Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom News

UK Lawmakers Vote in Support of Assisted Dying (cnn.com) 126

British members of parliament have voted to legalize assisted dying, approving a contentious proposal that would make the United Kingdom one of a small handful of nations to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. From a report: Lawmakers in the House of Commons voted by 330 to 275 to support the bill, after an hours-long debate in the chamber and a years-long campaign by high-profile figures that drew on emotional first-hand testimony.

Britain is now set to join a small club of nations to have legalized the process, and one of the largest by population to allow it. The bill must still clear the House of Lords and parliamentary committees, but Friday's vote marked the most important hurdle.

It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves. Two doctors, and then a High Court judge, would need to sign off on the choice. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and most of Australia allow assisted dying in some form, as do several US states including Oregon, Washington and California.

UK Lawmakers Vote in Support of Assisted Dying

Comments Filter:
  • It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves

    That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."

    And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...

    Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.

    • the death penalty is being removed in states!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29, 2024 @08:35PM (#64980369)
      Let's hear again, after having repeatedly witnessed someone with intense incurable pain and rapidly progressing dementia, repeatedly beg for euthanasia. You will probably next argue that the specific case resolution in "hospice" care with high dose opiates, should also have been denied under some "nobility of suffering" argument.
      • Just crossed the border and come here during a gun show and buy a high caliber weapon. Problem solved.

        I'm actually genuinely surprised how low the suicide rate is in America given how poorly we treat people. It's probably going to get a lot worse in the coming years given what we know about trans people and suicide rates...
        • given what we know about trans people and suicide rates...

          "Know" is doing a lot of work here, considering how little the scientific community has chosen to know.... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/1... [nytimes.com]

          • given what we know about trans people and suicide rates...

            "Know" is doing a lot of work here, considering how little the scientific community has chosen to know.... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/1... [nytimes.com]

            I watched a vid of a young lady giving testimony before congress. Interesting case. Sh started to go through precocious puberty. And was a bit confused. Hr parents took her to a doctor, and somehow sh was diagnosed as needing sexual reassignment.

            The doctor told hr parents "Do you want a dead daughter or a live trans son?"n So thy put hr on puberty blockers, then hormones to make her develop in a masculine manner. Se developed skeletal problems, and ironically became suicidal. After graduating high schoo

            • Ayup.

              But I'd add the following: Free citizens are free to do whatever they want to themselves on their own dime, from changing their names to cutting out healthy parts of themselves to suit their aesthetic sensibilities; they do not get to require the rest of us to humor their delusions or subsidize them.

              • Ayup.

                But I'd add the following: Free citizens are free to do whatever they want to themselves on their own dime, from changing their names to cutting out healthy parts of themselves to suit their aesthetic sensibilities; they do not get to require the rest of us to humor their delusions or subsidize them.

                As well, it would be prudent to ascertain the cause of their desire to transition. Many talk about the suicide rate of trans people. Have they been adequately diagnosed with body dysphoria, or might there be a deeper issue? A person with strong issues that is convinced and encouraged that the fix is for Michael to become Michelle and fully transition including the hormones, implants, and surgery might really spiral if their fix doesn't make them happy, and they realize that is isn't something you return fr

                • Unfortunately I don't think we're anywhere near cracking that particular nut. We have nothing resembling a predictive theory of the mind that would be necessary to start reasoning about why some people just aren't right in the head or fundamentally uncomfortable in their own skins.

                  We're plodding around blindly, and we've stumbled on some things that sort-of work sometimes for some people. So we're left with what you can see with your own eyes:

                  There's always some small fraction of people out there who are un

      • I've accompanied 2 family members who've died of cancer. Towards the end, the pain is horrible & there's no quality of life. It's a living hell... then they eventually die. Luckily, we had counsellors available 24/7 to help the family through the process but it was horrible for everyone involved. It's humane to allow people to avoid this level of pointless suffering. AFAIK, it's shortening their lives by a few weeks at the most & they're still conscious & well enough to say a dignified goodbye t
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quonset ( 4839537 )

      How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies. Perhaps we should have the government dictate what we can do. That will solve the problem.

