Life - UK Man sues for food
In a case with shades of Terri Schiavo, Englishman Leslie Burke has sued to ensure that he will receive artificial nutrition and hydration. The big difference between him and Terri, is that he is able to express his wishes, and with Terri, the government was on her side.
In Leslie's case, a lower court judge ruled in his favor, due to human right's concerns, and the National Health Service and the government is appealing for the right to starve Leslie to death, against his wishes. Why would they do this? From the article
Why do Britain's medical establishment and government insist that Burke be denied a right to decide whether he receives tube-supplied food and water? It all boils down to two concepts that are increasingly intertwined in modern bioethics theory and practice. First is the so-called quality-of-life ethic that presumes to judge the worth of patients' lives according to their mental and physical capacities. Under this view, doctors or bioethicists may judge a life to be of such low quality that it is not worth extending, irrespective of the patient's wishes. The second issue is money--an especially potent factor for England's increasingly strained socialized medical system.
I would put forward that any socialist system must necessarily have the government decide on whose quality of life is worth living, especially in relation to health care. In cases such as Burke's, there will be a logical push to terminate the life because allowing him to suffer in starvation would be 'inhumane' and so the socialist government will then actively murder anyone who they deem is too expensive to live.
When the government decides whether you life is worth it or not, it is probably time to find a new place to live