LTTE: Overlooking the Key Issue in the Shiavo Case

Just sent this.

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times

Dear Editor:

Commentators have thus far overlooked the key to public policy in the Shiavo case.

A primary purpose of the law is to establish uniform standards as to the spending of public funds. The cost of Ms. Shiavo’s life support is now being covered by Medicare, Medicaid and publicly funded hospice resources.

Citizens have no obligation to fund artificial life support indefinitely. The law correctly presumes a person in Ms. Shiavo’s situation is beyond reasonable hope of recovery.

Those who believe otherwise rely upon their faith for guidance.

The purpose of the law must not be to infringe upon the rights of others to sustain a faith-based hope at their own expense. Those who believe in the possibility Ms. Shiavo is in fact now sentient or may one day become so should be allowed to put their money where their faith is.

The law should permit continued life support for Ms. Shiavo so long as the cost is covered by private funds.

I would never argue that someone should be denied artificial life support just because they can't afford it. How Dickensian is that?


Actually, the key issue here is whether the patient has the right os self-determination and the right to control her/his own medical treatment. The law says the patient does, and that another's religious beliefs can not be imposed on the patient to prevent same.

So- if the patient *wants* ALS, s/he should get it. If the patient does *not* want ALS, it should not be forced upon her/him. Pretty simply concept, don't you think? :)

It's hardly possible to argue Schiavo is being "denied artificial life support." Christ! She's been on it for 13 damn years!

The question is where do you draw the line when there is no indication of any hope for future rescucitation?

The law must draw a line when scarce public funds are being spent, and must draw it uniformly and fairly. But the law must not prohibit private parties from financing a continuation of artificial life support for whatever reason, usually religious.

Got it?

it's

S C H I A V O

Damn! I never was good at speling.
:dunce:

where one party wants to keep someone alive and another party wants to let them go, even if they were covered by private insurance or family funds.

Because hope is always better than destroying hope.

With SS funding showing a $12 trillion deficit in 75 years while Medicare will have a $62 trillion deficit in 75 years.


"Looking more than 75 years into the future, Saving estimates that the nation faces a $62 trillion unfunded liability for Medicare -- versus a $12 trillion gap for Social Security.

Yet, he said, lawmakers created a prescription drug benefit that added nearly $17 trillion in future IOUs to that $62 trillion shortfall"

from 'Medicare faces cost crisis'
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/ c/a/2004/11/07/BUG0V9N54U1.DTL

With Congress ADDING to the Medicare crisis, and the administration against 'single payer' funding, we are in for one bumpy ride into the future my fellow Americans !

And the more cases like the Schiavo one, the worse off the Medicare system will be.