      • Sin (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        You have to look at it from the perspective of a American Christian extremist.

        One of the core beliefs of our evangelicals is that God is basically an asshole drill instructor and he punishes everyone if anyone fucks up.

        The other thing you need to understand is sin against God comes in gradients. Like temperature. Imagine a sin thermometer. Measuring the level of sin and if it gets too high God smites everything. That's what these people believe.

        Once you understand that their insistence on contro
        • The wife is a physician who occasionally works with terminal patients. She informs me that there are practitioners out there who will try to apply heroic treatments to people already near the ends of their natural lives who are suffering because
          a) The patients' families demand heroic attempts at treatment
          b) Dead patients skew the averages unfavorably, whether in an actual metric that matters or purely along the axis of ego.
          c) Can't charge billable hours on a dead guy. A technically still alive guy though...

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Not everything is a theocratic conspiracy.

            But sometimes it is. [theguardian.com]

          • I had a convo with a very christian woman years ago. She was adamantly against assisted suicide in theory for exactly the reasons rsilver was saying. We were not talking about her grandpa. She was talking about generically. In fact, we were talking about me specifically and you'd think she'd be good with an atheist going to hell for committing a mortal sin. But no, she wanted to "save" me I guess.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You have to look at it from the perspective of a American Christian extremist.

          No thanks. We're British.

          • might be because of your national religion.

            In the UK you've got the Church of England, which gets money from the government. That reduces the need for them to go out and make converts to shake down for money.

            Here in the states we did away with national religion and that's all well and good but it meant that our preachers had to get... creative in order to keep the money flowing in. So they got increasingly radical and went after vulnerable folks who they could make empty their wallets.
        • They're already doing everything they can to reduce sin in their lives

          I honestly can't tell if you're trolling people, have been living under a rock for the past few decades, or are just fishing for Inigo Montoya quotations.
          • Trolling who? Is what he said an unreasonable characterisation of the belief of evangelicals?

            • If you emphasize the word "can" in that sentence, I suppose not. And maybe the prominence of all the obvious hypocrites being caught with their literal pants down has altered my perception as to whether, on net, Christian sin less than non-Christians. But man there are some very prominent counter examples.
              • I think you have misunderstood. He is not saying that's what evangelicals do, he's saying that's what evangelicals believe about themselves.

                No one's saying that belief doesn't require an astounding amount of cognitive dissonance, wilful ignorance and intentional misunderstanding. That belief in the OP's words is "fucking insane".

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Yep. Probably among the most evil people around.

          • They take "the poor will always be with you" (Matt 26:11 [biblegateway.com]) as an excuse not to try to solve poverty. I'm not making this up.

            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Seriously? Well, another clear piece of evidence for "most evil people around". Anybody is free to inflict as much pain and suffering as they want on themselves, and on others that have given informed, competent consent. Without that consent, it becomes torture and rape. And that is what these people do. They torture and rape their fellow, very much non-consenting, human beings.

        • would it help if we summoned God and destroyed Him in front of them? Don't bring a flaming sword to a gunfight, and all that.
      • How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies.

        This is not about control over your own body it is about giving someone else control over your body albeit with your permission. The problem with assisted dying is in the details of how you implement it. The way Canada has done it is frankly horrific. It started as being only available to people who had a reasonably foresable imminent death but that was deemed unconstitutional so now you can do it for almost any reason, including mental illness. Indeed, it has been reported that some cases were for purely

        • Or perhaps without your permission; if you're on an NHS waiting list for something painful and repeatedly being denied treatment, this might be something which you decide you want when something simple like a hip replacement would have fixed it. My guess is this is really just a way to get rid of old folks.
      • by gilgongo ( 57446 )

        Two doctors, and then a High Court judge have to decide before anyone in the UK will be allowed to kill themselves. It's hardly going to be a wave of dying.

