2007-12-21 10:54:41 · 3 answers · asked by valcus43 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
1. She was in a vegetative state.
2. That state was a complication of a bone marrow transplant she had received.
3. That bone marrow transplant was done to off-set the effects of her leukemia.
Given all that, I don't see how Cigna has carried out a murder.
2007-12-22 08:34:01 · answer #1 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Murder? That's an interesting interpretation. How about this one. By not approving the transplant Cigna avoided being involved in two deaths: Nataline (her 6 month chance of survival was 65%, not good odds) and a person who could also have used the liver but would not have gotten it had she received the transplant. It would have been fiscally and morally irresponsible for them to cave to the threat of a lawsuit. Life sucks and kids die. It's a horrible fact, but it's not something that will ever go away. Instead of trying to profit off of their daughter's demise, perhaps they should be thankful for the time that they had with her. And for anyone who really wants to protest remember this, Cigna is a private corporation who has the right to choose how they spend their money, or who they cover. In turn people have the option to not acquire Cigna as their health carrier. So before everyone gets up in arms remember that it is a two way street.
2007-12-21 11:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by SC Bearcat 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
SC Bearcat, yes life sucks and kids die. But it's murder when a health-insurer deliberately lets a kid die rather than give up a few thousand dollars in profits. How would you feel if she were your daughter? Would you shrug your shoulders quite so easily? Could you keep yourself from getting "up in arms"? Would your attempts to seek redress for her death be simply an attempt to "profit from her death"?
2007-12-22 01:39:38 · answer #3 · answered by Robert B 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