"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."
Posted on 05/08/2006 6:44:55 AM PDT by Cat loving Texan
Odd political bedfellows working together to change law that allows doctors to withdraw treatment, transfer patients
Monday, May 08, 2006
Some unlikely political bedfellows want to change the state's "medical futility" law, saying it gives doctors too much power to make life-and-death decisions and families who disagree too little time to fight back.
The law has received renewed attention in recent days after doctors in Austin and Houston sought to withdraw treatment from patients whose families wanted to keep them on life support.
A collection of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, Texas Right to Life members and disability rights advocates — all members of the Texas Advance Directives Act Coalition, which helped craft end-of-life legislation in Texas a decade ago and is considering changes to the medical futility provision — are largely in agreement that the deadlines imposed on families are too burdensome. But so far they haven't been able to persuade many of the doctor and hospital representatives in the coalition of the need to extend the deadlines.
Under the law, families are given 48 hours' notice that attending physicians want to withdraw a patient's treatment and to prepare for a meeting of the hospital ethics committee. If the ethics committee agrees with the doctors, the family then has 10 days to prepare for the withdrawal of life-sustaining care or to find another doctor or facility where the patient can be treated.
Texas Right to Life and the other groups want the Legislature to consider changing the law during its next regular session in January. Coalition member Bob Kafka, Texas organizer of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, opposes the concept of "medical futility." There is no universally accepted definition of futile care, but it's generally considered any treatment that is not restorative, curative or palliative.
"We're talking about a person's life," said Kafka, who says he is a liberal and sees withdrawing treatment as a denial of civil and human rights. "I have friends rolling around in wheelchairs who were brain-injured when doctors and hospitals said it was futile care. . . . I want to make sure families and individuals are not rushed to judgment."
For once, he said, he is aligned with Texas Right to Life, which is probably best known for its work in opposition to abortion and appeals to a more conservative base. Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, said families are too emotionally devastated to face down doctors and hospitals on medically complex issues in a short time.
"Doctors say families are emotional and haven't come to grips with the fact that their loved ones are dying," she said. "The families are summarily dismissed."
Dr. Robert Fine, a member of the coalition, said that doctors are sensitive to suffering families and that physicians take an oath to do no harm. When a physician thinks that further treatment is prolonging the suffering and dying of a patient, that doctor can't be required to continue treatment.
However, if another doctor is willing to do so, no one will stand in the way, said Fine, director of the Office of Clinical Ethics for the Baylor Health Care System and director of Palliative Care Consultation Service at Baylor University Medical Center.
He sees no need to change the Advance Directives Act, which the Texas Legislature passed in 1999 and revised in 2003.
"Ten days is longer than we typically need to know . . . if there's a willing provider" to take over treatment, Fine said.
Often, families are divided on whether to continue life-sustaining treatment, Fine said, and some are relieved to hear of the futility law.
"We've had families welcome this process," he said.
Greg Hooser, the coalition's co-chairman, said he formed the Advance Directives Act Coalition a decade ago to bring disparate groups together to write legislation on end-of-life care. The 10-day deadline was a compromise, and nobody knew how it would work.
Since then, too many families have had a hard time finding a hospital, nursing home or other long-term care facility that will take a patient branded as "medically futile," said Jerri Ward, an Austin lawyer who represents the families of Lang Yen Thi Vo, 63, of Austin and Andrea Clark of Houston in medical futility cases and is taking part in the coalition meetings.
Families also have found the 48 hours extremely difficult, Ward said, especially since the clock can tick over a weekend, when lawyers, experts and others who can offer assistance can be tough to reach.
In the Clark case, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital found an Illinois facility to take over her care, but the facility changed its mind when it got more information on her condition.
In Vo's case, North Austin Medical Center gave her family 10 days to find another facility but later extended the time by more than a month. The hospital says Vo is in a persistent vegetative state, but her family disputes that and wants time to find a Texas facility to take her.
Ward said she was grateful that the outcomesin those cases are working in favor of the families so far. But she said the law does not compel hospitals or doctors to be flexible on deadlines with families, only to assist by providing lists and information about potential options for treatment.
