't know her be forced to keep her alive.

News flash! People die from illnesses and accidents or just plain die. We all have to go at some point.

I feel bad that she didn't get to see her mother, but that is one of those unfortunate things.

I don't see how this has anything to do with a "culture of life".

-Gryph

Wouldn't you agree it's a rather shallow "culture of life" which decides how long people are able to live based on their ability to pay for treatment?

If the people who protested outside Terri Schiavo's hospital really believed that all life is sacred, shouldn't they have pooled some funds to keep Tirhas Habtegiris alive as long as possible? Shouldn't they be protesting and screaming at their legislators to change this law?

avivasimplex,

It is less about them not caring than it is them not knowing about it. I think the most provocative point of the OPs post was that this recieved no attention because it did not have as much "drama". If the people who were outside Schiavo's building had known about it, I'm sure they woulda gone just as nutso.

[lehighguy]

We can't afford to keep everyone alive. There aren't many reasons why people have to die before thier 80. If you are willing to spend millions of dollars on medical treatment you can even beat AIDS.

But we don't have enough money to spend millions of dollars on everyone. And the issue will only get bigger as medical technology advances, can treat more illnesses, and becomes more expensive. Even countries with universal healthcare have acknowledged this.

Great thread from a great republican.

There certainly is a culture of 'you must have the baby you can't afford, but don't expect us to help you raise it'.

[MtSmalls]

Rich, white, brain dead woman in Florida = Congressional intervention, and religious fundamentalists so concerned about her right to live that it makes the news every night for three weeks.

Poor, black African Immigrant in Texas, who is lucid and conscious, who knows the end has come, but wants to live until she can see her Mother one more time (6 weeks? 10 weeks?) gets the plug pulled against her wishes and the wishes of her family. Why? Cause no one can pay.

WHERE WAS THE "CULTURE OF LIFE CROWD"???

Point 2: Why was this bill ever signed in TX, by Gov Bush, if he is part of the "Culture of Life", every life is sacred sect??

One of the best points I ever heard was when someone asked "what companies are the two biggest buildings in Boston named after" The Met Life and the Manu-Mutual buildings...two health insurance companies. Health insurance companies have much more power in the US than they ought to.

Nationalized health care in Canada put them out of business, thats why the corporate media in America hates the idea of nationalized health care, even though most americans support the idea.

Edit: 80 percent of americans support nationalized healthcare.

[lehighguy]

I'm not a republican, but you don't really care.

Anyway, the circumstances of the birth having nothing to do with whether or not murder of the child should be illegal. We don't let people kill 1 month old kids, and if we believe a fetus is alive then the same principle applies.

There are only two reasons to support abortion:
1) You don't think the fetus is alive.
2) You think it is alive, but you think murder is ok if it benefits the state/society.

To be honest, I think most abortion rights people, especially the ones that support partial birth abortion and such, believe in the second. It would certainly explain earlier poll results about how people on this forum thought it would be ok for the government to forcibly sterilize poor people.

However, in a society based on liberty which respects individual rights such beliefs seem barbaric to me. You can't murder or sterilize someone simply because you think thier existence is "inconvienent". If you want to support that line of reasoning, at least do it upfront, rather then bullshitting around about womens right's or whatever other straw men you might use to avoid this key issue.

P.S. No one forced anyone to have a kid, I don't recall any government sponsored insemination. But that is really beside the point where the "right to life" is concerned, since the circumstances of the birth are completely irrelevent.

[Beer and Pizza]

You got it wrong. It is the culture of death that killed her.

The media didn't cover this because they knew it would bring people who are for live out of the woodwork. The media wants death, whether withdrawn life support, euthanasia, or abortion to be acceptable and normal. Being quiet and letting her die served the media's culture of death bias.

[lehighguy]

If you are willing to have the government pay for life support, are you not also willing to have the government pay for heart transplants, cancer screenings, experimental AIDS drugs, etc. What about if someone dies because they couldn't afford airbags in thier car. Should the government have an airbag tax?

