Should The State Pay Extra To Provide Special Medical Procedure For Religious Patient

[thir]

Theoretically this is true, [that you can refuse treatment] but in practice? I've heard of people being forced to receive unwanted treatments because some doctor or hospital administrator felt it was in the patient's "best interests".

That is what I hear too, and I have never, ever understood how this can be allowed. When it is underage persons we talk about it becomes very difficult, but adults? Do we not own our own bodies? Are we not in control of our own lives? How dare anyone take that away?

Another, similar problem is doctors who think they are entitled to decide whether or not to tell the patient what is wrong with them, even when they ask for the truth. What kind of guardianship is it that these persons take upon themselves? They may be wise in the ways of the body (hopefully) but there it stops. What is it that makes (some of) them think that they know better than you what you need? And even if they did, they would have no right to take decisions away from you.

As I see it.

Conversely, we've all heard of patients being denied the right to end their own suffering, or the suffering of a loved one, because some doctor (or hospital administrator) doesn't allow euthanasia. (I've often wondered what would happen if hospitals had to absorb all the costs a patient incurs once they refuse euthanasia. I think we'd likely see a change of heart.)

There I am more in doubt. I think the physician in person should be allowed whether or not to assist with euthanasia. (Why this difficult word? Are we afraid of saying it out loud: assisted suicide?) But I think that is should be within the law to do it.

What's the problem? If they want to deny themselves the pleasures of these foods, that's just more bacon for me! But they can't expect the state to subsidize their diets. Should the state be required to provide organically grown broccoli to every health nut who wants it?

Hmm...but by saying so we do say that 'our' culture is the norm, the baseline, and everybody must live by that. Is that democratic?

[Thorne]

That is what I hear too, and I have never, ever understood how this can be allowed. When it is underage persons we talk about it becomes very difficult, but adults? Do we not own our own bodies? Are we not in control of our own lives? How dare anyone take that away?

Ask the "Pro Life" groups about how this can be taken away.

I think the physician in person should be allowed whether or not to assist with euthanasia.

That's my point. But the law forbids it. And even in places where it might be allowed some doctors and hospitals refuse to allow it.

(Why this difficult word? Are we afraid of saying it out loud: assisted suicide?)

It's not just suicide, though. Sometimes a person has to make the decision for a loved one who can not make the decision himself. See the Terry Schiavo case as a prime example.

Hmm...but by saying so we do say that 'our' culture is the norm, the baseline, and everybody must live by that. Is that democratic?

Not sure what you're saying here. What culture? In the case of vegetarians versus meat eaters? I wasn't saying we should favor one point of view over the other. Far from it. ALL should be treated equally. Everyone has access to the same basic resources. Anything beyond those basics are the responsibility of the individual, not the state.