To ration or not

[Coyote]

Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.

That's a matter of opinion.

Ever thought about growing up?

Didn't think so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.

That's a matter of opinion.

Ever thought about growing up?

Didn't think so.

Exactly the incisive, indepth rebuttal I expected from you. "My source may be a joke around here, but you're a big poophead! Nyah nyah!"

That about does it for any credibility you deluded yourself you were going to earn around here. FLUSH!

 

[Nik]

Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.

That's a matter of opinion.

Ever thought about growing up?

Didn't think so.

Exactly the incisive, indepth rebuttal I expected from you. "My source may be a joke around here, but you're a big poophead! Nyah nyah!"

That about does it for any credibility you deluded yourself you were going to earn around here. FLUSH!

Yes, the WHO is a joke

If the WHO is a joke "around here" that speaks volumes more about "around here" than about the WHO.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting how you sneeringly suggest "doing some research" and can't even be bothered to research the message board you're posting in, where this same WHO report has been utterly, thoroughly debunked and discredited as any sort of conclusive source.

That's a matter of opinion.

Ever thought about growing up?

Didn't think so.

Exactly the incisive, indepth rebuttal I expected from you. "My source may be a joke around here, but you're a big poophead! Nyah nyah!"

That about does it for any credibility you deluded yourself you were going to earn around here. FLUSH!

Thank you for answering my question through example

Do you ever post anything interesting or substantial or useful or are you just here to spew your bile?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's a matter of opinion.

Ever thought about growing up?

Didn't think so.

Exactly the incisive, indepth rebuttal I expected from you. "My source may be a joke around here, but you're a big poophead! Nyah nyah!"

That about does it for any credibility you deluded yourself you were going to earn around here. FLUSH!

Yes, the WHO is a joke

If the WHO is a joke "around here" that speaks volumes more about "around here" than about the WHO.

I'm sure the WHO and their biased report aren't a joke to YOU. On the other hand, you're a joke to everyone else, so . . .

As part of "around here", I'm proud and pleased to know that you disagree and disapprove. Please continue to do so, because the day that you ever like anything I do, I'm going to be seriously worried.

 

[Nik]

Exactly the incisive, indepth rebuttal I expected from you. "My source may be a joke around here, but you're a big poophead! Nyah nyah!"

That about does it for any credibility you deluded yourself you were going to earn around here. FLUSH!

Yes, the WHO is a joke

If the WHO is a joke "around here" that speaks volumes more about "around here" than about the WHO.

I'm sure the WHO and their biased report aren't a joke to YOU. On the other hand, you're a joke to everyone else, so . . .

As part of "around here", I'm proud and pleased to know that you disagree and disapprove. Please continue to do so, because the day that you ever like anything I do, I'm going to be seriously worried.

You don't get to speak for everyone else, tool.

 

[MaggieMae]

My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.

The same thing happened to my mother, who had bone cancer, the most painful of all cancers. The docs and hospitals continued to keep her sick with the chemo even knowing that once cancer reaches bone marrow, it is deadly and no amount of drugs will help. She was in such excruciating pain (only allowed those "measured doses" of morphine, presumably so she wouldn't get hooked--- ), that my father finally grabbed her doctor by the throat one morning and screamed, in a hallway full of people, that if he didn't give my mother enough morphine to put her in a coma and free from pain, he would kill him. She died a week later. The doctor lived. True story.

What'd your mother, who was actually accepting and allowing the treatments, have to say about it? You know, before your father demanded that they kill her.

She would writhe, scream out in pain, and from exhaustion then sleep for awhile. Then wake and do the same. She wasn't exactly in the mood for conversation.

It was about a six-month process for her, starting with just a nonstop, boring ache in her lower back (not like your basic every day back pain), which got progressively worse so that the only way she felt comfortable at home, before being hospitalized, was lying on her stomach, draped over the bed so that her back would be completely rigid but with pressure toward her stomach, not her back. Chemo treatments always made her deathly sick, and pain was managed by opiates in pill form, until they no longer worked.

This was in the mid 70's when people weren't as educated in cancer treatments and how so often they just don't work, and doctors know certain patients like my mother don't stand a chance no matter what they do. But they didn't SAY SO, in those days. So we all just trusted that she would get better, and so did she, in spite of how horrible it was to watch her have to go through that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, the WHO is a joke

If the WHO is a joke "around here" that speaks volumes more about "around here" than about the WHO.

I'm sure the WHO and their biased report aren't a joke to YOU. On the other hand, you're a joke to everyone else, so . . .

As part of "around here", I'm proud and pleased to know that you disagree and disapprove. Please continue to do so, because the day that you ever like anything I do, I'm going to be seriously worried.

