Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
HEW’s Health Care Financing Administration, the latter said that “the cost-saving from a nationwide push toward ‘living wills’ is likely to be enormous.”
An “enormous” saving in federal health funds is greatly to be desired, but there is something deeply disquieting about putting a price tag on one of the most solemn issues in human existence—the right of a terminally ill patient to “die with dignity,” as it is often phrased.
The philosophical, religious, moral and humanitarian questions involved in this whole troublesome issue are vastly more important than the saving of public funds, as desirable as that is. It would be wrong if, for any reason, the federal government sought to force “living will” laws on the states; it would be profoundly reprehensible if the government sought to encourage earlier deaths of terminally ill persons as a money-saving device.
The question whether to enact “living will” laws or other legislation dealing with the “right to die” issue should be the prerogative of the people of the individual states, without being subjected to economic or other pressures from Washington. Secretary Califano should swiftly reject the illconceived recommendation made to him.
—Richmond Times Dispatch
96.0%