It's not 'Death Panels'...it's individual rights

[CensoredRed]

I remember a movie from a long while ago called "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" with Richard Dreyfuss. It was about a sculptor involved in an accident and paralyzed from the neck down. The physicians feel he can have quality of life and will not allow him to make the decision to die. I don't think it was a true story but still you can see where it 'could' happen by a team of physicians and pychiatrists saying you are depressed and not able to make a competent decision. So, he had to sue for the right to die. That has been in my mind ever since I saw it. I laughed at parts and cried at parts but it made me think about how little control we could have over our own bodies and lives if we were in that situation.

 

[apple0154]

So what YOU want legalized is "assisted suicide"....?
Then come right out an say so, and stop with the bullshit of "advance health care directive".....concerning what health care procedures are to be administered.....

If one refuses the operation, medicine, or whateever, they have every right to that and always have had that right....

or a family member will make that decision....

I sure as hell don't want YOU or those that think the same moronic shit as you to sit on any panel and make those decisions for me...

And nature will determine the time of death....not you or some other group....

It is an "advance health care directive". Do try and follow along.

People visit a doctor when they are suffering. If they wanted to continue suffering they wouldn't bother to see a doctor so we're left with two possible reasons. Either they want the doctor to increase their suffering or they want the doctor to relieve their suffering. Considering one can find ways to suffer, one as simple as taking a hammer to a thumb, it's reasonable to conclude the person wants the doctor to end the suffering.

So, the "advance health care directive" is to relieve the suffering. Stop the suffering. End it.

With what part of that are you having difficulty?

 

[apple0154]

The point is, ITS THE FAMILIES OR THE PATIENTS DECISION TO MAKE... not some disinterested or impartial panel of strangers....because it plain, there is no such thing as a disinterested or impartial panel...

Killing people is always cheaper if its the old and terminally ill .... it only cost more to kill a murdered on death row with a 25 cent bullet .....thats the Logic of the pinhead herd.....

Apple the Asshole's solution to just about everything, including disability, sickness, hunger, abuse, the unloved.....etc....

Show ONE post where I condone the killing of the disabled, ill, hungry, abused, unloved or anyone else.

 

[zappasguitar]

Show ONE post where I condone the killing of the disabled, ill, hungry, abused, unloved or anyone else.

You better grab a comfy chair and a tasty beverage...this could take a while...

 

[CensoredRed]

That's the problem. What about those who haven't made that information known? What if your mother has a stroke and is in a coma and has no living will. How do you proceed? Do you take her off life support? Can you legally take her off life support? What if she has a heart attack while in a coma? Do you have her resusitated or not or do you even have the authority to make that decision for her? What if hypoxia during the stroke has completely destroyed all higher brain function and she cannot live with out extraordinary measures (i.e. ventilation) and what if you decide to keep her alive by these extraordinary measure but cannot pay the cost. Who foots the bill? You or the State? This isn't a "Right to Die" issue. It's an issue of "how best to prepare for the end of life."

Both sides of this issue make a huge mistake if they try to politicize this as a right to die vs death panels issue. This is a real problem that needs real solutions. This is a problem technology has created that technology can't solve. One hundred years ago this wasn't a problem. You died because these extraordinary and expensive technologies were not available to keep one alive. They do exist now but how are they best to be used and how should we consider the wants, needs and desires of those affected with these end of life issues that modern technology has created?

Sure. I get it. I guess I am one who decided not to leave it to chance but most people really don't think about these things. If that were to happen to my mother I would know what she expects of me because we have discussed it. Not everyone has that luxury. It is a real issue and one that deserves real solutions.

 

[apple0154]

"There can't be true medical reform when the last step in medical care, that being the comfort of the patient at the end time, is governed by some supernatural belief a God will determine the time of death. "

What Apple is saying is that someone else, maybe him, or his "panel" is better equipped to decide when a patient should die....not "nature" or dare is say........GOD, to those that believe in one.....

You have to have debated Apple on similar issues to know exactly what hes driving at.....

What I'm driving at is a person should be able to decide beforehand what type of care they want. A proper "advance directive" would eliminate the need for any panel to decide.