If no alternative provider is found, for example, the law says treatment may cease on the 11th day after notice from the ethics committee unless the family obtains a court ruling forbidding it.
Graham said most of the cases that Texas Right to Life helps with involve uninsured minorities.
"These people are sick, and the hospital doesn't want to pay when they don't have insurance," she said.
Hooser and Fine said they don't think the issue has anything to do with money or insurance. Nor do they believe that doctors are basing decisions on color, although they said cultural factors may influence how racial and ethnic groups view the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Of five large urban hospitals in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas that reported data to the coalition over a five-year period, Hooser said, 65 medical futility cases were referred to ethics committees. That's an average of about three cases per hospital per year.
He did not have a breakdown of patient ethnicity, but Fine provided data from Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas. Of 12 futility cases at Baylor, six of the patients were African American, three were Caucasian, two were Hispanic and one was Arabic, he said.
Although there is wide variation among individuals in groups, many non-European immigrant cultures "have great trouble accepting our model of starting a treatment to see if it works and if it does not, then seeking permission to stop," Fine said. Hooser cited a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine that showed African Americans were more likely than whites to distrust health care providers: 45 percent of blacks reported low levels of trust, compared with 34 percent of whites.
Among the Baylor group, only one patient lacked insurance. Of the rest, one had commercial insurance, and the others were on Medicare, Medicaid or some combination.
"A doctor is paid quite well for dialysis and ventilator patients," Fine said. "The doctor actually loses money when the patient dies. . . . It's really not at all about money."
All sides said that if anyone can build consensus, Hooser can. He has become convinced that the law needs "more procedural safeguards" and is optimistic about crafting proposed legislation. State Reps. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, and Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, have indicated an interest in sponsoring a measure. But not everyone is optimistic that consensus can be reached.
"We know it's going to become a hot-button issue during the next session," Kafka said.
maroser@statesman.com; 445-3619
Thank you for posting this. I would never have seen it if not posted here.
Looks like we no longer get to live until we naturally die. What gall that suddenly - man determines when man dies rather than God.
Now watch all of the little minions follow along meekly. Why, because they so want to be able to usher relatives out the door rather than seeing estate funds spent on care.
And, this greed will bite them in the back a few years later as they become those "ushered".
Man continues to amaze me at man's utter stupidity. Man willfully pays the man who will decide he must die and fully gives that man the authority to do so.
God no longer determines when it is time for us to depart this life - the doctor does. Do you trust your doctor?
Ping
Right to life? No right to life if you have a doctor.
If this law is sustained, Terri Schiavo died for nothing. This is the Terri Schiavo coalition coming together again.
Let's fight for Terri's memory by stopping this law.
Some people sure are bloodthirsty. Some people can't wait to get the law on their side so they can klill those who are inconvenient to them. That is how totalitarian police states operate.
Actually these cases are long past the time when one would have "naturally died". So that is an entirely bogus comment. Why don't we just bankrupt all medical institutions by making them "treat" hopeless cases indefinitely?
"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."
Remember that when it is you or your child.
"Futile care law" -- like every other Death Cult law -- means a legal license to kill. The laws specifically exempt killers from any charges of murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide or any sort of wrongful death crime.
People are not hopeless cases. Not even you. There's always the chance that some day, you will see the light. Probably not until it is you being killed, but anything's possible.
Some medical conditions are beyond the power of doctors and medical science. MOdern medicine performs near miracles and rarely, if ever, gives up too soon on hopeless cases. Quite the contrary.
There comes a time to let go. Death is not the End.
Some, not all.
MOdern medicine performs near miracles
God performs actual miracles.
and rarely, if ever, gives up too soon
Not true. I see an average of about three news articles per day about doctors giving up on patients that are very likely to survive with minimal care.
on hopeless cases.
How many times must you be told that people are not hopeless cases?
Quite the contrary.
You should know all about "contrary." Almost everything you've ever posted about life and death has been contrary to the known facts.
There comes a time to let go.
Yes, but that time is not during a murder that can be prevented.
Death is not the End.
Brain damage is not the end. Death is the end of life on earth. Murder is not rewarded with everlasting life.
I have been through it already so have no need to remember theoretical possibilities.
