Euthanasia

[Wry Catcher]

Damn, you really are stupid.

Obeying a DNR is not killing, euthanasia is, you are talking about two different things.

Why ask me what I would do? Do you think that me insisting that doctors not kill would be inconsistent with me making some sort of choice I have not indicated I would make?

I'm not stupid; calling me a name does confirm my opinion that you're to 'weak' to engage in polite discourse.

Of course you didn't respond to the second scenario wherein a doctor shuts off the equipment keeping someone alive.

In the abstract you are correct, not intervening when a patient's heart stops is not 'killing', it is however allowing a person to die when one has means to potentially prevent that death. Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted place in prison?

As for allowing a loved one to suffer for days, weeks or months - how have you decided?

Excuse me, this is not a political debate, it is a debate about a subject you know nothing about. Do not resuscitate orders are not euthanasia, only a complete and total ignoramus would ever confuse the two. That makes you stupid. your inability to admit that you were wrong in confusing them makes you pathetic.

My personal decisions about a private issue are none of your business.

It is a political issue and the question was do you support or not support euthanasia, and why. You posted an opinion, I responded and you continue to ignore the question - which is your right. I acknowledged DNR is not killing, per se, yet you continue to push that resolved point and ignore the second question.

Once again: "Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted placed in prison?"

So I'm going to assume you would allow a loved one to suffer even knowing that they wished to have the suffering end. If that is true, you've taken the callous conservative to a new lower level.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What happens is that people sometimes change their minds. What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70. It's like the 17 year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom. If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot? After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.

In the Netherlands someone who is very ill is assumed to not have the mental capacity to make life ending decisions. The familes of sick people are deemed too emotionally distraught to make life ending decisions. Those decisions are with an impersonal panel who make a passionless cost benefit analysis (like Cass Sunstein wants to do) and finds for life or death based on how much treatment will cost.

It's what obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died.

Obama said that? Post the link, video or other source, please.

 

[Katzndogz]

What happens is that people sometimes change their minds. What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70. It's like the 17 year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom. If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot? After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.

In the Netherlands someone who is very ill is assumed to not have the mental capacity to make life ending decisions. The familes of sick people are deemed too emotionally distraught to make life ending decisions. Those decisions are with an impersonal panel who make a passionless cost benefit analysis (like Cass Sunstein wants to do) and finds for life or death based on how much treatment will cost.

It's what obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died.

Obama said that? Post the link, video or other source, please.

I can't even remember how many times I've posted this video. Because there was no obamacare, mother did get a pacemaker and is still alive and enjoying her life at the age of 105.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]

obama told Jane Strum that by getting her mother a pacemaker, she made a poor medical decision. She should have taken painkillers instead.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, how would this issue be addressed in terms of payment of life insurance? If you commit suicide life insurance does not pay off. Even in it's most polite terms, euthanasia is a form of suicide.

Intersting question. I suppose someone who valued the possibility of a pay day would put that factor first and ignore the pain and suffering of a loved one. Euthanaisa is not suicide, however, it is an end of life decision when there is no future for the patient other than pain and suffering.

Today patients are allowed to die, see Teri Shavo for an example. Who paid for her medical care during the time she was in a persistent vegetative state? Her parents who demanded she be kept alive, her husband who wanted to terminate life support, the members of congress, or the insurance company?

But the issue you've raised is would a life insurance company refuse to pay if a life was ended by euthanasia. I don't know, I do know that insurance companies are in buisness to make money, not to pay claims. Yet, lives are ended everyday in hospitals across America. How do life insurance companies respond today? Do you know?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What happens is that people sometimes change their minds. What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70. It's like the 17 year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom. If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot? After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.

In the Netherlands someone who is very ill is assumed to not have the mental capacity to make life ending decisions. The familes of sick people are deemed too emotionally distraught to make life ending decisions. Those decisions are with an impersonal panel who make a passionless cost benefit analysis (like Cass Sunstein wants to do) and finds for life or death based on how much treatment will cost.

It's what obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died.

Obama said that? Post the link, video or other source, please.

I can't even remember how many times I've posted this video. Because there was no obamacare, mother did get a pacemaker and is still alive and enjoying her life at the age of 105.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]

obama told Jane Strum that by getting her mother a pacemaker, she made a poor medical decision. She should have taken painkillers instead.