      • How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies. Perhaps we should have the government dictate what we can do. That will solve the problem.

        You've always had control over your body. What the assisted dying laws try to minimise is the control over other people's body. No law is going to stop someone from sticking their head in an oven. But there are laws stopping you from turning on the gas while someone else is in the oven.

        The issue here is that people who are unable to end their lives themselves are sort of stuck in the middle. This is why I think a product like the Sarco Pod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is in theory a good idea. It remov

        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          The UK draft law explicitly requires that the terminally ill person take an active step to end their life: pressing a button, for example. One of the details that will be worked through is what to do for patients who are physically incapacitated (eye blink tech, for example).

      • Can't have people having an organised manner of checking out (war doesn't count they still make their flesh) the theocracy doesn't like it
      • How horrible that people should have control over their own bodies. Perhaps we should have the government dictate what we can do. That will solve the problem.

        Are you good with Teri Schaivoing your loved ones? One of the craziest things during th Katrina dbacle was Republicans had made plans to evacuate a living corpse while ignoring the living people dying in the N'awlins Superdome.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves

      That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."

      And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...

      Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.

      Where are you going with this? What in history, is over and over? I’m guessing this really isn’t of any major benefit to anyone except the one who is suffering and wanting an end to that suffering. They’re probably not going to “cheat” a single life insurance company out of their money anyway.

      Only people that will lose out are those in the business of squeezing every last drop of financial blood from a dying stone who probably feel they are being “robbed” somehow

    • by Falconhell ( 1289630 ) on Friday November 29, 2024 @11:08PM (#64980509) Journal

      What a load of dribbling idiocy. I watched both my parents die slow horrible painful deaths from dementia in their mid 90’s. Exactly what they both feared for years, and didnt want to happen, they both had DNRs but there was nothing further I could do. We treat dogs better. There is no slippery slope, no loosening at all, its just an excuse made by mainly religious people who want to control others choices, regardless of how torturous their deaths are.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @02:08AM (#64980643)

        Indeed. The religious nuts essentially want people being tortured to death. Or having to kill themselves with a high risk of botching it. How people can get this evil and cruel is really beyond me. "We treat dogs better" nicely sums it up.

        • There's no need to invoke religion. The legal system itself has effectively enough problems with the concept. Where's the line between murder, first or second degree, and assisting suicide? In the case where people are "tortured to death" they are often in capable of making decisions themselves (as with the parents of the person you are replying to).

          So what do you propose (leaving religion out of it)? Do we assign everyone a "get-away-with-murder-ability score" that starts at 100 when they are fully functio

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            There's no need to invoke religion.

            I think there is. Because when you drill down, you always find that prohibitions on (assisted or non-assisted) suicide always goes down to some misanthropist religious fanatics.

            The solutions are actually pretty easy and there are countries where they are established and work well. It is however always the religious fanatics that try their best to make sure these approaches do not even get looked at.

          • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            There's no need to invoke religion. The legal system itself has effectively enough problems with the concept.

            The legal precepts we hold dear - such things like "morality" come from religion because that's how it goes. Religion teaches morality and how to lead a moral life. The Ten Commandments is an example of this and pre-dates the law.

            Law codifies what were moral precepts into something more standardized that could be applied to wider situations and with less grey areas. Indeed the first laws were often

            • I'm sure there where perfectly moral aztecs according to their faith - you still wouldnt want them anywhere near you,
          • Where's the line between murder, first or second degree, and assisting suicide?

            Consent.

            In the case where people are "tortured to death" they are often in capable of making decisions themselves (as with the parents of the person you are replying to).

            Thus the concept of consent in advance.

