HB 905, filed by Republican representative Cynthia Davis, would "take away a legal guardian's right to remove a patient's feeding tube. The proposal would also let patients signal to doctors that they do not want their feeding tubes removed."
Now there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the whole signaling bit, although it can be a little vague about the intentions of actions from patients who can't really communicate with you. My problem is with the categorical rejection of a legal guardian's right to remove a patient's feeding tube. What if you know your great-grandmother told you that she would never want a feeding tube, but you couldn't honor her wishes because of this proposed law?
Yeah, Edmond, you might say, but Michael said his wife told him that and I don't believe him. Well, I propose changing the law so that the authority of a legal guardian can be transferred if another family member brings a case against the validity of the guardian's intentions. That would have stopped Michael, but not the simple uncorrupted people who want to put disabled family members out of their misery. There's nothing wrong with a legal guardian's decision to remove a patient's feeding tube if they say the patient told him their wishes or they believe that's what their wishes are, and if no family members dispute that, and if there are no selfish or corrupt reasons for the guardian's decision to remove the feeding tube. The rights of innocent civilians shouldn't be unnecessarily curtailed to stop the corrupt civilians when there are other ways to do that.
I do not support HB 905 and will try to contact my representatives and tell them so (that's a new thing for me, but something all citizens should do).
Edmond the Hun
No comments:
Post a Comment