 

[NOVA]

I don't see Apple saying that at all. I see Apple making the very valid point that this country's medical system avoids and ignores the final stages of terminal illnesses. People are allowed to spend their last days in absolute agony because teh Drs follow the same regulations for administering their pain meds that they do in patients who are expected to recover.

Is a dying patient really worried about developing an addiction? Is there really a need to not allow a patient access to enough pain meds to allow them to be comfortable?

Giving a patient an overdose of medication that will in fact help kill him is not the way to practice medicine in a civilized society....FIRST, DO NO HARM...
ever hear of that? That has been to golden rule of practicing medicine in civilized countrys for centuries....easing pain by killing the patient is not the way we do things....and lets not ignore the fact that people have recovered from so-called "terminal illness".....and that is a fact.

Some decisions MUST remain in the hands of the patient and their family...thats humane....thats just...
If you don't want to spend YOUR money taking care of some people, don't demand socialized, tax payer funded care.....and in the real world, thats what this is all about...the fuckin' money.

 

[apple0154]

Well, the Heritage Foundation found that in THIS province (The United States of America) it won't work and can't work unless there is an individual mandate to buy insurance. So, who to believe...Apple or the Heritage Foundation? Hmmm?

Of course the Heritage Foundation said individual mandates are necessary for HCR to work. If one eliminates any alternative what are we left with? If the Repubs don't like the idea of individual mandates an increase in taxes would solve the problem. Wasn't that easy?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Well, the Heritage Foundation found that in THIS province (The United States of America) it won't work and can't work unless there is an individual mandate to buy insurance. So, who to believe...Apple or the Heritage Foundation? Hmmm?

Also... Bfoon, I won't bother quoting you, but I love the way you cleverly switch from an individual mandate to employer mandate, and hope no one noticed. I think these are two distinctly different ideas and suggestions. In the current version of health care reform (aka: Obamacare) The Republicans didn't propose anything, they weren't allowed to. You'll recall the president scolding John McCain... "The elections are over, John!" Democrats rammed a 2,000 page bill down our throats without one single solitary republican vote, and nothing in the damn thing was the idea of a republican. To think you have the fucking nerve to come here now and just outright LIE about it, is astonishing, do you really think people are THAT fucking stupid? ....excuse me...besides NigelTufnel... do you think people are THAT stupid??

 

[NOVA]

Yea, no shit. I don't think Dixie or Bravo even attempted to read the OP. There disputing claims and arguments no one made.

I'm referring to Apple the Pinhead...not your OP.....

I said patients entering the hospital (and their families) , 15 ago were advised by doctors of medical issues and advised by social workers about what they want to agree to concerning procedures, medication, etc....
What you think is being "twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.” is the idea that some 3rd party can make these decisions in the event their is no prior 'advanced directive'.....
what we called a "living will"...15 years ago....

 

[CensoredRed]

My Father died in the hospital 15 years ago and the first thing he WAS presented with, upon admission was a living will ..... now called an advance health care directive that covers what actions that should be taken for HIS health in the event that he is no longer able to make decisions due to illness or incapacity, and appoints a person to make such decisions on their behalf, which was me. A living will is one form of advance directive, leaving instructions for treatment. Another form authorizes a specific type of where someone is appointed by the individual to make decisions on their behalf when they are incapacitated.
A hospital social worker came with the documents, sat and explained them to us, and I was their to see that my fathers wishes were clearly known....

THIS WAS 15 YEARS AGO...

Now what has changed in that 15 years that makes a person say, "I have never understood how a nation of people, most of whom would do the right thing and put a suffering animal out of its misery, have the nerve to say that a suffering person does not have the right to die."
OR IS THIS ALL A BULLSHIT non-ISSUE FROM THE LEFT TO DEFEND OBAMACARE IN SOME WAY?

My comments were based on how some people have not made those decisions. In a great number of cases, someone has suffered a catastrophic event which prevents them from filling out that Advanced Health Care Directive.
How can that be construed even remotely as a bullshit non-issue from the left to defend Obamacare?

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, the Heritage Foundation found that in THIS province (The United States of America) it won't work and can't work unless there is an individual mandate to buy insurance. So, who to believe...Apple or the Heritage Foundation? Hmmm?