Like it or not agree or not but the best sources for medical knowledge is the medical profession. Not families, not clergymen, not Pro-life zealots but actual doctors and nurses. They are not infallible and are human but those are the realities.
America spends more resources and effort in prolonging life (ANY life) than any society ever has or ever can. Why do you think medical costs are escalating so wildly when people seem to think they should squeeze every last drop from life no matter the cost to others?
For one thing - man is not given the option of when he dies - that is God's duty.
Remember "Thou shall not commit murder"?
And, once you start giving man the ability to condemn others to die, it spreads like a rampant virus. First it is immediate family with doctor input, then it is doctor in lieu of family, then it is doctor over family (you now have exalted the position of doctor to a god which is what many of them feel they are).
You then move on to those chronically over time ill (when money is the factor - money becomes the god), then why not the wheelchair bound, why not severe burns, why not the first stages of cancer (after all - why waste all that money - they will eventually die anyway).
Now, in the meantime, you now have doctors judging whether an infant should live, you have doctors taking bribes from relatives wanting the funds of a sick elderly.
In other words, you have a slaughter house with the goal the assets of the weak, or to prevent "the others" from having to spend their funds on the weak of society. Instead you will have medical facilities using funds spent on charity care, spent on perks for the administrators, nice offices, etc.
Our society is now selfish, disconnected from family and really just ignorant. They cannot comprehend the dangers of making the first step over the line between allowing nature to take its course and in deciding FOR nature when death occurs.
Notice that usually the wishes of the one being killed are not even a consideration. Only the dollar.
And, once society has chosen this cold, harsh path - you will never ever reclaim it as you have created a society of vultures.
So, and that gives you the right to decide for all others how they should give "death" to their loved ones to save "funds"?
Oh, and don't in any way lump all society into those that abuse the medicaid/medicare system. Most people are paying their own way and, by golly, if they choose to seek medical "HELP" for their loved one, they dang well better be given it.
If they are only visiting a "slaughter house", it would behoove all to take medical courses so that they can just allow the medical community to go without any of their fees as they will take care of their own.
Another example of stupidity - the medical community turning itself from the hippocratic oath for healing into the slaughter house with the "Deathmaster" in charge. Who in their right mind would PAY to go to a slaughter house?
Hm........seems to me, it would just be a lot easier to just withdraw myself from medical care and take my chances. A lot, lot cheaper to just die at home and I just might live a great deal longer.
There comes a time to let go - fine - but you don't push someone into death. Death is not the end and precisely the reason man does not need to send other men to their death. It is not the end and each man has only this life to get right with God and determine where that man will spend eternity.
Another man does not have the right to cut short his time on this earth. What if that man is not right with God? They are condemning the man to eternity when that man might have found God. Many times serious illness makes a person turn to God and wake up.
Man can withdraw useless care, but man does not have the option to initiate death on a non-dying person. It steps over into the rhelm of murder. Do you really want to face God someday and answer for murder or do you want your children to face God with that?
Some things are better left alone and should just be handled with prayer and consideration of the person, their suffering and gently help them walk through the final days WITHOUT even considering the funds. After all, that money belongs to the one dying and was earned to carry them through life.
If on charity - a bit different, but still, we do far much more harm to our own character as people and a nation if we choose killing instead of love and respect for a life.
Note: I am in no way discussing your prior case as I have no knowledge of it - I am discussing policies.
Not spending millions on every case no matter how hopeless is in no way "murder".
And if you don't believe these decisions are made hundreds of times every day then you need to look into things more.
Or if you believe they are being made too much then you should explain how indefinite expenses can be funded indefinitely.
I hardly consider not using methods not even available a few decades ago to artifically prolong some autonomic functions to be "pushing" or "sending" anyone into death.
Our nation spends FAR more on extending life than any society EVER has. And it matters not if those extended are killers in prison, crack whores from the ghetto who destroy themselves or little girls from Iraq.
NO society in history has ever been as generous or inclusive in providing health care hence your scenario of murderous doctors and an uncaring society that is choosing death is absurd.
Absurb -----
No, that is the way it is today before the corruption of ethics.
I am showing you the future.
