Enter your search terms
Submit search form
Health & Lifestyle
on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 5:19am.
The "viable" argument is always a challenge. :) No, I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I truly am being serious: Why doesn't it apply ALL the time? Even a baby after birth isn't fully viable. It requires aid from outside forces to prevent a natural death of starvation or other conditions. What of the individual in a coma or in the ICU? If the individual cannot take care of itself, and there are no family members, does that mean, because the individual is connected to hospital machinery, that the individual "belongs" (in a small sense anyway) to the hospital? Should it belong to the government? And what of family members? We've already set up systems where a Parent, or even a spouse, may make decisions regarding the life of the individual. But, as noted many times, it's THEIR body. Or, is it? Again, I'm not being sarcastic or belittling the issue. I'm serious. Consistancy is a big thing. Even in the legal system and social systems, consistancy in the US blows chunks BIG time. Yes, there are number of folks who fall back or are even trapped on the government assistance (I could speak from personal past experience on that), but there ARE ways, contrary to popular belief, that exist to fix the problem. Nor do ALL solutions work for EVERY individual/family. Use one solution to fix as many as possible. Use another to fix those that didn't get fixed the first time. And so on and so on. I don't believe in the one solution... solution. :) Andrew
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.
Tonight on WWAY