That anesthesiologist is either a liar or a dolt. Read this carefully:

Anesthetist Mario Riccio from Cremona held a news conference and said he unplugged the machine that was helping Welby breathe. He then administered a lethal drug cocktail that killed the 60 year-old man.

Ricci then goes on to say:

"Welby's case was not one of euthanasia. It is about refusing treatment," Riccio said, according to Reuters.

Administering lethal drugs is a refusal of treatment???
Varenius | 12.22.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Verenius:

No other press report suggests a lethal overdose. When respirators/ventilators (or other forms of treatment/care) are pulled in the U.S., docs often prescribe non-lethal analgesics to "ease the discomfort of the dying process" -- i.e., the no-fun aspects of asphyxiation. That is probably what happened here.
Celine | 12.22.06 - 4:49 pm | #

"Is the sole purpose only to prolong the death throes?" of Welby," Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If the answer is yes, then you can remove the respirator. If the answer is no, then you cannot."

Mark's sole arguemtn agaianst allowing this man to remove hisown respirator is a "slippery slope" argument that what, in one case may be permissibile, will in later cases be made mandatory.

That is not a persuasive argument. Let's see if we can make a Catholic argument. A well developed Catholic teaching for end of life decisions will do a lot to keep us off any artificial slippery slopes.
Unapologetic Catholic | 12.22.06 - 11:03 pm | #

Your headline strikes me as unfair to actuaries. They are the rocket scientists of the insurance industry. They are responsible for any despicable insurance industry practices like rocket scientists are responsible for nuclear war. (Insurance parlance actually includes the phrase "actuarial science").

The blame for any bad practice on the part of the insurance industry must be ascribed to the executives/managers who guide the actuaries' work and/or to the individual states (and Washington, DC) who regulate the insurance industry. (Insurance is one of the few industries still regulated by states rather than the federal government). I don't know how insurance is regulated in Italy, but I would imagine that there too it is a matter of the executives/managers and those responsible for regulating that decide the direction of insurance industry practice, and that actuaries contribute consultation and workhorse collaboration comparable to that contributed by research scientists in other industries.

You seem to be addressing a problem of our humanity not equalling our technology, which is generally not the fault of those who actually *do* the science as of those who are in charge of deciding the uses to which that science should be put.

As a matter of necessary disclosure, I myself am not an actuary, but I do work with them.
BA | 12.26.06 - 6:24 pm | #