Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
The larger question (to me) is the many people who have been unplugged because of a supposition of an irreversible coma, due to apparent brain inactivity and unresponsiveness.
Why were they terminated? Because technology was not sufficient to communicate with them.
Should they have had a choice? How long do we maintain them if they choose to live? Who pays? Why?
|
To me, that would be like a NASCAR driver being allowed to drive faster than speed limit. After all, nobody can argue that he is better than the average driver so the law should not apply to him. We did take the abilities of the average driver into account when making the speed limit but that driver has shown the ability to surpass that.
People were allowed to die in the past because technology was not sufficient to fix their ailment. We can't base today's decision on next year's technology.
Yes they should have a choice as long as they can pay for it. So if a certain condition, based on the average prognosis is poor, why are we throwing good money after bad? On the hope of a "Hail Mary" pass? Now if they want to and can play the odds on their dime, I'm good with that.