Especially as a human can normally consent to death but a pet can't

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 4 months ago (13 children)

At least in the States, I believe it's for religious and financial reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but allowing someone to off themselves could be condemning them to hell. Also, to be cynical, medically assisted "checking out" is the easier, cheaper way out, instead of burning through money in a hospital.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with ending the suffering of a terminal illness. Prolonged suffering is unnecessary, and a person should have the right to go out on their own terms.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    @muxika @als what sort of a mindset is this ??

    So, a human being is a liability for a state ???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I'm saying that insurance companies are greedy and want to make more money from the terminally ill, at the expense of the suffering of the patients and their families.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    United Healthcare was recently caught paying nursing homes not to send elderly in medical distress to the hospitals, to save on costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, I think their attribution is off. Hospitals and care homes make money off of medical care for elderly and chronically ill/disabled patients from Medicare/medicaid, so there can be a perverse incentive for care providers to perform more testing and treatment than is medically necessary or advisable. Like chemotherapy for people who don’t even have cancer. Additionally, medical technology or pharmaceutical companies sometimes pay doctors for prescriptions, so there can be an even stronger incentive to provide specific treatments, even if they’re inappropriate for the patient at hand.

    Insurance companies are on the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to perverse incentives- they benefit from as few and as inexpensive treatments as possible, regardless of the reason (partially, they also sometimes have contracts with medtech and pharmaceutical companies- second link below). Whether claims for treatment are denied and the insured forgoes care, then dies; claims bounce around in the denial and appeal process for long enough that the insured dies; or the insured can be fully treated quickly and cheaply, the insurance company benefits. When they approve and pay claims for longer term or more expensive care, they consider the company to be losing money, instead of simply allocating money that they had already earmarked for general claim payments to specific insureds/recipients.

    I left a job in liability insurance, which is actually very different from health insurance, but they both operate on some similar principles (and under similar bounds) of contract law, risk assessment, etc., because I didn’t agree with the ethics of it and couldn’t rationalize it to myself anymore. Even internally, at every level of interaction, we always phrased our goal as paying exactly what we owed, not as little as possible though. The concept of a company officially and openly naming a role “denial nurse” is wild to me. It feels like something I’d see as the joke answer in an hr training video about legal compliance at my old company.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Kudos to you for not selling your ethics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Nothing remotely like this was said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    @TrickDacy what does ending the suffering of a terminal illness mean ??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Nothing to do with what was said and should be a personal choice. But I'm not participating in a weird conversation you tried to create here based on things no one said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments