Should a patient's tube be removed if he can't pay the bill? No, poor people deserve life too

When I was watching "Milk and Coke Economics 3" in the past two days, I saw a rather contradictory content. If a patient has his oxygen tube removed by the medical center because he cannot pay the bill, it will lead to Death, is this wrong? This reminds me of the people in "I'm Not the God of Medicine" who can't afford the sky-high price of medicine and can only wait to die. This is of course wrong, and poor people also deserve to enjoy life. All living beings are suffering, wouldn’t it be good to maintain a little respect for life?

The book "Milk and Coke Economics 3" mentions that an economist thinks "this is right" out of "economic considerations", but I personally do not agree with this view. Although I I admit that I am a cold-blooded person with a heart of stone, but I still hope that there is still a little light and kindness in my heart. The book mentions a case in which a patient died because his oxygen tube was pulled out because he could not pay the bill. I don’t know whether it is true or false, but the information mentioned is very detailed. I personally do not think this case is false.

The patient mentioned in the book is named Hades Harbert Grice, a 27-year-old immigrant from East Africa. He was admitted to Baylor Regional Medical Center in Plano, Texas, because of cancer. , in the last moments of her life, she relied on a ventilator to maintain her life. The doctors at the time also believed that she was hopeless, and her last wish was that she could hold on until her mother in East Africa came to see her for the last time. , she already knew very well what her fate was, and she didn’t have any extravagant expectations.

She doesn’t have much money. She is the same as most of us. She is even not as good as us because she doesn’t even have medical insurance. You must know that the United States is the only country among Western developed countries that has not implemented universal health insurance. Even though the United States' medical and health expenditures as a proportion of GDP have ranked among the top in the world for many years, there are still about 50 million people in the United States who do not have medical insurance.

Okay, now let’s continue the story of Herbert Grice. Ten days after she was admitted to the hospital, her brother received a notice from the hospital that unless another medical center was found willing to take over the patient, the medical center would have to give up treatment. As you can imagine, how could anyone be willing to take over such a hot potato? As a result, another 10 days passed, and the medical center kept her promise and cut off her ventilator. And the medical center also found a statute to base its actions on. The medical center cited a 1999 order from George W. Bush and the Texas governor. The order stipulates that doctors are not obliged to provide life-sustaining treatment for more than 10 days as long as the hospital formally notifies the patient that life-sustaining treatment is medically "inappropriate."

Herbert Grice's brother recalled that when the ventilator was turned off, she was still fully conscious and responsive, and she wanted to breathe. Her brother described the scene in horror, as Herbert Grice struggled for 16 minutes before dying in agony. In the end, her mother who was far away in East Africa failed to arrive. I don’t know if the medical center’s practice of terminating the patient early is considered murder, and it seems that the medical center did not seek the consent of his family. Baylor Medical Center officials said their decision had nothing to do with financial considerations. But I'm curious, if not for financial considerations, what would drive the hospital to cruelly end a patient's life? Is it the law? However, the law cited by the hospital does not seem to require the medical center to stop such treatment, right?

I think what really drives medical centers is economic considerations. If the patients could not afford to pay their bills, the medical centers might not use this law. There is a line in "I'm Not the God of Medicine" that impressed me deeply, "There is only one disease in the world, and no one can cure it. You can help some people, but you can't help everyone. This disease is called the disease of poverty." Perhaps this is what the world looks like to many people.

But I don’t agree. This may be because I am still a student and have not experienced so many ups and downs in life! My idea may still be naive, but all living beings suffer. Isn't it good to maintain a little respect for life?