Thursday, April 20, 2006

Futile Care Theory in the News

This case looks like a Futile Care Theory case. The headline, as usual, calls it a "right to die" matter. But it appears to really be a right to live. (I never cease to be amazed at the pack mentality of the MSM.) The hospital wanted to cut off an elderly patient's feeding tube and other treatment because she had terrible heart disease and dementia, and would not have a "meaningful" recovery. Perhaps withdrawing most interventions would be the better call, but that is a value judgment, not a medical judgment. The guardian, objected. The hospital tried to impose its view. But the court has stated that whatever happens, the hospital will not have the power to decide.

Good. That decision properly belongs with patient or duly appointed legal decision makers--or, if necessary, the courts. Doctors and bioethicists should not be allowed to impose their moral views on the quality of a patient's life on others by refusing wanted life-sustaining treatment.

2 Comments:

At April 21, 2006 , Blogger Robert B said...

Since it doesn't state it clearly, if one assumes she still has some consciousness and the oxygen may be for comfort and less stress on heart, THEN there's no excuse for starving her and making certain her last days are in agony.

 
At April 23, 2006 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Jeri: My e-mail has crashed. For the moment, I am receiving nothing.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home