On this blog, Professor Thaddeus Pope tracks judicial, legislative, policy, and academic developments concerning medical futility and the limits on individual autonomy at the end of life.
In Canada, the most one can sue for in a wrongful death case is $25,000. However, if a victim of medical or iatrogenic negligence survives the injury, his family can sue for millions in the name of financing his care. I can't understand why this issue has never come up for popular discussion in the Rasouli case. My point is that many, many patients of medical negligence could and would survive their injuries if put on life support. The difference is that families of these victims can't stand to see their loved ones suffering in order to put and maintain a body behind the quest for these millions. I hate to judge this case because I don't want to be a judgmental person. However I have to state that I feel very sorry for Mr Rasoulis. In my opinion his family is cruel. We live in an age where palliated death exists. Why not use it? It's not like any of us is going to live forever. This case is a circus and I don't believe for one minute that the sanctity of life is behind it. Why should Mr Rasoulis suffer to stay alive simply because technology exists to post him on a broomstick? No religion essentially demands this.Where are his advocates? Am I the only one?
Post a Comment