Well, your spin was, "It's what Obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died".

Obama said much more than that, so I appreciate your posting the video, I simply disagree with your effort to characterize The President as callous. Medical issues, medical ethics do need to be discussed within our culture and within each family. As it is today, the issue of 'end of life' is the fodder for demagogues as the Teri Schivo case best illustrates. This thread isn't about Obama or Romney, D's or R's, it is a simple question about an emotional and important issue for our times.

 

[Katzndogz]

So, how would this issue be addressed in terms of payment of life insurance? If you commit suicide life insurance does not pay off. Even in it's most polite terms, euthanasia is a form of suicide.

Intersting question. I suppose someone who valued the possibility of a pay day would put that factor first and ignore the pain and suffering of a loved one. Euthanaisa is not suicide, however, it is an end of life decision when there is no future for the patient other than pain and suffering.

Today patients are allowed to die, see Teri Shavo for an example. Who paid for her medical care during the time she was in a persistent vegetative state? Her parents who demanded she be kept alive, her husband who wanted to terminate life support, the members of congress, or the insurance company?

But the issue you've raised is would a life insurance company refuse to pay if a life was ended by euthanasia. I don't know, I do know that insurance companies are in buisness to make money, not to pay claims. Yet, lives are ended everyday in hospitals across America. How do life insurance companies respond today? Do you know?

Yes I know. Terry Schiavo's medical care was paid for out of a medical malpractice settlement award paid specifically for her care. After she died, whatever was left went to husband Michael Schiavo. He immediately started proceedings to end his wife's life and keep the remainder of the funds awarded for her care. As it was, most of the money that was supposed to go for her medical care was squandered by Michael Schiavo paying legal fees in the fight to kill her.

Had there been no money in the pot, Michael would have divorced Terri and her family would have had her care as they wanted. He could not divorce her because that would mean giving up all the money. He simply went on to have a baby with his girlfriend without getting a divorce.

Where Michael Schiavo was most successful was in preventing Terri from having swallowing therapy that would have allowed her to eat without a feeding tube. She was not on life support. She had a feeding tube. He won the fight to prevent swallowing therapy, then won the right to remove the feeding tube which caused her death. He got away with quite a chunk of change too.

 

[Katzndogz]

Obama said that? Post the link, video or other source, please.

I can't even remember how many times I've posted this video. Because there was no obamacare, mother did get a pacemaker and is still alive and enjoying her life at the age of 105.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]

obama told Jane Strum that by getting her mother a pacemaker, she made a poor medical decision. She should have taken painkillers instead.

Well, your spin was, "It's what Obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died".

Obama said much more than that, so I appreciate your posting the video, I simply disagree with your effort to characterize The President as callous. Medical issues, medical ethics do need to be discussed within our culture and within each family. As it is today, the issue of 'end of life' is the fodder for demagogues as the Teri Schivo case best illustrates. This thread isn't about Obama or Romney, D's or R's, it is a simple question about an emotional and important issue for our times.

The pacemaker for Ms. Strum's 100 year old mother was NOT an end of life issue. No matter how obama wanted to make it one. Mother at the point Ms. Strum asked the question was 105 and still alive and doing well. End of life really should not an issue where the government gets to say "You've lived long enough."

 

[Wry Catcher]

I can't even remember how many times I've posted this video. Because there was no obamacare, mother did get a pacemaker and is still alive and enjoying her life at the age of 105.

Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube

obama told Jane Strum that by getting her mother a pacemaker, she made a poor medical decision. She should have taken painkillers instead.

Well, your spin was, "It's what Obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died".

Obama said much more than that, so I appreciate your posting the video, I simply disagree with your effort to characterize The President as callous. Medical issues, medical ethics do need to be discussed within our culture and within each family. As it is today, the issue of 'end of life' is the fodder for demagogues as the Teri Schivo case best illustrates. This thread isn't about Obama or Romney, D's or R's, it is a simple question about an emotional and important issue for our times.

The pacemaker for Ms. Strum's 100 year old mother was NOT an end of life issue. No matter how obama wanted to make it one. Mother at the point Ms. Strum asked the question was 105 and still alive and doing well. End of life really should not an issue where the government gets to say "You've lived long enough."

