In some societies the Government controls life and death. Look at the following example. A man is put in a coma after a deadly accident, he is sent to a hospital managed by the government because the man's family are too poor to pay for private services and he has no insurance. After about three months the Government hospital says that they will have to 'pull the plug' because he does not seem to be recovering. What do you think about this? Consider the following:
1. In some countries the doctor does not have to inform the family if they decide to 'pull the plug'
2. Government feels it is not under obligation to eternally treat a patient
QUOTE |
What do you think about this? |
QUOTE |
1. In some countries the doctor does not have to inform the family if they decide to 'pull the plug' |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1089 100%
I think hospitals and health care should not be under the control of government ni any manner whatsoever!
Dubhdara.
International Level: Junior Politician / Political Participation: 100 10%
After three months in a coma I would think that there was no hope of recovery. I believe that machines that keep you breathing and your heart beating should be removed, but not feeding tubes, that would be cruel. If the patient has no money then the government must take the steps needed to treat them, but they have to be able to terminate treatment if no change is made after months. I don't like the idea of them not having to tell the family though, even though they would have no say in the matter they should be informed. In the end death is in God's hands and he will decide when the person dies.
International Level: New Activist / Political Participation: 11 1.1%
It is of course a difficult decision but I disagree that, if they have no money, government must step in. What this really means is that government should force others to pay for them. Friends, family, relatives, businesses, charities and other private organizations here have a chance to exercise charity, let them do so and be blessed for it.
The family should of course be informed - and in control - and your last point is well taken.
Dubhdara.
Message Edited! Persephone: It is not necessary to quote the entire post of the user above you in order to reply |
International Level: Junior Politician / Political Participation: 100 10%
This is really a horrible dilemma, and I'm glad I'm not involved in having to make a choice!
I guess that after 3 months, the chances of a full recovery are pretty slim, but not impossible, and this is what makes the whole choice so horrible.
I feel that if the government have a ruling of stopping payment after 3 months, then maybe there should be a charity set up specifically for cases like this where they can step in and help the payments out, but maybe set it for a further 3 months only. (I do feel that there has to be a line drawn if government funding is involved, but I do feel that 3 months is too soon and too hasty.
I disagree totally that the family don't need to be told-- I think that the family should always be kept updated and consulted regardless of their financial situation.
International Level: Activist / Political Participation: 29 2.9%