Dy
Great question. I don’t think they are related.
The trend towards “less aggressive life saving measures” actually is an interesting one. A century ago none of this was relevent, there where no ventilators, ICU’s, Dialysis etc… Even CPR isnt much older than 50 years old. These advances were all made in a time when medical decisions were made soleley by doctors. The Doctor didnt ask about “code status” or DNI, he or she (by far usually he) would decide if in his opinion the patient would benefit. Even 30 years ago this was a case. The average age in ICU patients has gone up not down over this time! (while life expectancy has increased slightly over this time, its not enough to account for the above). What changed was an increased emphasis on “autonomy” letting patients decide for themselves.
Consider CPR, it was originally developed in the 50’s and is literally a
God-send for those dying due to cardiac arrest. A patient’s heart stops they are now dying, by restarting their heart they can keep on living. With time though it began to be expanded to other patients. Now most times CPR is used it is used for a dying patient whose heart stops because he is dying, by restarting his heart he can keep on dying.
Similarily for ventilators, they wherent originally put in with plan to remain there until the patient succumbed to whatever it was that was killing them. When Dialysis was first made available there was an actual commitee that decided who would benefit from it. (there was a fascinating piece in Life magazine in 1962 about this comitee)
With time as these technologies became more ubiquitous they began to be more universally applied. That coupled with patients and thier familes being offered “everything done” the ages in ICU went up, chrnic vent units where opened and along with it medical expenses went up and up.
There is no secret in that last stament it is well known,non-disputed and been extensively written about over the past 2 decades. The problem is how to reign in costs. Insurance companies would often deny coverage, Surely you remeber the discussion over OBamacare which was partly related to this very issue.
Syag earleir had mentioned diverting funding from elswhere, he suggested libraries, I’m not saying I disagree, but then what? Roads/infrastructure? the army? The problem is as things stand and with all the (expensive) medical advances B”H being made, costs are going up an up.
The tend towards “less aggressive measures” is a more recent one. It isnt quite as old as abortion. It is partly based on the above, in conjuction with the very real suffering that these patients endure.
To make things more complicated, the technology exists to keep people “alive” forever. There are Thumpers, which are essentially machines that do CPR available in many hospitals. We could simply hook up patients with no heart beat to thumpers, ventilate them dialyse them as needed, and keep everybody alive forever. This isnt offered to patients so this discussion doesnt come up. Yet. The way things were headed it was only a matter of time until that had become mainstream.
Would this have been appropriate ? I’m not usre
Feasible? Absolutely not!
What would the Torah say about this? I dont know as stated sevweral times, I’m no posek
Are those who think this would not be a good use of resources, comng from a “dark evil” place? Absolutely not!
I am not as familiar with changing attitudes towards abortion, it may be due to them becoming easier/safer, or perhaps as part of the “revolution” in that regard that is said to have begun in the 60’s. But I dont think it is related to the issues I’ve outlined above