        • Unless you are a republican politican - in which case a dog simply misbehaving is all it needs.
          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            My guess is that person is just a power-hungry sadist. With the repressed sexuality on the republican side, my guess would be there are many more of those.

        • So true, although even with pets some go OTT. I've had two pets euthanized. It is very painful to me, but I'm not going to watch an animal I care for suffer needlessly. It is the humane thing to do.
          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Indeed. At some point, the value of continuing to be alive becomes negative. Pets the same as humans, although for humans it needs to be the decision of the human in question. I am perfectly fine with putting down my decisions for different situations beforehand and have somebody else professionally and with 4-eye principle and oversight make the determination should I not be capable anymore.

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @03:34AM (#64980757)

        There is no slippery slope

        Given that your parents couldn't even make the decision to end their own life you've most definitely just blurred the line of murder. There's no need to bring anything related to religion into this debate. The debate is loaded with problems from a legal perspective alone. Do we start including a quality of life moderator to the laws relating to ending *someone else's* life? That's the whole point of the "assisted" bit here. No one can stop suicide, but the line between helping someone kill themselves and killing them yourself, especially when they are in a situation like you describe where they are unable to function themselves is incredibly grey.

        • How so? I'm assuming he had discussions with his parents about their wishes and the fact that the parents had living wills indicated what their wishes were. The situation was likely distressful to him since he was handcuffed by legal restrictions that their wishes could not be carried out. No one is mandating you make such a living will. But some of us would like the freedom to not spend hell on earth being sentient in a body that cannot move or speak. And if I can move and speak, I'd rather not off myself.
          • From a legal perspective there's no such thing as a "they wanted me to kill them" defence. Literally that's the point: Legally we haven't accounted for this situation.
            Additionally there's a massive problem once a party ceases to be able to make decisions for themselves. We have precedent how mental problems mediate people's actions, but not the other way around, there's no precedent for allowing the murder (and I use that term deliberately as this is the planned action of taking someone's life) simply becau

            • It really is not difficult. It is only difficult because the religious want it so. The modern world lives by contracts. It would be simple to craft a contract that specifies what I described above. Couple pages.
        • They made their decision in advance, their wishes were very clear and not followed. There is no slippery slope. I've taken measures to ensure Im never in that situation by having the appropriate means on hand, so scumbags like you dont get to decide what I do with MY life.

          • That changes nothing about what I said. The reality is that legally it's still a massive blackhole of problems. Forget the idea of ending a life, we haven't even legally gotten around how to handle DNR orders. In some states DNRs only apply to hospitals. In some places of the world people have been sued and lost as a result of not providing first aid to someone they knew had a DNR. Now if you add mental incapacity to the equation you have a bigger problem. Add to that *time* and the problem legally gets eve

      • Yup. My dog had bacon and steak, and then went to sleep. Meanwhile, my grandmother was allowed to linger for years with dementia and intense pain.

        How we treat people with incurable suffering is horrific, and all because we're so goddamned afraid of the process that each and every one of us will experience in one form or another.

        • My fish died stoned out of its tiny little fishy mind. Hopefully not a bad way to go.

          Meanwhile my mother inlaw slips ever further into dementia and is essentially terrified of everything all the time, and hates her life while knowing (in lucid moments) that there is no getting better. The one thing she has been consistently clear about now for a while is wanting to die. She will not get her wish without a great deal more suffering.

          • Its a terrible situation to be in, torture for them and the family. But its against the wishes of somebodies imaginary sky friends.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Sooo, you support torturing these people to death? Because that is essentially what you are advocating for.

    • It allows people with a terminal condition and less than six months to live to take a substance to end their lives, as long as they are capable of making the decision themselves

      That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."

      And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...

      Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.

      Now define the point at which life support should be cut off.

      With enough support, a brain dead person can be kept alive indefinitely. And "pulling the plug" is every bit as effective a way of assisted death as eating the applesauce.

      Here's one for ya. A co worker suffered a stroke. His mind still worked well, but he was confined to bed, and could no longer swallow.

