Euthanasia being supported

[The Illusion]

Lawmakers Confirm House Health Care Bill Promotes Euthanasia Among Elderly

Betsy McCaughey, the former New York lieutenant government who is now a patient's rights advocate, notes that the government-run health care plan would require "end of life" counseling for seniors.

The counseling, she says, would be focused on telling seniors how to end their lives sooner.

In a statement sent to LifeNews.com House Republican Leader John Boehner Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter confirm those fears.

"Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end of life treatments,'" the pair say.

It says here that this new bill will support Euphanasia by doing end of life counseling sessions and such. Is this true that it will be ordered by the government that doctors enroll their elderly patients in what is a basic "Go ahead and kill yourself" counseling sessions?

Jamie

 

[del]

no.

 

[Diuretic]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

 

[WillowTree]

The T and the P are no where near each other on the keyboard.

 

[Liability]

The T and the P are no where near each other on the keyboard.

It was just a euthanism, perhaps.







What? I'm the one who's not allowed to make up words?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

 

[Diuretic]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

Yes PC. What's the point though?

 

[geauxtohell]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

It's a seperate topic than the regular fear mongering that is going on with the current situation, but physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and has been utilized by only a handful of patients.

Underlying PAS is a patient's right to autonomy in making a decision over their life (as opposed to someone making it for them) and of being of sound mind to make the decision. I can't link the entire JAMA article, but here is the abstract:

Requests for physician-assisted suicide are not a new phenomenon, and many physicians are likely to face this challenging situation. This article proposes for professionals an 8-step approach to respond to requests for physician-assisted suicide. The approach seeks to identify and treat the root causes of the request and aims to present a plan for consistent application of a set of clinical skills. Justification for the steps requires only 2 noncontentious principles: the patient should be free of unwanted intervention, and the physician is obligated to provide suffering patients with comfort care. Care based on these 2 principles alone does not include physician-assisted suicide. The approach does, however, justify patient refusal of oral intake in specific circumstances. The approach could resolve a majority of requests for physician-assisted suicide and should be tested further for clinical efficacy.

JAMA -- Abstract: Facing Requests for Physician-Assisted Suicide: Toward a Practical and Principled Clinical Skill Set, August 19, 1998, Emanuel 280 (7): 643

 

[WillowTree]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

It's a seperate topic than the regular fear mongering that is going on with the current situation, but physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and has been utilized by only a handful of patients.

Underlying PAS is a patient's right to autonomy in making a decision over their life (as opposed to someone making it for them) and of being of sound mind to make the decision. I can't link the entire JAMA article, but here is the abstract:

Requests for physician-assisted suicide are not a new phenomenon, and many physicians are likely to face this challenging situation. This article proposes for professionals an 8-step approach to respond to requests for physician-assisted suicide. The approach seeks to identify and treat the root causes of the request and aims to present a plan for consistent application of a set of clinical skills. Justification for the steps requires only 2 noncontentious principles: the patient should be free of unwanted intervention, and the physician is obligated to provide suffering patients with comfort care. Care based on these 2 principles alone does not include physician-assisted suicide. The approach does, however, justify patient refusal of oral intake in specific circumstances. The approach could resolve a majority of requests for physician-assisted suicide and should be tested further for clinical efficacy.

JAMA -- Abstract: Facing Requests for Physician-Assisted Suicide: Toward a Practical and Principled Clinical Skill Set, August 19, 1998, Emanuel 280 (7): 643

you are quick to call it fear mongering and slow to explain why the dems want to cut 500 billion dollars from the medicare program and then explain who will be denied care!

 

[jillian]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

That's what happens when they get their information on this subject from a site called "lifenews"

And once again, they distort, twist and propagandize.

Reality: Perhaps the discussion should more appropriately be under what circumstances should we permit euthanasia?

we're kinder to our pets sometimes than we are to people.

 

[geauxtohell]

you are quick to call it fear mongering and slow to explain why the dems want to cut 500 billion dollars from the medicare program and then explain who will be denied care!

I call it fear-mongering, because that is the best term for it.

I wouldn't even pretend to be smart enough to have the nuts and bolts answers for the health crisis.

I just know something needs to be done.

I fail to see you guys offering up anything but dishonesty in an attempt to scare people.

 

[geauxtohell]

Reality: Perhaps the discussion should more appropriately be under what circumstances should we permit euthanasia?

we're kinder to our pets sometimes than we are to people.

It's a tough question that the profession and ethicists are struggling to come to terms with.

It has been legal in Oregon since 1998 (I believe), and I think few patients have utilized it (forgive me for being too lazy to look up the exact numbers). It certainly hasn't been a ticket to bumping off Granny to cut on costs.

The only people who are saying differently are those who are advancing a dishonest agenda.

Case in point: We now have people who are trying to claim that an issue with advanced directives is somehow tied to euthanasia.

That's absurd.

 

[WillowTree]

you are quick to call it fear mongering and slow to explain why the dems want to cut 500 billion dollars from the medicare program and then explain who will be denied care!

I call it fear-mongering, because that is the best term for it.

I wouldn't even pretend to be smart enough to have the nuts and bolts answers for the health crisis.

I just know something needs to be done.

I fail to see you guys offering up anything, but dishonesty in an attempt to scare people.

you fail to see cause you choose not to see. that's the truth of it

 

[WillowTree]

so we wait, for an explanation of why simple euthanasia would necessitate a 500 billion dollar cut in medicare.. a rational explanation is not forthcoming.

 

[geauxtohell]

so we wait, for an explanation of why simple euthanasia would necessitate a 500 billion dollar cut in medicare.. a rational explanation is not forthcoming.

Euthanasia is a separate topic that is tangental to the health care funding issue.

The best you guys have been able to do, is co-mingle two separate issues, which are advanced directives and euthanasia.

Perhaps you should research euthanasia in Oregon and see when it is considered a legal and appropriate venue for patients.

you fail to see cause you choose not to see. that's the truth of it

When you point your finger, three more point back at you.

 

[WillowTree]

so we wait, for an explanation of why simple euthanasia would necessitate a 500 billion dollar cut in medicare.. a rational explanation is not forthcoming.

Euthanasia is a separate topic that is tangental to the health care funding issue.

The best you guys have been able to do, is co-mingle two separate issues, which are advanced directives and euthanasia.

Perhaps you should research euthanasia in Oregon and see when it is considered a legal and appropriate venue for patients.

you fail to see cause you choose not to see. that's the truth of it

When you point your finger, three more point back at you.

 

[geauxtohell]

Right.

I am noticing a trend on these healthcare threads.

First you display ignorance, then when corrected, you display smilies.

 

[WillowTree]

Right.

I am noticing a trend on these healthcare threads.

First you display ignorance, then when corrected, you display smilies.

so,, again,, for the umpteenth time,, I ask you,, the dems propose cutting 500 billion dollars from medicare! now who will be denied treatment?? and who will likely suffer and die from this denial?? doyathink?? We will wait.

 

[WillowTree]

Right.

I am noticing a trend on these healthcare threads.

First you display ignorance, then when corrected, you display smilies.

so,, again,, for the umpteenth time,, I ask you,, the dems propose cutting 500 billion dollars from medicare! now who will be denied treatment?? and who will likely suffer and die from this denial?? doyathink?? We will wait.

oh and while you are at it,, show where i've been corrected. somehow I don't feel corrected.

 

[Political Junky]

Has the debate descended to these depths? The insurance companies and their mates must be worried.

Yes, the insurance industry is worried enough to spend $1,400,000. per day to defeat healthcare reform. Makes you wonder what their profit must be.