You don't get to speak for everyone else, tool.

No, but I do get to speak for my observations, and I haven't observed anyone who respects you that I would piss on if they were on fire. By all means, though, luxuriate in the high regard of people who routinely inspire derisive laughter.

 

[Nik]

I'm sure the WHO and their biased report aren't a joke to YOU. On the other hand, you're a joke to everyone else, so . . .

As part of "around here", I'm proud and pleased to know that you disagree and disapprove. Please continue to do so, because the day that you ever like anything I do, I'm going to be seriously worried.

You don't get to speak for everyone else, tool.

No, but I do get to speak for my observations, and I haven't observed anyone who respects you that I would piss on if they were on fire. By all means, though, luxuriate in the high regard of people who routinely inspire derisive laughter.

Wow, you mean far-right wingers like you don't like me? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked. Just as shocked as your implication t hat you would let people die because you disagree with their political beliefs.

But then, its all par for the course for a complete fuckwit like yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The same thing happened to my mother, who had bone cancer, the most painful of all cancers. The docs and hospitals continued to keep her sick with the chemo even knowing that once cancer reaches bone marrow, it is deadly and no amount of drugs will help. She was in such excruciating pain (only allowed those "measured doses" of morphine, presumably so she wouldn't get hooked--- ), that my father finally grabbed her doctor by the throat one morning and screamed, in a hallway full of people, that if he didn't give my mother enough morphine to put her in a coma and free from pain, he would kill him. She died a week later. The doctor lived. True story.

What'd your mother, who was actually accepting and allowing the treatments, have to say about it? You know, before your father demanded that they kill her.

She would writhe, scream out in pain, and from exhaustion then sleep for awhile. Then wake and do the same. She wasn't exactly in the mood for conversation.

It was about a six-month process for her, starting with just a nonstop, boring ache in her lower back (not like your basic every day back pain), which got progressively worse so that the only way she felt comfortable at home, before being hospitalized, was lying on her stomach, draped over the bed so that her back would be completely rigid but with pressure toward her stomach, not her back. Chemo treatments always made her deathly sick, and pain was managed by opiates in pill form, until they no longer worked.

This was in the mid 70's when people weren't as educated in cancer treatments and how so often they just don't work, and doctors know certain patients like my mother don't stand a chance no matter what they do. But they didn't SAY SO, in those days. So we all just trusted that she would get better, and so did she, in spite of how horrible it was to watch her have to go through that.

So basically, you never asked any questions or said a damned thing until your father finally made a ridiculous public scene? Mightn't it have been a better and more productive response to have sat down and talked to the doctors before getting to that point?

And frankly, all you've really done is make a case for more individual patient control over health care, not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't get to speak for everyone else, tool.

No, but I do get to speak for my observations, and I haven't observed anyone who respects you that I would piss on if they were on fire. By all means, though, luxuriate in the high regard of people who routinely inspire derisive laughter.

Wow, you mean far-right wingers like you don't like me? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked. Just as shocked as your implication t hat you would let people die because you disagree with their political beliefs.

But then, its all par for the course for a complete fuckwit like yourself.

No, I mean that only extremely far left-wing twits DO like you. And no, I wouldn't let them die for disagreeing with me. I'd let them die for being so ignorant that they endanger the gene pool. Not everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, but virtually everyone who's ignorant disagrees with me . . . and thinks you're the height of intellect, which should tell you something.

Hey, "fuckwit"! What a brilliant riposte! I say, you've left me speechless with your breathtaking, rapier wit!

And the WHO report is still a debunked joke, just like you.

 

[MaggieMae]

What'd your mother, who was actually accepting and allowing the treatments, have to say about it? You know, before your father demanded that they kill her.

She would writhe, scream out in pain, and from exhaustion then sleep for awhile. Then wake and do the same. She wasn't exactly in the mood for conversation.

It was about a six-month process for her, starting with just a nonstop, boring ache in her lower back (not like your basic every day back pain), which got progressively worse so that the only way she felt comfortable at home, before being hospitalized, was lying on her stomach, draped over the bed so that her back would be completely rigid but with pressure toward her stomach, not her back. Chemo treatments always made her deathly sick, and pain was managed by opiates in pill form, until they no longer worked.

This was in the mid 70's when people weren't as educated in cancer treatments and how so often they just don't work, and doctors know certain patients like my mother don't stand a chance no matter what they do. But they didn't SAY SO, in those days. So we all just trusted that she would get better, and so did she, in spite of how horrible it was to watch her have to go through that.

So basically, you never asked any questions or said a damned thing until your father finally made a ridiculous public scene? Mightn't it have been a better and more productive response to have sat down and talked to the doctors before getting to that point?