[coffeecrazy1]

Wow. Just wow.

So many things wrong with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the best points I ever heard was when someone asked "what companies are the two biggest buildings in Boston named after" The Met Life and the Manu-Mutual buildings...two health insurance companies. Health insurance companies have much more power in the US than they ought to.

[/ QUOTE ] Interesting Boston factoid, for sure...but does it really mean anything? Would you be able to make your inferential leap if these two buildings were in New York? Also, how does having the biggest building equate to having too much power? Do you have facts to back this up, or are you making some convoluted "Size does matter" argument?

[ QUOTE ]
Nationalized health care in Canada put them out of business, thats why the corporate media in America hates the idea of nationalized health care, even though most americans support the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)Government regulation and oversight kills competition by its very nature. How many times must we demonstrate the inefficiency of large bureaucracies? And...how many people choose Canadian medicine over American medicine? Are healthcare conditions in Canada better than those in the USA?
2)I imagine most Americans support FREE healthcare, because Americans support almost anything that they don't have to pay for(or, at least, not directly).

But...can you offer any proof for your 80 percent statistic? I know that universal healthcare was shot down in 1993-1994 when it was introduced by Hillary Clinton...but I cannot find any statistics for popular support on this. However, I posit that if 8 out of 10 Americans supported it, it would have passed.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Are healthcare conditions in Canada better than those in the USA?

[/ QUOTE ]

The CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html) seem to think so

[lehighguy]

Didn't we already debunk this in another post.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There are only two reasons to support abortion:
1) You don't think the fetus is alive.
2) You think it is alive, but you think murder is ok if it benefits the state/society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you think a fetus is something in between a life and a glob of cells, but you think that the rights of the mother to control her body outweighs the potential for life that is the fetus.

[superleeds]

If 'we' did, i very much doubt you had anything to do with it.

In 2003, the US spent 15.3 percent of its gdp on healthcare.

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Just wow.

So many things wrong with this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the best points I ever heard was when someone asked "what companies are the two biggest buildings in Boston named after" The Met Life and the Manu-Mutual buildings...two health insurance companies. Health insurance companies have much more power in the US than they ought to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting Boston factoid, for sure...but does it really mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there were so many things wrong with that post -- not the least among them that the two tallest buildings in Boston are the Hancock Tower and the Prudential. I lived in Boston area for a while, and I've never even heard of the MetLife or Manu-Mutual buildings there. I've never even heard of a 'Manu-Mutual' building anywhere.

There's a MetLife building in NYC, and it's pretty tall -- but it's nowhere near the tallest, as far as I know.

"Hancock Tower and the Prudential"

I thought I was wrong on the names.

Those are both insurace companies nevertheless.

[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is a culture of 'you must have the baby you can't afford, but don't expect us to help you raise it'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I not pay my state and federal income taxes? (We'll leave aside that I donate to charity)

[lehighguy]

I think the key is that you think it isn't alive, or for that matter anything of importance. Whether you place a fetus above inanimate objects or not, it is certainly far below the status of a life. Essentailly placing you in category one.

Or put more simply, if you are asked the yes/no question is a fetus alive, you answer no.

[lehighguy]

Your rudeness aside, I think "we" determined that infant mortality was not the end all statistic in evaluating national healthcare quality.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
"Hancock Tower and the Prudential"

I thought I was wrong on the names.

Those are both insurace companies nevertheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

True -- but if I'm not mistaken, Prudential Financial sold the building years ago; it's now owned by a real estate development firm that leases the office spaces to various tenants; the building did retain the Prudential name, however.

Regardless, I happen to agree that it's rather unremarkable the two tallest buildings in Boston were named after insurance companies, and don't believe its representative any kind of undue influence on the part of insurance companies, either in Boston or in the country at large.

There's probably much more compelling evidence to demonstrate that insurance companies wield a lot of power than pointing to Boston skyscrapers.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
There are only two reasons to support abortion:
1) You don't think the fetus is alive.
2) You think it is alive, but you think murder is ok if it benefits the state/society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is grossly oversimplified -- as it leaves out the possibility that abortion is clearly ending life (that is, abortion kills a live fetus) but that it isn't equal to murder.