      He didn't want to live essentially immobile and on a machine that fed him. Which of course th intubation meant he couldn't talk either. He

    • That's how it starts. "Oh, we'll be so careful. We'll have all these restrictions."

      And then everywhere this gets implemented, it loosens, and loosens, and loosens ...

      Predictable. And predicted. And literally happens, over and over.

      Ahah! It's a slippery slope! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

    • How is it a slippery slope? I think it's much better to have MAID in Canada account for 4.1% (your stat is wrong) of all deaths if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.

      The fact that MAID accounts for 4.1% of deaths means probably cancer and other terminal illness deaths are down by the same amount.

      • by dskoll ( 99328 )

        The latest report I could find from Canada was from 2022 [canada.ca].

      • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

        How is it a slippery slope? I think it's much better to have MAID in Canada account for 4.1% (your stat is wrong) of all deaths if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.

        Death is always inevitable for everybody.

        • by dskoll ( 99328 )

          Yes, death is inevitable, but people should have the right to choose a dignified peaceful death over a drawn-out painful one, if death is imminent anyway.

      • How is it a slippery slope? I think it's much better to have MAID in Canada account for 4.1% (your stat is wrong) of all deaths if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.

        The fact that MAID accounts for 4.1% of deaths means probably cancer and other terminal illness deaths are down by the same amount.

        Having recently watch my mother pass away - very slowly - from Alzheimer's, I very much hope I can one day soon do an advance directive to avoid that fate myself. While they debate whether the law should be amended to allow MAID for mental illness, which I can completely understand is contentious, I wait for the law to allow me to make my wishes known ahead of time.

        • by dskoll ( 99328 )

          Yes. I watched my grandmother die from Alzheimers. It's a terrible disease.

          My mother, thankfully, kept her mental faculties right up until the end, and she did not have a long, drawn-out terminal disease when the end finally came.

          Right now, I cannot think of any circumstances that would make me want MAID. But I sure as hell want the option just in case.

      • by sfcat ( 872532 ) on Friday November 29, 2024 @09:52PM (#64980441)
        Its a slippery slope when administrators start pressuring patients into using this as a cost cutting measure. Given that it only took 6 months for it to happen in Canada, that's something to worry about. Yes, that's just one instance but I feel quite certain there will be more. Having the right guard rails on this measure would do a lot to make people feel better about it. Because the potential for abuse is quite high.
      • if that's what people choose instead of a painful and drawn-out death when death is inevitable.

        But that is not what is happening. It was deemed unconstitutional to limit access to MAID to only those facing imminent death so now it is open to anyone for seemingly almost any medical condition including mental illness. Even non-medical, social conditions like homelessness [theguardian.com] have been accepted for MAID.

        Having it available to people suffering painful terminal conditions would be one thing and something I'd potentially be in favour of but Canada's system is closer to state-assisted suicide which somethin

        • But that is not what is happening. It was deemed unconstitutional to limit access to MAID to only those facing imminent death so now it is open to anyone for seemingly almost any medical condition including mental illness

          What do you mean, specifically by "almost any[..]including mental illness"?

          The suffering caused by mental illness is every bit as real as physical illness.

          • The suffering caused by mental illness is every bit as real as physical illness.

            Absolutely true but, if you think that MAID is an acceptable solution then why do we spend so much effort to prevent suicides of mentally ill individuals? The reason is that mental illness is generally non-fatal and treatable. There is usually hope that the afflicted individual can recover with the correct treatment. Plus, it affects our judgment calling into question whether the desire to die is really genuine. Lastly, because someone with mental illness is, in most cases, not physically limited they can

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        These evil fucks want people tortured to death.

    • You know, people kill themselves with booze. People kill themselves with hard drugs. People kill themselves by eating their guns, not wearing their seat belts at the drag race, declining medical treatments.

      What Ever.

