Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It seems to me that the article didn't really say much. The paper states that withdrawal of care might be appropriate in some cases, but the article doesn't clarify what criteria would be used. Further more while cost is mentioned as a possible factor the Right Rev'd contradicts himself by stating that great care must be taken when even considering cost, then he turns around and suggests that justice demands that the extra cost of caring for a deformed baby should be taken into consideration when deciding upon the continuation of care. IMHO either the reviewer didn't do a very good job of summarizing the paper or the paper's conclusions are so vague as to be nearly useless.
It seems to me that the article didn't really say much. The paper states that withdrawal of care might be appropriate in some cases, but the article doesn't clarify what criteria would be used. Further more while cost is mentioned as a possible factor the Right Rev'd contradicts himself by stating that great care must be taken when even considering cost, then he turns around and suggests that justice demands that the extra cost of caring for a deformed baby should be taken into consideration when deciding upon the continuation of care. IMHO either the reviewer didn't do a very good job of summarizing the paper or the paper's conclusions are so vague as to be nearly useless.
If the decision were wholly a private matter, the concerned family will consider quality of life, cost to the family as well. But they will also add "love" of their family member, as we saw in the Schiavo case. Love can trump all other considerations.
Comment