[ QUOTE ]
We can't afford to keep everyone alive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't disagree with this. Surely we have to make some decisions about resource allocation. But consider two cases of terminal illness:

Patient A is conscious and lucid, and clearly indicates that she wants to continue to live.

The doctors treating Patient B say that she is essentially brain-dead and unaware of her surroundings. As best we can tell, she indicated when she was healthy that if she ever were in her present condition, she would want them to pull the plug.

Now, both patients' hospitals are about to pull the plug. If you can only choose one patient to protest for, which one do you go for? Pretty easy decision, right?

So if we add the fact that B's family can pay for her care and A's can't, why should that change the decision? The protestors are saying that the sacred nature of life trumps Patient B's own decision, it trumps her legal guardian's decision, and it trumps her doctors' analysis. Apparently, though, it doesn't trump poverty. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[ QUOTE ]
There are only two reasons to support abortion:
1) You don't think the fetus is alive.
2) You think it is alive, but you think murder is ok if it benefits the state/society.

[/ QUOTE ]
By condoning the death of patient A, you are essentially choosing reason #2, except for an adult woman instead of a fetus.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Or put more simply, if you are asked the yes/no question is a fetus alive, you answer no.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you have no idea what I think on the issue.

Second, one can maintain that a fetus is a form of life that is lesser than someone who has been born. While this form of life has value, the value of the rights of the mother outweigh this life.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, one can maintain that a fetus is a form of life that is lesser than someone who has been born.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this is what most people intuitively/subconsciously believe, whether they admit it/realize it or not.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's something relatively incongruous about the belief 'abortion is murder' and the way most behave who hold that belief -- so much so that I'm inclined to say the belief isn't valid.

[lehighguy]

Something is either human or it isn't. It is a yes or no question. Either I'm human or I'm not.

If potential life falls short of humanity then it must not be very valuable. As Sklansky pointed out in his post there will soon exist medical treatments that can remove the fetus from the womb, and the entire womens right issue will be removed. Then we will have to come face to face with the fact that people just want the children not to exist, and it has very little to do with a woman's body.

Not that I'm too opposed to that. Personally, I think it is a form of murder but I'm ok with it. The less people the better. But at least I'm honest about it.

[lehighguy]

In our culture, the way it is set up, there is nothing inbetween being human and being an animal. There is no 3/5th of a human being (we got rid of that).

At some point in process it becomes a life. The second before that moment it isn't a life. I don't know when that occurs, and I doubt anyone does, but that's how I see it happeneing. All at once, not a little bit at a time.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this is what most people intuitively/subconsciously believe, whether they admit it/realize it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If you listen to the positions/rhetoric of the different sides of the abortion debate, this is the position on life that is shouted out with a quiet whisper. If a fetus were a full-life (same value as a child just born), pro-lifers would not allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest. If a fetus were no different than a toenail (i.e. just a collection of cells) pro-choicers wouldn't say that it is a difficult/moral decision for a woman to make --- the reason it is a difficult decision is because the fetus is different than a toenail.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
In our culture, the way it is set up, there is nothing inbetween being human and being an animal. There is no 3/5th of a human being (we got rid of that).

At some point in process it becomes a life. The second before that moment it isn't a life. I don't know when that occurs, and I doubt anyone does, but that's how I see it happeneing. All at once, not a little bit at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not necessarily the difference between being a human or being an animal.

It's the difference between being a human and being something less than a human. I don't think there's a particularly neat way to describe it -- but I'm a pretty firm believer that a fetus is 1) alive and/or a life but 2) it's not categorically a 'human'. The 'alive' part ought to be relatively simple to accept -- a fetus has cells reproducing; it's growing; is metabolizing, etc. Do fetuses constitute a 'life'? I don't know -- frankly I find such language debates to be largely irrelevant unless we're discussing ethics or legal rights -- so I'm not sure I particularly care if we call it 'human' or 'less than human' or 'baby' or 'a life' or 'fetus' or 'bundle of cells' or whatever such ways we might needlessly dance around the issue.