      That's between them and whatever God they believe in. If the modern-day Quakers weren't a magnet for Marxists, treehuggers, and other crazies, their philosophy of no intermediaries between Man and God might have had more penetration into the zeitgeist than it has.

    • The slippery slope is real.

      Yeah. Slipped right past any benefit of lowering a suicide statistic driven by unending pain and suffering with that argument, didn’t you.

  • by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Friday November 29, 2024 @09:29PM (#64980419)
    I suggest that they call it the Rite of Hegh'bat! The honor of helping falls to a family member, who hands the incapacitated a knife so that the person can plunge it into their heart. Then the named assistant will remove it and wipe it on their sleeve! We shall walk in the footsteps of the Klingons!
  • From my wife (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thephydes ( 727739 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @02:51AM (#64980713)
    I'll comment on this, second hand from my wife who was the Nurse Unit Manager of a palliative care ward for over 10 years. When she started VAD was virtually non-existant, but when she retired it was becoming more available. She was and still is a supporter of VAD, because she pointed out that when someone was in extreme pain, they were often so "drugged up" with pain killers to the point where their bodily and mental functions shut down that they died anyway. She sometimes asked if this was akin to murder/manslaughter, because by the time this extreme medication was being administered, they had no say in what treatment they were prepared to accept - because they couldn't say anything. I certainly want the option if I need it and will fight tooth and nail to get it.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Doctors often administer doses that they know are likely to be fatal. The justification is that the pain and suffering after so extreme that the "risk" is worth it, but in reality they know they are at least helping to speed up death.

      I'd much rather choose to go without too much pain and all my mental facilities intact, long before it gets to that point. I can't imagine having that conversation with my wife, but I know she would understand. That's one of the reasons I married her.

    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      I don't disagree with what you say, but I want to point out that additionally, there are many deaths for which we have at present no good palliative options. From the recent UK debate: "Lucy’s husband, Tom, was 47 a music teacher with a young son. He had bile duct cancer, which obstructed his bowel, resulting in an agonizing death. Tom vomited fecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the feces and died. He was vomiting so violently that he could not be sedated, and was conscious throug

  • Not happened (yet) (Score:5, Informative)

    by locofungus ( 179280 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @11:25AM (#64981285)

    The UK has not voted to allow this. The very first hurdle of a start of the process to write a law that might eventually allow it has been passed.

    This is newsworthy because this is a private members bill - it is not sponsored by the government but by a single MP who happened to come top of the ballot to put forward her own bill (and so gets more possible time for this to become law).

    What MPs approved was (approximately, I'm no expert in this) to allow the bill to move forwards to committee stage - where the politicians get around to write the details of the bill, which then goes back to parliament for its "second reading". That's the point where people can propose amendments. There isn't yet a law to object to. The nos to this first vote were objecting to even *trying* to write a bill that might eventually become law.

    After the amendments bit at the second reading, there's a third reading and it also has to pass the house of lords (I think it's HoL who might amend again and then third reading BICBW). Again, because this isn't government sponsored, if the HoL decides to kill it I think it's dead because a) it wasn't "manifesto" so the lords won't feel any duty to not object, b) the lords has a number of unelected religious oddballs who shouldn't be there but "it's the way it's always been done", c) to force it through against a lords objection requires more than one session of parliament and the proposer will have no special advantage to moving the bill forwards once the current session ends, and d) I can't see the government of the day being willing to invest political capital on this even though it appears very popular with the electorate.

    It might become law, I hope it does become law, but it's a very, very, very long way from becoming law.

  • other peoples' money.

    In a socialist health system, the patients have no competitor to turn to; they're stuck with what's offered by their government. Now, it's true that they may not FEEL "stuck" because their government-run education system will have propagandized them into thinking that government-run healthcare is best for them, but such programming does not change the fact that people in such systems usually are barred from any competitive system. All healthcare in such a system becomes a line item in t

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...