By setting up rules that have to be followed about how you establish what the individual wants, or how you know if the individual isn't competent to decide on their own and how that works, etc. Without those kinds of rules you'll end up with doctors afraid of facing charges for helping. Or clever people finding ways to get away with murder. Or both.Minimal rules. That's what 1pg and I are saying. There are too many individual situations compounded by individual wants, needs, and wishes. But we should have a legal system that recognizes medical directives/living wills in all states that have force and effect.There are restrictions imposed upon your estate under state and federal law, but imagine if they were onerous. The laws are tax based and dependent upon the relationship to the inheritor to the deceased (closer = better, farther = more to the government). Doctors can't and shouldn't be able to end a life without family consent or a clear medical directive. Neither available? A court must be involved. Hospitals should have a system in place so that no one doctor makes the decision. My experience? Already in place.I'm probably mis-understanding what you mean by 'no government involvement'...since you just listed a bunch of government involvement at the beginning of your post above. I mean we already have an adequate amount of government involvement in place. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding because it seems that you and ox are arguing a need for more. I don't see what more accomplishes.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra