Dana wrote: >> >> Where does the state enter the equation? > > The state because this is taking place in Great Britain and the other > party to the suit is the National Heath Service, isn't it?
It is pretty much a confrontation between quangos: "The Health Secretary has joined the GMC in its appeal, while Mr Burke has garnered the support of the Disability Rights Commission, the Official Solicitor and Patient Concern. Last week the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales also won the right to make representations in the case." >> If the patient can not come to an agreement on live prolonging >> treatment with his doctor he should find another doctor instead of >> trying to force something on his doctor. > > Is that even possible in the above context? I know there are private > doctors, but is there such a thing as provate long-term care? Presuming you mean private: yes. > let's just consider a world where a doctor can say that procedure x > is for your own good and you get it whether you want it or not. You > don't see anything wrong with that? There is a lot wrong with that. But this case is not about forcing treatment on a patient, but about forcing a doctor to treat a patient. Just as patients should have the right to refuse treatments from doctors, doctors should have the right to refuse to treat patients. (In all but the most acute crises, which this certainly is not.) Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| All-in-one: antivirus, antispam, firewall for your PC and PDA. Buy Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=60 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:158315 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
