You're right about that, Kat. It would mean that only the rich would be able to keep a brain-dead body, alive for religious reasons.

In the case of a govt. funded health care system, its really a case of separation of religion and state.


freightdawg, you say, "And since, as I understand it, in Canada your health care is paid for "cradle to grave" then the state should pay for it." Its not quite like that. Some procedures are considered "elective" and you have to pay out of pocket.

For example: One of my eyelids (due to nerve damage in the past) has drooped and is interferring with my peripheral vision. The medical system will pay for the surgery. If, however, I want the other done at the same time (so they will match) I must pay for that eye. Only one eye is a medical necessity. The other eye is elective.

It is not a medical necessity to keep a body alive when the doctor says there is no hope. The religious belief of an individual does not come into play. You might put it into the Jehovah Witness category but in reverse. Jehovahs do not have the right to deny their child a life-saving blood transfusion, regardless of their religious beliefs.

I am disappointed in you Rabbi-Sol. To compare Mudcatters with Jack Kevorkian and Josef Mengele is to end any further discussion with you. You can believe whatever you want to believe but that does not mean I have to pay for it. You should pay for your own belief system, not me.

Perhaps you will find that your so-called, living, breathing religion will change if it starts costing you money.