Richie:
How did I conclude that? Well the quote:
Quote:
|
as surveys of patients and testimonies of clinicians close to situations of the dying show - is almost always the last expression of the patient's hearfelt request for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable treatment
|
...specifically says a request for greater attention and closesness as well as treatment. A DNR is specifically to REFUSE treatment - to say "enough is enough"!
I pick out the Catholic Church because they're the ones arguing against the contraception coverage clause. We all know that Muslims do far worse in other countries (as my other quote referenced).
But just because someone else is worse doesn't mean ignoring what's still wrong. My adoptive mother stole money from me and, when I complained, her "defense" was that my friend's mother was worse. It's debating fallacy called 'deflection', if memory serves.
My "what ifs" were cut short as this one would be.. But I'll phrase them differently.
Just how many civil rights or laws should be "exempted" when a religious-affiliated group is running a hospital or non-religious school?
Should they be hypothetically allowed to ban gays? ...minorities? ...women? (There's a classic case - women cannot become priests, and that's ok with the Government under "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof", but you can't discriminate against them beaing teachers or nurses in hospitals)
The Catholic Church believes those to have had abortions to have committed murder. Should they be allowed to hypothetically refuse treatment to someone who's had an abortion - or the husband of a woman who has (as perhaps he was an accomplice).
My point in all of this is "where do you draw the line?" - and that's usually the most difficult question.