If a person with a year to live is convicted of a crime and sentenced to twenty years in prison, shouldn’t they be tortured for that remaining year of life? It’s only fair. We must pack their punishment into only one year.
Why should a ninety-five year old woman get seventy-five thousand dollars worth of heart surgery? Even if she lives through the surgery, she lives for what, six months? Sorry honey, back of the line, it’s only fair.
I don’t know about the torture, although it seems to be coming into vogue, but the old lady with the bad heart was in the news recently. She’s doing ok, but it was very controversial for her to receive that treatment at the twilight, shit, the deep darkness of her life.
Insurance entities whined that providing life extending care for her was “not economical,” and that it “used recourses that could better be applied to younger patients.” If they offered a proposed age for plug-pulling I missed it.
So what if the insurance companies decide that at a certain point, let's say five years beyond when the actuaries said that you had no chance at all of still being alive, they are not responsible for providing you with any care to prolong your already ridiculously prolonged life. Anybody have a problem with that?
That policy would be only a short step from legalizing the euthanasizing of old people because, after all, it is only practical to stop the ridiculous waste of resources that their maintenance represents.
So the old lady with the heart thing is a “Right To Life” issue. I’ll be waiting for the anti-abortion people to weigh in on the subject.