More End of Life Discussions by the Supreme Court.

Thaddeus Pope from Medical Futility Blog leaves us with this note:

Yesterday, Melvin I. Urofsky, Professor of Law & Public Policy; Professor Emeritus of History, Virginia Commonwealth University; and Supreme Court Expert, Holds a News Briefing at the Washington Foreign Press Center on the Kagan confirmation hearings. The following is a brief excerpt from Roll Call:

"We should be asking about end-of-life options. . . . America is an aging nation in a sense. There's a lot of young people, but the -- one of the largest growing cohorts are people in their 80s. And I know that just from some medical issues I've had in the last few years, it is very expensive to have a hip replacement or to have retinal surgery or to have other things. And people in their 80s have more medical issues than do people in their 20s. And he said these are the issues we ought to be asking, because the Court's docket for the next 10, 20, or 30 years is going to be much different than it was for the last 30 years.”

My feminist friends aren't buying it; the "pro-life" groups aren't buying it: and yet I think that Pope and Urofsky are onto something when they ascribe elder/terminal care as the new discussion in coming years. What do you think?