Does anyone think that it is wrong to withhold life-preserving

treatment to someone simply because they can’t afford it? If the Florida woman had no funds to continue her treatment would it then be acceptable to discontinue the feeding tube? What if she weren’t in a coma and the life saving intervention were withheld due to poverty? Is it more or less morally acceptable to deny life-preserving medicines if the patient is aware that they won’t survive without it?

I agree (only on this) with Jebbush - the woman shouldn't be deliberately starved to death. Period.

Why is her right to continue the feeding tube superior to a cancer patient’s right to fight her disease through chemotherapy. Why isn’t there similar outrage at all the life saving treatments that are denied people?

I honestly don’t understand this debate, if we think it’s ok to let people die for want of treatment elsewhere, why does this example upset people so?

It's not okay to allow people to die from neglect (whether actual or willful) or want of treatment, food - or any basic need including water. Anywhere. I just can't figure out how to convince the rest of the world.

of “life” here is really a distraction from policies which are in reality very pro-death? What is happening in Florida is a very unusual circumstance, but if he pretends to care here people won’t notice all those who will die from want of care.

For some reason, in the U.S. it is better to let a person slowly starve to death than to end her life humanely and peacefully with painkillers.

with painkillers is done far more often that most people know. When families decide that life is over for someone and the treatment team concurs it is often decided to take life support off and "treat" for pain with morphine. I was an ICU nurse and it has been done for years this way, was a family member who twice had to make that decision.

I was referring to official policy in the U.S.

should be treated with pain killers to make the end more comfortable. Starving someone to death is a horrible way to die and I wish they would change the laws to take liability off the doctors and let the terminally ill decide if they want end to their suffering with drugs on their own terms instead of the courts.

I have watched a terminally ill person die a slow and agonizing death from starving without intervention of drugs and it's simply barbaric.

afford it! It's inhumane and we has a modern, civilized society cannot tolerate this cruelty.

of the feeding tube become similarly outraged by the fact that patients with far greater potential for quality lives die hourly because they can't get treatment?


How is that different?

Universal health care is of upmost importance.

One of the reasons this case is so important is because it HAS been picked up by mainstream media. People with disabilities commonly die/suffer from lack of treatment/neglect. It's just not in the news.

A few years ago CA ordered a quality of care report on its nursing homes. The report reflected the pathetic and inhumane treatment of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. It was buried. The SF paper exposed the coverup.

This story is an omnious precursor to what is going to happen (actually, it's magnifying what is already happening)to the disability communtiy. Many have been fighting to be free from being imprisoned in nursing homes and have the $ redirected toward providing supports/services in their own homes. Why isn't our govt allowing this?

Surprise. Corporate interest.

The cuts that are occuring right now--all over the nation--in medical and nonmedical areas for people with disabilities will ensure suffering and death. Thank you warmonger bush.

The outrageous cost of medical care (due to corporatism and greed of a number of vultures along the medical care tiers) has already resulted in people with disabilities being denied care because it has been decided it was just too expensive to provide appropriate/preventative care for a "nonproductive" person.

We are entering dangerous times. They are extremely dangerous for people who have disabilities.

for indigent care or enhanced disability rights. This case is a distraction from the real issues of life and death which are far more common and too uncomfortable for Jebbie and company to address. If this woman were African-American and poor the tube would have been removed quietly years ago with no debate whatsoever.

How many children in Jeb's state are at this moment dying of some disease, or without health care? Jeb ought to be ashamed of his hypocrisy.

I feel its for the two family groups to decide. This is not something
that the state has an abiding interest in, IMHO. This is so privately
personal that it smacks of pandering for Jeb to be there. I know that many are opposed to this but I'm not. I have my will. So does my family. This poor woman, had she been older and more cognizant of the way death can find you, would probably have had one too.

No one wins here, not the family that wants her alive nor the woman who is suffering every day in a lifeless darkness. I feel for her. I hope no one interferes in this further. Its too sad for words all the way around.

Oh, you are so right. It is none of anyone's business but the families. Jeb Bush's move into this is purely political. He is a predator for the Christian Right who think they should rule the world. I imagine if this were a Muslim woman there would be no outcry.

a persons ability to pay for care should make one difference in the treatment given. There are enough funds to care for all, they do not want you to know this but they are there and used all the time.

People act as if the fate of the world teeters on whether this woman continues treatment or not, but don’t even blink about the fact that there are thousands who are deprived treatment and will die as a result.

most people do not care because it is not brought to their attention. If they do not have to think about it and it is not them or anyone they care about then they remain in their comfortable spot not having to deal with it. Sounds like just about everything else these days.

Where is the outrage? These young kids were not vegetables, they were as young as 18 with their whole lives ahead of them!

From a pure moral point of view the answer is easy. Ofcourse its "wrong. But when you think about it, its not that easy. See Imagine if everyone in the world got free medicin there wouldnt be any incentive for the companies to develop better medicines.

And where would we be then?

So with that in mind.. no it is not wrong.

her feeding tube, let her have it. If she can't then society has no duty to protect her.

In my mind that is an intellectually honest position, the State’s priorities as they exists now value a human life according to the individual’s financial wealth, not some moralistic view that every life is worth saving.

conversely - if everyone had access to medication - there is more money to compete for, for that medication and companies that invest in developing better medications grab a bigger and bigger part of the market share.