The trouble with the young in this society is that they care more for the funds of the elders than they do the elders. Their greed makes them justify not paying indefinitely, not prolonging a sliver of life, determining in their all knowing wisdom of life that old Aunt Bee would want them to have the money for other uses rather than letting her live out her years.
You are not fooling me with the talk of "funds" and society issues. That is a cover for greed and theft of funds from the weak. There are all kind of high-minded words to cover the real goal - to get rid of the weak to prevent them using resources or to take the resources of the weak from them.
Survival of the fittest. Disregard for the weak of society, a callousness of the heart.
Do you remember what you thought was old when you were ten, do you remember what you thought was old when you were 20. The young have no comprehension of the desires of the aged or weak because the aged or weak do not want to do the things the young want to do. Life compensates. People want to do the things that they feel good doing.
Just because they can't run 10 miles does not mean they have no joy in life or deserve to live their life. A handicapped person might disagree with you that their life is not worth living. You see God has planned for our situations when we are weak, he programmed in acceptance of our current situation, the finding of joy in areas we are able to handle, and He gave us the ability to see the joy in the simple things that the young are too busy to see.
So, you have no ability to judge the value of another person's life. Only that person has that ability. And it is not your realm to do so. We all share this planet, the strong, the evil, the good, the lame, the weak.
Killing our weak does nothing but harden our own hearts and prevents us learning and seeing the hearts of those weak ones. Some of the most wonderful memories come as we walk with a sick and weak precious one. How could we be so cruel as to turn to that person and kill them? Which is exactly what is being done under the cover of "they will be more comfortable, they do not have significant life, etc."
But, the young are creating a horrible world for themselves as what they create will be what is dished out for them even far more harsh as it will become more and more corrupted. You may think now that you would not want to live unless you could go dancing, run laps, or whatever - but - hey, you have not lived those years yet and know nothing of what you speak. Be careful planning your funeral too early.
How could I be confused about what you said. You are in support of there being a means of a gatekeeper that determines that "whoops, you have spent your limit, time for death because we are a huge society you know and we cannot afford you, you weak one you".
It is very clear where you are coming from. Ignorance and greed of the young. One with little value of life, one that would turn over the very basic "right to life" and put it in the hands of someone who has absolutely no love for that person and let them weigh the value of that life.
Ridiculous and I never thought I would hear such ignorance and callousnous from sane people. Think about what you are fighting for, it will rule your life, and every one of your children. Do you really want a child's life in the hands of a doctor on his way to lunch? Get a grip and think. Seems to me, a parent would want to care for that child more than anything in the world. What about that parent? You want to freely give away their rights too?
That post contains too much Bullshit to even respond to.
It is clear that you have a completely distorted and unrealistic view of what is done for the dying and worse what CAN be done. And that you would rather see the entire health care system destroyed rather than admit your ideological take on things is ridiculous. Or are you just so clueless that you are unaware that society has limited resources?
And stupidity certainly must play a role since it has provoked you into making a stupid remark about my age. I am hardly young and there is no threat that anyone will leave me ANYTHING no matter how quick I "kill" them.
Of course, zealots cannot allow another's remarks to stand on their own but are compelled to distort them with idiotic comments such as LIES about decisions about life and death being made by "a doctor on his way to lunch." Someone may be out to lunch here but it ain't the doctor. Anyone who knows anything can tell you that NO decisions like this are made cavalierly and that ALL take weeks or months before ANYTHING is done.
Where do parents or any family member get the "right" to decide how the medical resources of a community or hospital should be used? The same place that says they have a "right" to go into my pocketbook and remove its contents?
Given such an attitude about doctors I assume you consult a cook about legal issues and engineers about theology.
Ping for later
Where do they get the right?
They go to a doctor for care - they pay that doctor and they expect that the goal is curing, healing - never killing.
I know exactly how things are going. Of course there are tons of good decisions with highminded concerns. But, you as well as I know that there are people continually working on end of life decisions and criteria. They input these revisions to criteria often without our knowledge. Why?
And you know full well that the purpose is to get rid of the weak, save resources, etc.
Now, wonder why this was never a problem in all the centuries before this one. Explain to me how - in our modern age - suddenly, we cannot afford the weak but must usher them out the door?
