Posted on 06/22/2005 1:25:39 AM PDT by FairOpinion
The politicization of Terri Schiavo prompted the American Medical Association on Tuesday to adopt policy opposing any legislation that presumes patients would want life-sustaining treatment unless it is clear that they would not.
Tuesday's action at the annual meeting of the nation's largest doctors group also reaffirms existing AMA policy that says it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Clearwater will not be happy about this.
Why do you say that?
Looks to me like the AMA is firmly on the euthanasia fast-track.
Am I reading this wrong?
Clearwater won't be happy that it's being presented here on FR for us to digest..my bad for no clarification.
>>...it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests.
And just who gets to decide what THAT means....
There will be no digesting of this on FR. It is only a conspiracy theory after all.
Who the hell cares whether a patient lives or dies. If they don't want to pay a hospital to kill them - let them stay home and die.
Why the "Gods" themselves.
"Existing AMA policy did not help Schiavo and "did not help the courts and Congress keep their noses out" ..... Dr. Arvind Goyal of Rolling Meadows told AMA delegates Tuesday."
All under the new premise that I don't even have to be brain dead.
nice.
The eugenicists at the AMA would have made Hitler proud.
Looks like one organization in control of our doctors along with the courts have already made all our decisions for us in advance.
Yeah, that marker sure is ridiculous. But I can't imagine being in his shoes, losing his wife and being falsely accused by in-laws and having to fight them to follow what you believe she'd have wanted. That would drive anyone crazy, I think!
But another question...if she departed the earth so long ago, why doesn't the money for her go back? Oh wait...it had to be spent to fight to protect her wishes. :-(
Most people would crack under the stress..
Is it possible he was under so much stress that he hallucinated Terri saying that she wanted to live?
I wonder if anyone gave the poor man a psych exam.
The AMA is an amazingly liberal organization.
Nope...can't be. Ste. Terri married him. Recall the Eastertime comparisons...do you think a member of the Trinity (Jesus, Mary, Terri) would make an error like marrying a guy who would go crazy?
</sarc>
Yes, an over the top comment, but I want you to recall the comments that people were making about this woman they had never met...proclaiming her a saint, saying she was like Jesus, etc. And if they were to do that, they'd be claiming more knowledge of her than her own husband...so on the other hand, they had to demonize Mr. Schiavo.
I wonder if anyone gave the poor man a psych exam.
I don't have much reason to like Mr. Schiavo, yet your comment shows some true compassion. I do hope the Schindlers have gotten their much needed psychiatric help, too...some of their behaviour has been positively loony! And when they expressed that they were more concerned with their own desires than what Mrs. Schiavo would have actually wanted, I think it revealed a pathologic level of self-centeredness.
IANAP, nor a psychologist!
I don't think the Schindlers or the Schiavos could have been thinking well enough to plan all this out under the stress that they were put through.
Bingo! That's why I think it's perfectly reasonable that Mr. Schiavo might have had hope for a while, but then finally listened to the physicians who convinced him that she was gone. It doesn't have to mean he had some game plan....Many people have in their directives that they want some treatment tried, but then if it doesn't work, to let them go.
But there are many subtleties involved. For example, by getting the Feds involved, it helped Randall Terry have continued employment--since that goes directly against the conservative point that the Feds shouldn't be forcing abortion upon the states and have no right to be involved. Now, it weakens the fight against abortion and allows him to continue to feign relevance.
Clearwater Florida, especially downtown Clearwater, is Scientology's worldwide spiritual headquarters and main training ground. The Flag Service Organization, located in Clearwater, provides the highest level of Scientology training and is the largest single Scientology "church" in the world. Scientology brochures claim that Clearwater Florida has the "largest community of Scientologists in the world." Back in 1998, Scientology generated from 1.5 to 2 million dollars of income per week. This material success enables them to maintain ownership of tens of millions of dollars worth of property (about 40 buildings) as well as many businesses: To date, the church owns more than $50-million in Clearwater-area properties and is nearing completion of a $50-million Mediterranean Revival-style building nicknamed "Super Power." Additionally, the church now has 565 hotel rooms in and near downtown for visiting Scientologists who consider Clearwater their spiritual mecca.
Scientologists believe (1) that a disabled person is in such a state due to his or her own failings, (2) the disabled person will deliberately move in the direction of death, and (3) disabled people (Individuals who score low on the emotional tone scale) will also bring death to those around them. (See L. Ron Hubbard's book, Self Analysis, chapter 4)
One of Scientology's major goals is to change society's views about death, dying.
Indeed, Greer is a longtime crony of various Scientology lawyers. This is a picture of him from years ago.
Here's some more from the founder of Scientology..
"Society, the bulk of which is bent upon survival, fails or refuses to recognize death or the urge of organisms toward it. Society passes laws against murder and suicide. Society provides hospitals. Society carries such people [the disabled] on its back. And society will not hear of euthanasia or "mercy killing." (Self Analysis by L. Ron Hubbard; pg. 28)
">>...it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests."
"And just who gets to decide what THAT means...."
Policy statement on provision of life-sustaining medical treatment (AMA)
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14899.html
E-2.20 Withholding or Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8457.html
No argument there.
