Say I had an aunt or something on life support, and I was paying the medical bills. She didn't have any written consent to pull the plug, nor did she talk about this situation to anyone currently alive. Would it be immoral for me to pull the plug, especially if she was slowly draining me dry of all the financial support I had? Would it be illegal? Would it be murder? Would it technically violate her "right to life"?
Just wondering how financial dependency affects the whole "right to life" thing when it comes to life support.
Sources are appreciated! Thanks!
2007-12-26 03:41:55 · 12 answers · asked by Hilary H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Just to clarify, this is a hypothetical situation.
I'm just wondering where her right to live ends and my right to do what I want with my money begins. With any life support situation -- maybe a husband and a wife or a mother and child. I don't want this question to be limited to me and my hypothetical aunt.
Thanks again for the answers!
2007-12-26 04:02:55 · update #1
I think it would depend on whether your aunt had a chance to recover. When someone is truly in a "permanent vegetative state," I think that "pulling the plug" is the merciful thing to do.
But for what reason are you financially responsible for the care this aunt receives? If you simply don't pay, do they have legal grounds to go after you?
2007-12-26 03:52:52 · answer #1 · answered by Rick K 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would be a lot less immoral on your part to stop paying for the bill than to take her life.
First, you are not financially obligated to pay for anyone other than your immediate family and dependents. Therefore, you could simply stop making the payments.
A harder situation would be if it were someone that you were required to pay for. Harder in the sense that at least you would be required to pay, but the result would be the same. Just because the expected result of the continued financial will damage you in the future, that doesn't allow you to eliminate the other person's future to avoid that possibility. What if someone were to perform that action and then within a few months, received a windfall or lottery or whatever else would have covered the money? How could you then live with yourself?
2007-12-26 03:54:39 · answer #2 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Financial considerations always enter into a decision, but you're not asking a valid question. If you're the one providing the support, you can go to court and get the obligation removed(if it is a legal obligation), and then a trustee or guardian will be appointed. If she has no assets, the state will have to cover the costs. The state's representative then has to make a decision based on medical reports and prognosis. However, if they were her assets transferred to you with an expectation of care, the assets go with her, not to you. So, the question is: Who's assets are they?
2007-12-26 03:59:18 · answer #3 · answered by jelesais2000 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its almost a rock and a hard place situation. It can go either way because of the state one lives in.
The doctor could make a suggestion towards the prognosis which leans on the negative (she doesn't have much of a chance of recovery / she will be in a vegetation state here on in). So you can put the responsibility on the doctor and free your conscience.
If you take it to court with a lawyer of course, to plead your case that, because of financial reasons, you are not able to continue monetary services, it could appear immoral/murder because of a selfish intent.
pray......Peace and Love
2007-12-26 04:06:56 · answer #4 · answered by benejueves 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all, you wouldn't be personally liable for your aunt's medical bills. It would be her money that you would be running through, not yours.
In the absence of an advance directive or living will, and in the absence of any knowledge of her wishes, the doctors would in most situations not allow you to terminate life support. If you used "self help" to do so, you would be guilty of murder.
2007-12-26 03:58:28 · answer #5 · answered by browneyedgirl623 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Immoral? If your doctor said she had a reasonable chance of recovery, yes.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be immoral to say "I'm not paying for this anymore. If you're all down with the ethics of keeping her going, Doctor, find the money yourself." Your money, your choice.
Illegal? Depends on the state, who will likely look at what the doctors say is her chance of recovery.
2007-12-26 03:52:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just keep in mind where it legal or not, You will Haree to live with your decision the rest of your life with the choice you make. I hav a sister that had to make that choice for her husband "no money involved," To day, she is almost a basket case, from guilt. Only you, can make that choice as you are the one that has to live with it. My heart goes out to you. this is a very hard decisions.
2007-12-26 03:58:31 · answer #7 · answered by Bee Bee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The way i see it, all people die. To extend your life beyond the natural point you have to pay. Pay for medication, pay for doctors, pay for life support. Life that is longer then natural is a luxury, not a right. A luxury you have to pay for. If you do not have money to extend your life -- too bad for you.
Form this we can derive that it is not morally required for you to pay for someone else's luxury.
Thus one can just stop paying the fees for life support, allowing the person to die their natural death.
2007-12-26 04:18:23 · answer #8 · answered by hq3 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My belief if you have control over some one that is in distress - it is a simply humane to do all possible to keep that person alive and back to health
2007-12-26 04:03:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes . In fact that would qualify you for the death penalty in most states. It would be considered premeditated murder.
2007-12-26 04:22:19 · answer #10 · answered by Brandon A 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