And frankly, all you've really done is make a case for more individual patient control over health care, not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.

Listen, you fucking witch-- you have NO IDEA what went on BEFORE my mother died. If you think we sat around picking our noses, you're the type of asshole who would blame your own mother if she got killed by the drunk driver who might have been your boyfriend.

The topic of this particular thread is to ration or not, and the OP gave one scenario where it would be acceptable. My own mother's condition is another.

Now go to hell.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She would writhe, scream out in pain, and from exhaustion then sleep for awhile. Then wake and do the same. She wasn't exactly in the mood for conversation.

It was about a six-month process for her, starting with just a nonstop, boring ache in her lower back (not like your basic every day back pain), which got progressively worse so that the only way she felt comfortable at home, before being hospitalized, was lying on her stomach, draped over the bed so that her back would be completely rigid but with pressure toward her stomach, not her back. Chemo treatments always made her deathly sick, and pain was managed by opiates in pill form, until they no longer worked.

This was in the mid 70's when people weren't as educated in cancer treatments and how so often they just don't work, and doctors know certain patients like my mother don't stand a chance no matter what they do. But they didn't SAY SO, in those days. So we all just trusted that she would get better, and so did she, in spite of how horrible it was to watch her have to go through that.

So basically, you never asked any questions or said a damned thing until your father finally made a ridiculous public scene? Mightn't it have been a better and more productive response to have sat down and talked to the doctors before getting to that point?

And frankly, all you've really done is make a case for more individual patient control over health care, not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.

Listen, you fucking witch-- you have NO IDEA what went on BEFORE my mother died. If you think we sat around picking our noses, you're the type of asshole who would blame your own mother if she got killed by the drunk driver who might have been your boyfriend.

The topic of this particular thread is to ration or not, and the OP gave one scenario where it would be acceptable. My own mother's condition is another.

Now go to hell.

Get your panties out of their wad. I swear, this is why it took so long for women to get the vote: most are incapable of carrying on a debate without getting all hysterical and vaporish.

I don't need to know what went on before your mother died, and here's a newsflash, Princess: I don't care. YOU brought it up, YOU shoehorned it into the debate in an attempt to use the sob-story, "I'm a victim, pity me and be silenced by my victimhood" ploy that's so popular with leftists, so you don't have the option of now getting your tampon all in an uproar and demand that I not comment on YOUR subject matter. In the future, if you don't want people to talk about the way your family behaves, I suggest that you not base your arguments on them.

Your mother's death is NOT an example of "when it's appropriate to ration". It's an example of when it's appropriate for THE PATIENT or THE PATIENT'S FAMILY to decide on medical treatment. That you would consider it a good idea for anyone else, whether it be an insurance provider, a government bureaucrat, or a doctor to decide to ration your mother's care because you didn't have the gumption to do it for yourself is vile. Deal with the fact that your family dropped the ball and move on.

And in the future, if you don't want to hear people's opinions of your life story, don't turn the message boards into your own personal group therapy session. If you do, be prepared for the fact that not everyone is going to see you as the besieged saint that you do.

 

[Barb]

My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.

Barb, anyone has the right to have chemo or not to have it. Someone, either she or her agent signed off on that. Now in the case of emergency rescuscitation we have a different scenario.

This was over twenty years ago, and Aunt Louise was 1, a good Catholic woman, 2, in a good Catholic hospital, and 3, raised to be unswervingly trusting of authority, especially medical authority. Informed consent means the patient is in complete possession of and understanding of all facts. She may have been, but because of 1,2,and 3, she would understandably bow to religious and medical authority. My problem is that the authorities should damned well have known better and acted in her best interest rather than their own ideology or profit. Would you not agree?

 

[Barb]

Shared here is William Falk's experience with his aging father. Falk is Editor-in-Chief of THE WEEK magazine:

When my father went back to the hospital a year ago, he was clearly close to the end: His lungs and liver were barely functioning, his abdomen was filling with fluid, and he could no longer lift himself out of bed.

The hospital's doctors nonetheless treated him aggressively, punching a hole in his chest to insert a drainage tube, which quickly led to uncontrolled bleeding, an infection, and a plunge in blood pressure.

Within 12 hours, my father was in a coma, with no chance of recovery, sustained only by a ventilator and a tangle of multiple IV drips. He spent four days in the ICU, until I overcame the resistance of two doctors and had the machines turned off, as per my dad's living will.

Medicare paid upward of $20,000 for these last days of my father's life, during which he received little comfort, moments of agonizing pain and fear, and all the medical care in the world, and then some.