The 'not human' part of a fetus's character is more difficult to get a handle on; however, if we search our intuitions for how we would punish women who receive abortions -- or what kinds of lengths we would go to prevent abortions from occurring -- it becomes somewhat clearer that calling an abortion 'murder' is a tenuous position at best. But I think it's clearly ending/termination of something alive, or what we might otherwise call a killing. Does the fact that the killing of a fetus isn't murder lead us to say a fetus isn't human? I don't know, but it's not a conservation I'm all that interested in. So I'll concede that a fetus could rightfully be called a 'human', given that the we might come up with various ways of describing what it means to be 'human'. The biological component of 'human-ness' is probably narrow enough, and easily identifiable and quantifiable; but I don't think that settles the question of how we define the quality of 'human-ness' socially.

I understand Sklansky's points on abortion, and largely agree with him -- but I think he confuses 'murder' and 'killing' in such a way that clouds the rather cogent ethical points he's getting at.

[MtSmalls]

To un-hijack this thread back from the abortion debate (which wasn't the goal), please explain this to me:

If GWB is as religious a man as he claims to be, and self-identifies himself with the so-called "culture of life", why would he sign this bill into law? It states, basically, that if the board of ethics of any medical facility believes that further treatment will produce no medical benefit for the patient, and no other health care facility is willing to accept/admit said patient, the treating facility may elect to end all treatments for the patient.
Whether the patient can pay for the treatment or not, whether the patient (or their family) wants to continue to the treatment or not, the hospital can elect to refuse.

HOW DOES THIS MAKE MORAL SENSE, AND WHY IS THE CULTURE OF LIFE CROWD NOT PROTESTING THIS IN EVERY HOSPITAL IN TEXAS???

Is it because hes a hypocrite? He panders to the religous wackos who get their political beliefs from church.

[coffeecrazy1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't hospitals private entities? Do they have to treat anybody? I know it seems like a dumb and callous question, but we are so used to thinking of hospitals like we do police and firemen...when there is a very definite distinction.

As such...bear in mind that moral obligation means very little to businesses in the strictest sense. Every business feels morally obligated to do certain things, but if pressed between moral obligation and survival, the grand majority choose survival, or they exit the market.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that, because many times that there is a moral obligation to do something, there is a business reason to do it, too(i.e. hospitals treat people off the street because they don't want to be labeled the hospital that doesn't treat people off the street).

But don't confuse a business' motivations for altruism...they are not.

[lehighguy]

There are finite resources in the world. We can't treat everyone. Using resources to treat one person could well kill another.

Or you could come at it from the arguement that life < slavery. That you can't enslave the doctor and hospital, and that thier freedom is more important then the life.

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't hospitals private entities? Do they have to treat anybody? I know it seems like a dumb and callous question, but we are so used to thinking of hospitals like we do police and firemen...when there is a very definite distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]
By law, hospitals do have to treat everyone who has a life-threatening condition, whether they can pay or not. We've generally acknowledged that it is unconscionable that someone should be denied treatment because they don't have enough money. The Texas law is an exception to this principle.

And, again, believers in a "culture of life" should presumably not rush to justify letting this woman die because it was a profitable business decision.

[lehighguy]

I don't really agree with the concept of something being partially human. We don't really have any laws or concept surrounding a being that is partially human.

I mean when you kill a pregnant women you aren't charged with 1.3 homicides.

I don't really understand your whole killing/murder difference. If you kill a human being it's murder, if you kill a pig it's a killing.

[ QUOTE ]
There are finite resources in the world. We can't treat everyone. Using resources to treat one person could well kill another.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've already said that, and it's already been answered. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4204071

[coffeecrazy1]

Okay...fair enough point about the "culture of life" thing...whatever that phrase means(I'm suspicious of most sound-biteish catchphrases).