Euthanasia is not a partisan issue, nor should it be. It should be a personal decision each of us prepares for, for all of us will someday die. It is something that, IMO, should be regulated to prevent abuse, both in ending someone's life and in not ending someone's life.

"You've lived long enough" should be a decisions made by United Health Care or other medical insurance companies? They do, every time they deny coverage for someone with an existing medical condition, deny coverage because the treatment is deemed by them to be experimental, or deny a transplant because of the age of the patient.

Let's be real.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, how would this issue be addressed in terms of payment of life insurance? If you commit suicide life insurance does not pay off. Even in it's most polite terms, euthanasia is a form of suicide.

Intersting question. I suppose someone who valued the possibility of a pay day would put that factor first and ignore the pain and suffering of a loved one. Euthanaisa is not suicide, however, it is an end of life decision when there is no future for the patient other than pain and suffering.

Today patients are allowed to die, see Teri Shavo for an example. Who paid for her medical care during the time she was in a persistent vegetative state? Her parents who demanded she be kept alive, her husband who wanted to terminate life support, the members of congress, or the insurance company?

But the issue you've raised is would a life insurance company refuse to pay if a life was ended by euthanasia. I don't know, I do know that insurance companies are in buisness to make money, not to pay claims. Yet, lives are ended everyday in hospitals across America. How do life insurance companies respond today? Do you know?

Yes I know. Terry Schiavo's medical care was paid for out of a medical malpractice settlement award paid specifically for her care. After she died, whatever was left went to husband Michael Schiavo. He immediately started proceedings to end his wife's life and keep the remainder of the funds awarded for her care. As it was, most of the money that was supposed to go for her medical care was squandered by Michael Schiavo paying legal fees in the fight to kill her.

Had there been no money in the pot, Michael would have divorced Terri and her family would have had her care as they wanted. He could not divorce her because that would mean giving up all the money. He simply went on to have a baby with his girlfriend without getting a divorce.

Where Michael Schiavo was most successful was in preventing Terri from having swallowing therapy that would have allowed her to eat without a feeding tube. She was not on life support. She had a feeding tube. He won the fight to prevent swallowing therapy, then won the right to remove the feeding tube which caused her death. He got away with quite a chunk of change too.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above. Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not stupid; calling me a name does confirm my opinion that you're to 'weak' to engage in polite discourse.

Of course you didn't respond to the second scenario wherein a doctor shuts off the equipment keeping someone alive.

In the abstract you are correct, not intervening when a patient's heart stops is not 'killing', it is however allowing a person to die when one has means to potentially prevent that death. Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted place in prison?

As for allowing a loved one to suffer for days, weeks or months - how have you decided?

Excuse me, this is not a political debate, it is a debate about a subject you know nothing about. Do not resuscitate orders are not euthanasia, only a complete and total ignoramus would ever confuse the two. That makes you stupid. your inability to admit that you were wrong in confusing them makes you pathetic.

My personal decisions about a private issue are none of your business.

It is a political issue and the question was do you support or not support euthanasia, and why. You posted an opinion, I responded and you continue to ignore the question - which is your right. I acknowledged DNR is not killing, per se, yet you continue to push that resolved point and ignore the second question.

Once again: "Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted placed in prison?"

So I'm going to assume you would allow a loved one to suffer even knowing that they wished to have the suffering end. If that is true, you've taken the callous conservative to a new lower level.

My position is simple.

Doctors should never kill.

Period.

Feel free to assume whatever you want out of that, just don't expect me to care.

 

[gallantwarrior]

My family was faced with exactly such a situation last year. One brother had suffered a massive stroke. The prognosis was very, very poor. His quality of life, should he survive, would have been absolutely horrible, given the parts of his brain affected by the stroke.
The majority of the siblings were able to gather and confer with the doc. We mutually decided to remove our brother from life sustaining treatment and go from there. Well, he died. But he died with the greater majority of his family and loved ones gathered by his side. For our part, we all had an opportunity to say our goodbyes. We did the right thing. It wasn't easy.
I think the option should be available.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Excuse me, this is not a political debate, it is a debate about a subject you know nothing about. Do not resuscitate orders are not euthanasia, only a complete and total ignoramus would ever confuse the two. That makes you stupid. your inability to admit that you were wrong in confusing them makes you pathetic.

My personal decisions about a private issue are none of your business.

