What if the extended life support is not covered in their insurance policy? It's not in many cases. What then?
Also, what good is served by keeping the woman alive? If not for artificial means, she would be completely dead right this minute. The only reason they were used in the first place is so that the child could be saved. What benefit is it to society to keep her alive, especially if it was her and the family's wish that she should not be?
Oh, and by the way, it is COMPLETELY legal to forcibly remove someone from life support if they can't pay, at least in Texas, based on a bill that then-governor George W Bush signed into law.
March 22, 2005
Sun Hudson, a six-month old Texas baby died last week when health care providers at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas removed his life support system over the objections of his mother. The action was authorized under the 1999 Futile Care Law which was signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush.
Under the Texas Futile Care Law, health care workers are allowed to remove expensive life support for terminally ill patients if the patient or family is unable to pay the medical bills.
Sun Hudson's mother is dealing with the aftermath of that law. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months," Wanda Hudson told reporters how she was forced to give up medical control of her son. "I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive."
The hospital had blocked the media from the child, despite mother's invitation to see the baby. "I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself. So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious," she said.
Some serious hypocrasy there regarding his handling of the Schiavo case, eh? OK to kill a baby who might recover, just cause the mom can't foot the bill, but not Schiavo? Hello? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
-Arlos