And again, not to sound callous, but isn't there a reasonable degree of grayness to this particular case? Let's say I buy the notion that no one with a life-threatening condition should be denied based on money...wouldn't it be more, I don't know, in the spirit of the law to specify the condition as being emergent, rather than a longstanding condition such as this? Isn't there a quality of life argument somewhere here, i.e., she would die in a place without the machines, but, since she's on the machines, does she now have a right to those machines?

Believe me, I'm not saying I agree with pulling the plug, despite this woman's pleas...that seems to be overly harsh, even for a libertarian such as me(hey, I'm a human being, too). I'm merely debating the principle at hand.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand your whole killing/murder difference. If you kill a human being it's murder, if you kill a pig it's a killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you can recognize the idea that not all killings are murder.

If you kill in self-defense, it's not murder, for instance -- and that's instantly recognizable; I don't know anyone who would argue that killing in self-defense is tantamount to murder. Perhaps more debatable are such things like killing someone in a war, capital punishment, etc. Regardless, there are many ways in which humans cause the deaths of other humans that we'd uniformly call a 'killing' but not call a murder - hence the distinction.

To put it as simply as possible (and putting our strict dictionary definitions aside): murder is the unjustified premature ending of a life. Even that may not be simple enough -- I don't doubt adding 'premature' might open up my definition for debate. And I think my definition is terribly crude; but what I'm trying to get across is that we internally rationalize all murders as being unjustified -- which is not the case for all killings (keeping in mind that we readily accept the notion that self-defense is widely accepted and justified form of killing).

[ QUOTE ]
I mean when you kill a pregnant women you aren't charged with 1.3 homicides.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about the legal ramifications, or how states recognize personhood (although I think it's a terribly interesting conversation to have). We're just having a philosophical discourse here. So merely because the state doesn't charge someone with 1.3 homicides doesn't mean that I necessarily agree that fetuses are equal to other post-natal humans -- surely in the same way that many pro-lifers don't feel that merely because the state approves of abortions means they have to accept them, either morally, ethically, or philosophically.

Regardless, while I might not be charged with 1.3 homicides, I think the much more interesting inquiry is to how I would be punished for killing a pregnant woman (and I would venture a guess that it varies across the justice system) - in other words, if I were to kill a pregnant woman: is the justice system normatively applying relatively consistent penalities? Would I get the same jail time as typically handed to those who have committed 1 homicide? Would I get the same jail time as typically handed to those who have committed 2 homicides? Would it fall somewhere in between? Such a study (I doubt one exists but I'd be fascinated to see one) might shed some light on how the justice system truly views the status of the fetus.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really agree with the concept of something being partially human. We don't really have any laws or concept surrounding a being that is partially human.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we do -- even if we don't readily admit it. But fetuses, or the 'brain dead', the comatose, etc. -- I think we all have internal conceptions of such people which may be something less than human. The Terri Schiavo case is a rather clear one (in my mind) of how the law will recognize some entity as being 'partially' human - and I think abortion laws may apply here as well.

I'll bow out of this discussion here and let this thread return the subject of the OP -- anyone (leighguy, for instance) who would like to slap me around on this is free to PM me or start a new thread, etc.

Media reports have the facts wrong, I think. I dont think this law applies if the patient is conscious. If the patient is unconscious, and the patient has not filed an advance healthcare directive, and the medical facility makes a determination of futility, THEN they can pull the plug. They cannot do so over the wishes of a conscious patient.
Link 1 (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html)

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me, I'm not saying I agree with pulling the plug, despite this woman's pleas...that seems to be overly harsh, even for a libertarian such as me(hey, I'm a human being, too). I'm merely debating the principle at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, I think we could debate the merits of the Texas law. We do have to deal with living in a world of finite resources, and spending tens of thousands a day on someone on life support who's not going to recover is one of the least efficient ways to spend health care money.

I'm just saying that if you think that Terri Schiavo should still be on life support, you should be horrified by this law. I think it's revealing that so many conservative politicians jumped to grandstand on the "Save Terri" bandwagon and then did nothing about this case. I bet if Bill Frist and the rest of them had given the same kind of attention and publicity to this case, they could have collected enough donations to keep the woman alive to see her mother.