It is a political issue and the question was do you support or not support euthanasia, and why. You posted an opinion, I responded and you continue to ignore the question - which is your right. I acknowledged DNR is not killing, per se, yet you continue to push that resolved point and ignore the second question.

Once again: "Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted placed in prison?"

So I'm going to assume you would allow a loved one to suffer even knowing that they wished to have the suffering end. If that is true, you've taken the callous conservative to a new lower level.

My position is simple.

Doctors should never kill.

Period.

Feel free to assume whatever you want out of that, just don't expect me to care.

Fine. You voted and that is all which was expected. I respect you privacy, I simply don't respect you. And I know you don't care so don't bother to respond.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My family was faced with exactly such a situation last year. One brother had suffered a massive stroke. The prognosis was very, very poor. His quality of life, should he survive, would have been absolutely horrible, given the parts of his brain affected by the stroke.
The majority of the siblings were able to gather and confer with the doc. We mutually decided to remove our brother from life sustaining treatment and go from there. Well, he died. But he died with the greater majority of his family and loved ones gathered by his side. For our part, we all had an opportunity to say our goodbyes. We did the right thing. It wasn't easy.
I think the option should be available.

Thank you. Putting a human face on this thread is helpful. I too believe the option should be available.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Euthanasia will be the topic of the 2040s that abortion was of the 1960s and 1970s.

The question will be this: can individuals other than the subject have the legal right to terminate someone else's life: a parent, a sib, a child, a whomever.

The issue is going to be the certain of the younger generations, the Millennials first, trying to eliminate competition of seniors and handicapped and criminals for precious resources on a planet of many billions and billions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Euthanasia will be the topic of the 2040s that abortion was of the 1960s and 1970s.

The question will be this: can individuals other than the subject have the legal right to terminate someone else's life: a parent, a sib, a child, a whomever.

The issue is going to be the certain of the younger generations, the Millennials first, trying to eliminate competition of seniors and handicapped and criminals for precious resources on a planet of many billions and billions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Euthanasia will be the topic of the 2040s that abortion was of the 1960s and 1970s.

The question will be this: can individuals other than the subject have the legal right to terminate someone else's life: a parent, a sib, a child, a whomever.

The issue is going to be the certain of the younger generations, the Millennials first, trying to eliminate competition of seniors and handicapped and criminals for precious resources on a planet of many billions and billions.

A very provocative response. Of course individuals other than the "subject" can have the legal right to terminate another human beings life. Capital punishment is the obvious example.

Another take on the issue of death and dying:

As the surgeon Atul Gawande put it in The New Yorker: "Our medical system is excellent at trying to stave off death with eight-thousand-dollar-a-month chemotherapy, three-thousand-dollar-a-day intensive care, five-thousand-dollar-an-hour surgery. But, ultimately, death comes, and no one is good at knowing when to stop."

Maybe the "subject" ought to make the end of life decision years before the decision to pull the plug becomes a political football (see Teri Schivo, for an example). If euthanasia were legal we baby boomer's might include in our revocable trust document our wishes. As it stands today we cannot and the reasons for that might very well be related to the cost of end of life medical decisions. Dr. Gawande's comment suggests that some profit from end of life medical decisions. Why would those who profit wish the golden goose die before they benefited?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.

Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?

 

[Missourian]

Soylent Green is people...

 

[freedombecki]

What happens is that people sometimes change their minds. What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70. It's like the 17 year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom. If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot? After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.

In the Netherlands someone who is very ill is assumed to not have the mental capacity to make life ending decisions. The familes of sick people are deemed too emotionally distraught to make life ending decisions. Those decisions are with an impersonal panel who make a passionless cost benefit analysis (like Cass Sunstein wants to do) and finds for life or death based on how much treatment will cost.

It's what obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died.

Obama said that? Post the link, video or other source, please.

I can't even remember how many times I've posted this video. Because there was no obamacare, mother did get a pacemaker and is still alive and enjoying her life at the age of 105.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo"]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]

obama told Jane Strum that by getting her mother a pacemaker, she made a poor medical decision. She should have taken painkillers instead.

Thank you for sharing that both horrific and scary statement by Obama, disagreeing with the medical treatment of an elderly woman who'd already recuperated 5 years after her surgery and is now 105.

He's a crazy man with too much power for our own good.