Also... Bfoon, I won't bother quoting you, but I love the way you cleverly switch from an individual mandate to employer mandate, and hope no one noticed. I think these are two distinctly different ideas and suggestions. In the current version of health care reform (aka: Obamacare) The Republicans didn't propose anything, they weren't allowed to. You'll recall the president scolding John McCain... "The elections are over, John!" Democrats rammed a 2,000 page bill down our throats without one single solitary republican vote, and nothing in the damn thing was the idea of a republican. To think you have the fucking nerve to come here now and just outright LIE about it, is astonishing, do you really think people are THAT fucking stupid? ....excuse me...besides NigelTufnel... do you think people are THAT stupid??

What is it Dixie, are the words too BIG for you or are there just too many? The reason no one noticed is because I DIDN'T switch from an individual mandate to employer mandate. In 1993, Democrats were proposing an employer mandate, Republicans countered with THEIR IDEA, the individual mandate. Democrats have plenty of Republican ideas in this bill. So much so that a comparison of the 2010 bill and the 1993 Republican proposal are almost identical...click on the link> Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News

From post #12

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as your false claim 'Republicans didn't propose anything, they weren't allowed to'...they weren't interested in proposing, they were only interested in OPPOSING. Bush's speechwriter was fired by a right wing think tank for speaking the TRUTH:

Waterloo

by David Frum - former speechwriter for George W. Bush

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

 

[NOVA]

Of course the Heritage Foundation said individual mandates are necessary for HCR to work. If one eliminates any alternative what are we left with? If the Repubs don't like the idea of individual mandates an increase in taxes would solve the problem. Wasn't that easy?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Pay for your own health-care and mind your own business and there is no problem....

 

[NOVA]

You're right about one thing Bfgrn....there are some things in the bill that both sides agree on ....and all of them could probably be written down on 3 sheets of paper....

So scrap that 2200 pages of bullshit and agree on reforms one at a time that we all can understand, and in no time we'll have healthcare reform we can all live with and probably no increase in taxes and a reduction in total costs.....or a rise in taxes and healthcare costs we all understand....

 

[apple0154]

I remember a movie from a long while ago called "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" with Richard Dreyfuss. It was about a sculptor involved in an accident and paralyzed from the neck down. The physicians feel he can have quality of life and will not allow him to make the decision to die. I don't think it was a true story but still you can see where it 'could' happen by a team of physicians and pychiatrists saying you are depressed and not able to make a competent decision. So, he had to sue for the right to die. That has been in my mind ever since I saw it. I laughed at parts and cried at parts but it made me think about how little control we could have over our own bodies and lives if we were in that situation.

In 1992, Sue Rodriguez forced the right-to-die debate into the spotlight in Canada.
In a video statement played to members of Parliament, the Victoria woman, diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991, asked legislators to change the law banning assisted suicide.
"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" she said.
The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled against Rodriguez, but her struggle galvanized the public. Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an anonymous doctor.

In December 2008, a Quebec jury acquitted Stéphan Dufour on a single charge of assisted suicide. Dufour had admitted to installing in a closet a rope, chain and dog collar that his uncle, Chantal Maltais, used to kill himself in September 2006.

What is the law in the U.S.?

Oregon is the first state with a law that specifically allows physician-assisted suicide, enacted in 1997.

Washington adopted a ballot measure based on the Oregon law, called Initiative 1000, during the November 2008 election.

In December 2008, a Montana judge overturned that state's law prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide in a ruling on a case involving a man with terminal cancer. The state's attorney general plans to appeal the decision.

Only three places besides Oregon openly and legally authorize assisted suicide: the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html#ixzz1CYX8qpfP

Change is slowly coming.

In the case of the woman with Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) "The initial or predominant symptoms are impaired speech or swallowing along with wasting of the tongue. The outcome is generally worse in this condition since swallowing and breathing are affected early in the course of the disease."
http://chealth.canoe.ca/condition_info_details.asp?disease_id=4

Refusing treatment in this case would result in slowly suffocating meaning the patient has a choice between being kept alive while they deteriorate further or suffocating to death. One has to wonder what inhuman being would force someone to choose between those two options rather than helping them pass on peacefully.

 

[apple0154]

Pay for your own health-care and mind your own business and there is no problem....