[ QUOTE ]
Media reports have the facts wrong, I think. I dont think this law applies if the patient is conscious. If the patient is unconscious, and the patient has not filed an advance healthcare directive, and the medical facility makes a determination of futility, THEN they can pull the plug. They cannot do so over the wishes of a conscious patient.
Link 1 (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
Your link doesn't actually say that. This account (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_african.bb0e76d.html) says specifically that she was conscious and responsive when the doctors shut down the respirator.

[coffeecrazy1]

For the record, I've had a DNR since I was 17(which, ironically, is an adult in Texas), so you can probably guess where I stand on Terri Schiavo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Media reports have the facts wrong, I think. I dont think this law applies if the patient is conscious. If the patient is unconscious, and the patient has not filed an advance healthcare directive, and the medical facility makes a determination of futility, THEN they can pull the plug. They cannot do so over the wishes of a conscious patient.
Link 1 (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
Your link doesn't actually say that. This account (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_african.bb0e76d.html) says specifically that she was conscious and responsive when the doctors shut down the respirator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, follow the internal link to the statute.

I skimmed it, but didn't see anything that said that. Can you give a direct quote?

Basically, this chapter deals with medical directives, which are instructions for what care you want in the event you can't presently communicate those wishes (e.g., in a coma).

The controversial section that the hospital used in opting to terminate treatment, was § 166.039(a). That section states, in relevant part:

"If an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient."

This requires that: (a) there be no directive; and (b) the patient must be incompetent or incapable of communications.

Thus, the patient cannot have been conscious when the hosptial made this decision. The media reports got it wrong.

What about in instances where the patient has made an advance directive to request life sustaining care, but the hospital disagrees? Goto § 166.046.

"If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. The attending physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall be given life-sustaining treatment during the review."

If the review process still says no treatment, there is a transfer process: "If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached during the review process under Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
the directive."

If no transfer is possible, "The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g)."

This all applies where the hospital is trying to go against the patient's advanced directive for life sustaining care. The advance directive isn't even effective, however, unless the patient is unconscious.

[lehighguy]

Alright, that's what your driving at. The only reasons given in abortion cases in order to justify are:
1) It's my body
2) I don't want a child

We've decided that not wanting a kid isn't a good enough reason to kill your kid. Hence why you can't through your kid in the dumpster. This is the reason for the vast majority of abortions, not the physical trauma of childbirth. However, despite the fact the number two is the main driver of the action, number one is the cited reason for its legalization.

As medical science advances, number one will disappear. We will have to debate number two.

I don't think the Schavio case is a matter of her being "partially human". Rather, in the absence of a will you usually let the family decide because they are suppose to understand her best wishes. Clearly, in an abortion case the parent is not looking after the best interests of the child.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html) seems to think so.


[/ QUOTE ] Didn't we already debunk this in another post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no, that didn't happen.

Infant mortality rates demonstrate the point quite clearly -- and irrefutably.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
In 2003, the US spent 15.3 percent of its gdp on healthcare.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

[/ QUOTE ] That alone is not enough to gauge relative efficiency. Where does the money go in every country? What kind of infrastructure is it supporting? These are the questions one has to ask.

So here are some more stats (from the 1990s, but the relative measures are equally valid today):

Doctors' incomes:
United States $132,300
Germany 91,244
Denmark 50,585
Finland 42,943
Norway 35,356
Sweden 25,768

Percent of population covered by public health care:
France, Austria 99
Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98
Germany 92
Netherlands 77
United States 40

Average paid maternity leave:
Sweden 32 weeks
France 28
United Kingdom 18
Norway 18
Denmark 18
Japan 14
Germany 14
Netherlands 12
United States 0 *

* as of 1991; this changed with Clinton's signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

(Source : "Where We Stand" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/051716986X/qid=1134915364/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4890883-4921402?s=books&amp;v=glance&amp;n=283155), by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, and the World Rank Research Team, 1996.)