SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106014)3/26/2005 8:26:15 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793688
 
There will never be a hard line or a right answer.

I have been listening very carefully to what the folks on the other side are saying and trying to sift through the emotionalism and the complicating factors of this particular case to root out the essence of what they would want, instead. The best I can tell, there is no objection to the right to die if the party, himself, clearly articulates the wish to do so and if the death can be achieved by simply withholding life support intervention. Conversely, anyone not meeting those criteria must continue to live. I think that's their position, however murky the articulation.

I might be able to accept that under a couple of conditions. First of all, all those people kept alive, and there would be hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of them, must be given adequate drugs to eliminate pain, which would mean for many that they're so doped up that they're unconscious. If you can't be dead, unconscious is a reasonable proxy.

The other is that the parties who want this take responsibility for coming up with the resources to support it. That would mean building lots and lots of long-term hospices, fixing the nursing shortage, adjusting whatever laws are necessary to protect the families from the legal implications, and paying for all this, the enormous cost of which would currently fall to Medicaid.