Looks like we are going backward as a civilization instead of forward.
Just maybe if resources are such a problem, there should be a halt to any cloning research, a halt to medical research - especially since cures are merely ways to prolong life. How about a halt to medications for viagra, birth control, anti-depressants - gee we just do not have the resources because we are having to kill the weak.
Of course it is to you - which is exactly why I don't want people like you judging the worth of any of my family.
I can't get over how cavalierly you throw away the rights of family and give them to a doctor - the judge of all life worth. You must be in the medical profession.
But, if so, you might mention to the elite medical community that the stupidest reputation they can get is the reputation for being death's doorman.
Resources - my foot. Just how often do you think a doctor's family will pass under the very same judgement he gives the family members of the mere paying public? No, they will have the good old boy network to give them all the care that is not available to ordinary people.
And this is what you want? See what I mean about our ignorant society? They sit here while laws are implemented that put one portion of society OVER THE RIGHT of the weak to continue to live or get medical CARE. And, all of these nice socialists that go into that field have free reign to adjust "life worthiness" criteria as THEY see fit - for "society you know". And, due to greed, our society joins in with the "need" for control.
And, these are the same people that are out-of-their minds because the government might listen to a few of their spoken words on the telephone.
Ignorant people. When do citizens lose their constitutional rights? When they get sick/weak/handicapped?
Doctors are not "killing" these terminal patients. They are terminal.
You cannot be so ignorant as to pretend that things were better in the past. These were never questions precisely because there was little chance of prolonging these deaths for months and years. People were stricken and generally quickly died. When they lived too long Indian tribes abandoned their old and the old accepted that as for the good of the tribe. In England Dickens described the "slumber parties" wherein the superannuated elderly were placed under a stack of mattresses while their relatives climbed on top of them and smoothered them. Other cultures simply stopped feeding them.
My God you need to get out if you believe THIS nation treats the dying shabbily in ANY deliberate way. What next Univeral Health Insurance?
People are living longer even than the Biblical threescore and ten. It is the last few months of life that the health care systems sees most of its costs escalate unbelievably.
When my beloved wife was in the last throes of her fight for life she could have stayed in the hospital at the cost of multiple thousands per day or in our home with her sons, mom and sisters around her for far less. Prolonging her agony any further to no end except our hatred of the idea of losing her would have helped NO ONE. And no man ever loved his wife more than I did Arlene.
I have asserted no right to "judge the worth of [your] family". Medical decisions such as we speak are delegated to courts when there are disputes between parties. Courts are ruled by the laws which our legislatures pass and will consider family input but that will not have the final bearing upon any decisions or the most weight. Medical authorities will as must be.
As to the ridiculous speculation that I am in the medical profession I can only say that I could not face the misery that they must face on a daily basis. Families wildly hoping that you are Gods and can perform miracles then sue when heroic efforts are not enough, predatory lawyers circling like sharks ready to rip off their pound of flesh. It is precisely because of these fears of lawsuits that many people lives and suffering are prolonged longer than they should be. I don't have the moral courage to be a doctor.
In any case why would any doctor want to pull the plug? THEY will only be paid more as desperate relatives want to hand on as long as possible. THEIR profit is maximized by CONTINUING the drain. And if a MIRACLE happens they are credited with being the GOD of Healing. And what could be easier than patients who cannot communicate with you or complain or question?
Your paranoia about the medical profession is in no way rational.
Citizens who lose their power to affect events are in a bad way there is no doubt but in our society people must speak for themselves in order to get ALL they may want or need. No one is delegated to speak for us.
"We've had families welcome this process," he said.
Mrowrl. Gives a nice excuse.
Terri Schiavo was not only denied artificial hydration and nutrition, but the judge refused natural intake of fluids by mouth.
How many manipulations and interventions in the natural course of multiple organ failure are enough for any doctor to be spared the charge of murder?
What is the definition of "natural death" on maximum medical support?
The story we are reading didn't begin in the ethics committee, or even the the day the doctors began discussing withdrawal of therapy or asked for a hearing. From what I can tell from the various reports on the 'net, this patient had been having increasing heart failure, had been on the ventilator since January and was failing antibiotics and a trial of continuous dialysis.