I don't think your logic or mine is 'on the money' but that "if all medicine was paid for" does not logically lead to "no incentive to develop new medicines." If that were the case - since there is plenty of money for all people to buy (cheap) candy in the US - there would be no incentive for candymakers to develop new lines new types etc. But indeed - they see that there is always more market share to be gobbled up (pun intended) - and that spurs competition which spurs innovation (if selling candied 'slime' in garbage pails can be considered innovation :shrug: )

if she is expected to die in 7 days or so. Her death will be due to dehydration. Starvation takes weeks or months. That is not to justify her death. I believe they should feed her. If we did not have the technology or if the treatment was experimental, that would be different. (and parents should have standing above husbands as husbands come and go but parents are always parents). As a nation we have made it our priority to put drug users in jail for huge $$$ per year, spend billions invading another country, building nukes, overthrowing governments and paying off other countries and our corporations. It has struck me how far our nation has fallen when a recent letter to the editor said "A majority of our homeless are in that position because they have spent their lives being lazy, selfish, abusive and careless" on the same day a homeless man turned in $1500 because " a little old lady may have lost it and need it." The lack of humanity and empathy in our culture is astonding to me. Too many people have not had to 'walk in another's shoes.' The fact its OK or even or duty to invade another country and kill their citizens when there is no threat to us, when 'our' religion and 'our' opinion is the only one that counts. It's a sad state of affairs.

and inhalation therapy for an asthmatic?

Why do we find it more tolerable to let the asthmatic suffocate because she can’t afford the medicine but become outraged when medical treatment is withheld here? Why doesn’t the legislature rush to pass a law to be certain that all people who will die without treatment get it immediately?

Govt employess get great health care. The big guys get the best. We plebians pay for it. How much does it cost us for Cheney to have a cardiologist check him daily?

They've got theirs--they are not worried about health care. I don't think they see that there is any problem at all.

IMO this woman's situation is getting such coverage to conceal other issues.

nt

see my post below.

I feel ashamed to admit this, but I did not realize that people's lives were not saved if they had insufficient funds until I saw the preview for the movie John Q. My family and I have always received medical care as though money was no object. I thought that if anyone showed up at an emergency room that their lives would be saved by whatever means. I wonder how many other people are naive as I was.
We need health care for all. No one should die from neglect when their lives could be saved.

for many Americans? Daily, perhaps? For the homeless? For older americans on limited income with no medicare perscription coverage and no money for supplemental coverage?

and the monetary value of human life is at the core of this case, in fact it is really the only issue.

Try to imagine how little it would matter to Jeb if the decision was whether to place a feeding tube in a homeless African-American prostitute who was in a coma due to a drug overdose. The thought that any compassionate conservative would give a damn if a dime was spent on her survival is ludicrous.

This debate is not about the value of human life, the one certainty is the value of life in this country is determined by the amount of money that human has to spend on her survival.

was ill he came to live with me. He ended up shortly in the hospital and then into the ICU. I told them he had no insurance. He racked up a bill of over $150,000.00 before he died. I did have to fight with some doctors and work the system to make sure he got the care he needed, he was not supposed to die. The problems I had was his diagnosis, AIDS, not because he could not pay.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

my husband is a retired Doctor. Because of two pre existing conditions, one his, one mine, we can not afford medical insurance. We had to go with catastrophic with a $20,000.00 deductable so unless one of us really gets ill we are on our own. I was just pointing out that there are still some places you can get care but it is work to get it. Thanks, it was and is a difficult loss.

Like I said, I believed that hospitals were under an obligation to save people. I remembered reading the sign assuring emergency treatment regardless of ability to pay at my local hospital when I was becoming a socially conscious person when I was quite young. Whenever severe illness or injury struck my family or I, we always received full medical treatment. My grandmother was in a car accident about ten years ago and in a coma for weeks(and recovered, living at home, although much frailer). The hospital bill was over $300,000, but it never had occurred to me that someone whose family had no chance at paying would be left to die.

Many doctors think that they would treat a truly sick person who needed care but don’t connect that belief with the fact that their receptionist is trained to screen for insurance before an appointment is made. Others think that there are free clinics or charities who can provide necessary care. Charities are good for one or two hundred dollars once, they don’t even touch the problem.

Still others rationalize. I had a physician friend who said he had no compassion for people without insurance because they can afford bass boats. It turned out that he saw an uninsured patient of his hauling a boat and from that concluded that all uninsured just have poor priorities.

on edit:

Interestingly, your grandmother likely would have been treated even without insurance since her injury was accidental. It is the cronic illnesses that are denied treatment.

They do that. The problem is ultimately that doctors aren't charity organizations. They have to make ends meet. It's cruel, but that's the hard truth. I worked at a doctor's office as a file clerk and saw that unfold all too often. It pained me a lot to see it.

I know I would not want to be kept "alive" in that way. :grr:

The woman in Florida is missing most of her brain. Brain tissue has shrivled away and been replaced with fluid. She's not coming back.

Without medical technology, this woman would have been in her grave years ago. Which is more cruel -- to keep her alive artificially, or let her go? I'd say keeping her artifically alive is much more cruel.

THAT'S the issue.

The woman didn't leave a living will or a DNR order in writing. We have no way to make sure that she wanted to die. Thus I feel uncomfortable with removing the tube.