Section 1233, HR 3200 "End of Life Council/Euthenasia talk origins"

[Old Rocks]

Types of services ARE coverage. Quality is less quantifiable except with respect to what is covered. The end of life counseling would be considered a consultation whereby you are informed of your situation and what options are available to you, just like any other information you would receive from your doctor about other things like diet and exercise and medications and potential procedures.

Exactly. And again, this can also clarify that you want everything done, or specifically what you want done.

So given that then why not offer taxpayer funded cousel on abortion, or perhaps taxpayer funding on botox, or breast enhancements, because if you open the door under a healthcare bill to fund counsel matters for personal preference then you must open it for everything. The fact remains that this issue at best when legislation is invloved belongs in the hands of the states and the people that make it and not in the hands of the Federal govt. and especially not in a healthcare reform bill.

You have a choice as to whether or not you have an abortion, botox, ect. For each and every one of us, death is not a choice. It is what we all will experiance eventually. Given the medical communities abilities to keep the body alive far after the psyche has died, there are many of us that wish no part of that. Nor do we wish to have extroidinery measures taken to bring us back to live completely crippled after a stroke.

There are many on Social Security and Medicare that recieve so little that the cost, out of pocket, for the advice on how to put their wishes into legally binding means lack of medicine, food, or heat.

Each and every one of us, as we approach our final years, should put what we want down in legally binding terms, whether it is no extroidinery measures taken, or all measure taken, to ease the burden on our loved ones.

 

[Navy1960]

So your saying that a person does not have a choice on the decision when or if they wish to have a living will? Of course it it's elective, as much so as your decision is to have your hair cut. So while you may think it's not logical to argue because it does not fall into the catagory of being elective is completely false, Yes death is not elective, however the decision to have an advance directive is and is that not what we are talking about here adavance directives?

BACKGROUND: Every state requires that a patient consent before undergoing medical treatment and that the consent be “informed.” Three interrelated elements underlie the long-standing tradition of informed consent: Patients must possess the capacity to make decisions about their care; their participation in these decisions must be voluntary; and they must be provided adequate and appropriate information. However, abortion counseling requirements sometimes run afoul of these principles by requiring information that is irrelevant or misleading.
In addition to abortion counseling requirements, many states require that at least 24 hours elapse between the counseling and the abortion. In states in which the counseling must be obtained in person (rather than via mail, fax, Internet or phone) and the woman must then wait a specified time period, most often 24 hours, between the counseling and the procedure, the woman is effectively required to make two trips to the health care provider in order to obtain an abortion, a requirement that could constitute a hardship for some women.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_MWPA.pdf

I completely agree that mandatory counsel should be abolished in these states and as I have stated in my other posts I do not see a mandatory provision in this section in the healthcare bill. It's my opinion that funding, like it or not for living wills, and end of life services while well meaning, are private matters , and state matters and has clearly been shown that in the past in federal legislation , so it has not business in this healthcare bill. As you your informed consent statement, that means what exactly? I'm not advocating that this section means anything near the outlandish claim of a "death panel" however to some Seniors from a cost vs. life standpoint I can see how it can be taken that way.

 

[veritas]

So your saying that a person does not have a choice on the decision when or if they wish to have a living will?

Who said? Where? What are you talking about?