In the historic debate over health care reform now beginning in this country, we will hear much talk of "rationing." If health care is rationed, we'll be told, we may be denied drugs or surgeries or treatments based on cost, effectiveness, or the patient's condition of age. It sounds cold and heartless, except when you consider that the only real alternative to rationing is unlimited medical treatment--including a refusal to "lose" the battle with death even when death is near. Unlimited care, of course, requires unlimited spending, which is not viable.

Rationing in some form is inevitable; the only question is when we'll finally be able to admit to ourselves that even in America, there are limits to everything.

My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.

The same thing happened to my mother, who had bone cancer, the most painful of all cancers. The docs and hospitals continued to keep her sick with the chemo even knowing that once cancer reaches bone marrow, it is deadly and no amount of drugs will help. She was in such excruciating pain (only allowed those "measured doses" of morphine, presumably so she wouldn't get hooked--- ), that my father finally grabbed her doctor by the throat one morning and screamed, in a hallway full of people, that if he didn't give my mother enough morphine to put her in a coma and free from pain, he would kill him. She died a week later. The doctor lived. True story.

I'm so sorry about your mom Maggie. I worked as a CNA for years and the stupidity of "protecting" the dying from addiction issues was one of the most frustrating things I've ever had to witness. We had a woman who ended up dying for months, screaming in pain, turned every fifteen minutes, and denied not only pain meds but proper diagnosis because of "issues" with her mental status and a "history" of drug seeking. She died from ovarian cancer, undiagnosed until the very end. Another patient (favorite of mine) complained of tooth pain every night. The admin and rn's (lower case very much intended) thought she'd become "addicted" to tylenol, and refused it to break her of her addiction. She died from a fucking heart attack because none of them connected tooth pain (common symptom of heart trouble for women, we present differently) to the possibility of real problems.
Your father was a loving husband to do what he did, no matter what some hag on here has to say.

 

[Coyote]

What'd your mother, who was actually accepting and allowing the treatments, have to say about it? You know, before your father demanded that they kill her.

She would writhe, scream out in pain, and from exhaustion then sleep for awhile. Then wake and do the same. She wasn't exactly in the mood for conversation.

It was about a six-month process for her, starting with just a nonstop, boring ache in her lower back (not like your basic every day back pain), which got progressively worse so that the only way she felt comfortable at home, before being hospitalized, was lying on her stomach, draped over the bed so that her back would be completely rigid but with pressure toward her stomach, not her back. Chemo treatments always made her deathly sick, and pain was managed by opiates in pill form, until they no longer worked.

This was in the mid 70's when people weren't as educated in cancer treatments and how so often they just don't work, and doctors know certain patients like my mother don't stand a chance no matter what they do. But they didn't SAY SO, in those days. So we all just trusted that she would get better, and so did she, in spite of how horrible it was to watch her have to go through that.

So basically, you never asked any questions or said a damned thing until your father finally made a ridiculous public scene? Mightn't it have been a better and more productive response to have sat down and talked to the doctors before getting to that point?

And frankly, all you've really done is make a case for more individual patient control over health care, not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.

She's talking about the 1970's - cancer, it's treatment, and public discussion about it were very very different then they are now not to mention she may have been a child at the time. You may not have been born then, but immaturity is no excuse for idiocy

Is this your normal method of debate or are you just an angry little person trying to compensate?

 

[Coyote]

And frankly, all you've really done is make a case for more individual patient control over health care, not for a change in which bureaucrats are running things.

You already have bureaucrats running things - whether it's insurance bureaucrats or government bureaucrats it's in any patient's best interest to be informed and pro-active.

 

[MaggieMae]

My great aunt, in her late 80's, with numerous age-related health issues, was in the hospital. They found cancer, gave her chemo, and it killed her. She was dying anyway, but they had to "treat" her cancer rather than keep her comfortable. We all die. Medicine should avoid prolonging the the process and concentrate on comfort, especially when their cure is more lethal than the disease.

Barb, anyone has the right to have chemo or not to have it. Someone, either she or her agent signed off on that. Now in the case of emergency rescuscitation we have a different scenario.

This was over twenty years ago, and Aunt Louise was 1, a good Catholic woman, 2, in a good Catholic hospital, and 3, raised to be unswervingly trusting of authority, especially medical authority. Informed consent means the patient is in complete possession of and understanding of all facts. She may have been, but because of 1,2,and 3, she would understandably bow to religious and medical authority. My problem is that the authorities should damned well have known better and acted in her best interest rather than their own ideology or profit. Would you not agree?

I totally agree. Who read medical magazines in those days except the profession? We put ALL our faith in those whom we assumed to be smarter and wiser.