L. Ron Hubbard ranks with Stalin and Hitler in my book, and anyone who continues that sick leeching deserves...well, to be punished. (sitting on hands so I don't type more!)
Looks like they got their young little starlet to rake in some more recruits. Check out the timeline here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160192,00.html
We need to start our own club!!!
If you were travelling alone, were rendered unconscious by an accident, and required a ventilator to survive, you would die under these rules. Chances are you don't currently have a surrogate. There is no court set up in the emergency room, or travelling on the ambulance. Let's just pretend you happened to give your authorization for medical treatment to all the hospitals along your route before you had your accident. So they save your life. Now you're hooked up to whatever machines are necessary.
Once initiated, life sustaining treatments may be ethically withdrawn upon request of the patient, or a surrogate or court acting on the patient's behalf.
All it takes is for some judge, or your surrogate (who might not even be chosen by you) to request removal of that equipment, and you're dead.
Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis.
WTF?
FUE, could you ping the list to these articles in post #23? They contain quite a bit of information, most of it scary.
Tuesday's action at the annual meeting of the nation's largest doctors group also reaffirms existing AMA policy that says it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests.
So did Judge Greer.
Huh? Whoever wrote this sentence needs to try again.
I thought the hypocratic oath stated that they were to do no harm. Withholding that which is required for life is doing harm.
Can you make a thread for the one that has that statement about "not" being terminally ill? That is the kind of stuff that people are really not aware of.
Thanks for the ping!
You are so polite and courteous! TY
Be sure to see info in post 23!
Thank you so much for your kind encouragements and for the heads up to post 23!
"Oath" is just a word that doesn't really have meaning with a lot of people these days, much like "honor" and "commitment".
The world has turned upside down.
E2.20-- ...."To relieve suffering", that's going to be a real subjective Pandora's Box.
In other words, doctors will not presume that patients would WANT life-sustaining treatment. So, rather than err on the side of life (which would be the humane thing to do), they will err on the side of death. Do you now understand?
The American Medical Association is on the side of death. Can it be any clearer? Your doctors are not there to help you. They are only there to make a buck, play golf, disemburden themselves from your medical situation, play golf, and make a buck.
The patient doesn't get a say in that. It is just a general warrant for killing.
And get pay increases by saving the system money and getting their cut. Already ongoing in the Kaiser system. Getting paid MORE for not doing their job.
Have you TRIED to make an appointment with a doctor? They work 3 days a week, 4 hours a day, for a total of 12 hours a week. I'm not even kidding. And these are young doctors, not ones near retirement age.
Statement From Bobby Schindler on Inscription on Terri Schiavo's Grave Marker
http://www.earnedmedia.org/tf0621.htm
CLEARWATER, Fl., June 21 /Christian Wire Service/ -- At the burial site of Terri Schiavo's cremated remains, Michael Schiavo used a bronze grave marker to list Feb. 25, 1990, as the date his wife died. Feb. 25, 1990, is the date Terri Schindler Schiavo experienced a still unknown event that left her severely mentally disabled. Terri Schiavo actually died March 31, 2005, nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed by court order.
The following is a statement from Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler, on the inscription on Terri's burial site marker:
"This clearly illustrates the spiteful lengths to which Michael Schiavo will go in order to purposely hurt those that loved Terri unconditionally – her family. It seems to me that the only intention of this inscription was to be hurtful, and had absolutely nothing to do with Terri, but only to cause my parents additional pain over the loss of their child. Maybe even more tragic, is that in doing so, Michael Schiavo shows nothing but a lack of respect for Terri."
I guess the temptation to save the system money by not working is just too strong for them to resist. Unfortunately I'm in the Kaiser system, where any appt (except OBGYN) that's not an emergency is 3-6 weeks away and surgeries are 6-9 month waits.
(snip)
"Tuesday's action also reaffirmed existing AMA policy that says it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests. "
====================================================
So now, how is it that the medical community is going to make these decisions .. and how will they defend or enforce their decisions?? And also, is this now saying that, if you DON'T have an executed medical directive, your life becomes theirs with which to dispense and it's their decision what is in your best interests??
I think in their rush to take a position and marginalize the critical ethical issues raised in Terri's plight, they are opening a huge can of worms and litigation.
The situation you're describing would be appropriate for people who are terminally ill .. Terri was not.
"So now, how is it that the medical community is going to make these decisions"
How? They, the memembers will probably vote on it. That's the way it usually works.
You might want to re-read what is stated. You seem to be a bit confused?
Wesley Smith, a leading pro-life attorney who specializes in bioethics issues, says people should make their wishes known beforehand.
"I think people need to create advanced directives in which they say, 'I don't want to be dehydrated to death and have my food taken away if I become cognitively disabled,'" Smith explained.
http://www.lifenews.com/bio1048.html
Apparently now the presumption is going towards death: if you don't have something in writing specifically spelling out that you want to live and what you want them to do, they will presume you want to die. And you don't even know who the "they" could be.
ping
Why can't they at least be honest about it. A person does not have a best interest when they are dead. A more honest reading would be,
.. it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the care taker's best interests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.