Be nice now, Bravo. Use a little decorum in defeat.

You will have health care reform and you will have either individual mandates or higher taxes but keep in mind the main secret to happiness is accepting the things you can not change.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sure. I get it. I guess I am one who decided not to leave it to chance but most people really don't think about these things. If that were to happen to my mother I would know what she expects of me because we have discussed it. Not everyone has that luxury. It is a real issue and one that deserves real solutions.

Discussing it is good. But without documentation, all it takes is one person disagreeing that it is what she would want, and you will spend months or years in court before you can give her what she wants.

 

[NOVA]

In 1992, Sue Rodriguez forced the right-to-die debate into the spotlight in Canada.
In a video statement played to members of Parliament, the Victoria woman, diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991, asked legislators to change the law banning assisted suicide.
"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" she said.
The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled against Rodriguez, but her struggle galvanized the public. Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an anonymous doctor.

In December 2008, a Quebec jury acquitted Stéphan Dufour on a single charge of assisted suicide. Dufour had admitted to installing in a closet a rope, chain and dog collar that his uncle, Chantal Maltais, used to kill himself in September 2006.

What is the law in the U.S.?

Oregon is the first state with a law that specifically allows physician-assisted suicide, enacted in 1997.

Washington adopted a ballot measure based on the Oregon law, called Initiative 1000, during the November 2008 election.

In December 2008, a Montana judge overturned that state's law prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide in a ruling on a case involving a man with terminal cancer. The state's attorney general plans to appeal the decision.

Only three places besides Oregon openly and legally authorize assisted suicide: the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html#ixzz1CYX8qpfP

Change is slowly coming.

In the case of the woman with Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS) "The initial or predominant symptoms are impaired speech or swallowing along with wasting of the tongue. The outcome is generally worse in this condition since swallowing and breathing are affected early in the course of the disease."
http://chealth.canoe.ca/condition_info_details.asp?disease_id=4

Refusing treatment in this case would result in slowly suffocating meaning the patient has a choice between being kept alive while they deteriorate further or suffocating to death. One has to wonder what inhuman being would force someone to choose between those two options rather than helping them pass on peacefully.

I can't help but ask...what if someone that is in perfect health deceided to end his life and ask you to help...Would you? Should you?

Now don't give me a song and dance about various scenarios, thats not the point.....should you help anyone commit suicide? The circumstances are irrelevant....Is it your placed to judge if the persons reasons meet your conditions?


And the bullshit you posted about only 2 options is crap in itself.....

 

[apple0154]

You're right about one thing Bfgrn....there are some things in the bill that both sides agree on ....and all of them could probably be written down on 3 sheets of paper....

So scrap that 2200 pages of bullshit and agree on reforms one at a time that we all can understand, and in no time we'll have healthcare reform we can all live with and probably no increase in taxes and a reduction in total costs.....or a rise in taxes and healthcare costs we all understand....

What is there to understand? The bill is the precursor to a government plan similar to plans in effect around the world which have been shown to be economical and efficient.

Yes, it probably could have been written of a few sheets of paper if the Repubs had not tried every angle to sabotage it. I suggest you place the blame where it belongs.

 

[apple0154]

I can't help but ask...what if someone that is in perfect health deceided to end his life and ask you to help...Would you? Should you?

Now don't give me a song and dance about various scenarios, thats not the point.....should you help anyone commit suicide? The circumstances are irrelevant....Is it your placed to judge if the persons reasons meet your conditions?

And the bullshit you posted about only 2 options is crap in itself.....

If someone is in perfect health they won't require assistance. They'll be capable of doing it themselves.

As for the two options I'm waiting for you to offer another one.

As Zappas advised earlier perhaps I should grab a comfy chair and a tasty beverage while I wait.

 

[CensoredRed]

Discussing it is good. But without documentation, all it takes is one person disagreeing that it is what she would want, and you will spend months or years in court before you can give her what she wants.

Agreed and good point. I cannot imagine how awful it would be to know my parents would not want their lives drug out with no hope of recovery or if recovery, no decent quality of life and having my hands tied with long, drawn-out court proceedings.

Note to self: make sure she and my father both have documented it and had it notarized post-haste.