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.
Time is short, so I’ll be direct: FIRST THINGS needs you. And we need you by December 31 at 11:59 p.m., when the clock will strike zero. Give now at supportfirstthings.com.
First Things does not hesitate to call out what is bad. Today, there is much to call out. Yet our editors, authors, and readers like you share a greater purpose. And we are guided by a deeper, more enduring hope.
Your gift of $50, $100, or even $250 or more will bring this message of hope to many more people in the new year.
Make your gift now at supportfirstthings.com.
First Things needs you. I’m confident you’ll answer the call.