It's not about money or selfishness. Unless selfishness includes wishing to avoid causing unnecessary pain and suffering without adding to the ability to heal.
When the heart is injured enough due to infection and trauma of surgery that a patient goes into end-stage heart failure, patients have angina, feel smothered and an entire cascade of effects begins.
While it would be murder if we don't allow natural breathing off the ventilator.If a person is in multi-organ failure, it's not "murder" or killing to stop intensive interventions.
God has given men the ability to put in tubes,use medications to support the blood pressure in damaged blood vessels, hook up ventilators, pacemakers, and dialysis in order to give God time to heal the patient's body if it is His will.
However, there comes a time when, barring a miracle, there isn't going to be any more healing. And the effects of all the treatments add up to more damage from side effects. Brain damage that stops our drive or muscle control to breathe or kidney failure so that we go to sleep before we suffer greater and greater pain:
The liver gradually fails due to congestion from the blood backing up, so there's no more production of proteins and clotting factors. The immune system fails. "Stress ulcers" develop in the stomach and intestines and begin to ooze. 4 out of 5 patients on dialysis have severe itching all over their bodies. Calcium drops, potassium increases and fluids must be very tightly restricted to prevent the lungs from filling with excess water. The poor circulation combined with artificially increased pressure in the smallest vessels and the poisons building up from the kidney and liver failure lead to skin breakdown faster than the body can heal it, no matter how diligent the nursing care. The same sort of damage is happening in all the small vessels of the eyes, nerves, feet, hands, lungs and other internal organs, the brain and the blood vessels themselves.
Look, I am not talking about the legitimate cases that are dying through their illness. I am not talking about the efforts to stop treating and prolonging the suffering of an unavoidable coming death.
But, that in no way means there are not plans and efforts being put into place that will iniatiate the death for any number of reasons - including - convenience, monetary gain, etc.
So go ahead and deny the fact right in front of your faces, deny that there are no "medical ethics" people that want to see "controls" put into place for society's benefit. Sort of like the Nazi era.
And, just because other societies chose to kill their weak, does not make that the norm, the ideal, or the correct way to handle life and death.
We are getting far too selfish, too ghoulish, and too involved in the costs of certain lives.
Of course, it is easier to make the masses accept designated death by bringing out all the suffering stories to cover up the ongoing march toward euthanasia.
And, I don't intend to sit still while the constitutional right to life is thrown in the trash because a few new world types are doing a massive sell job on the American public.
You see - I don't trust man with the death of other men. I trust man with healing, but the right to initiate death is not safe in the hands of men.
Why is your main topic "resources". Resources, resources.
Do you pay taxes, school taxes, city taxes, state taxes, sales taxes? And you worry about the few ill people getting into your pocketbook?
Give me a break. I don't hear you complaining about the pork in Washington, the government waste, the lifetime salaries paid to senators for a six year term - no, just take action against the weak and sick since they are easy to beat and can't fight back. Because of the absolute need to conserve "RESOURCES".
What an absolute bunch of bunk. You are quoting the socialistic/communistic (or whatever the title of the new world model is) talking points. How very cute.
I do not care about your personal situations - I care about your statements 'society does not have the resources'.
If society does not have the resources, suppose you come up with cheaper ways to care for people - other than killing them off. This is a modern society that can do wonders. Surely God feels they will find a way to handle their weak and elderly with respect/dignity and care.
If not, they will have to answer to him for it. And, He will not take kindly to killing off the weak, the lame, the deformed.
ClancyJ hit the nail on the head. If the truth hurts you that much, maybe you should evaluate yourself and make the changes that would allow you look at your own actions without getting so repulsed.
We need to discern the difference and not divide our efforts or turn on each other. There are, indeed, proponents of euthanasia in the US. This was not a good case to use to make that point, as time and the course of events have shown.
Doctors make mistakes about judging the length of time a patient has to live, but that's probably not the case here. The interventions these couple of weeks did nothing for Mrs. Clark. I don't think I would have removed the ventilator against the family's wishes, but it would have been humane - and not killing - to stop using the dialysis and blood pressure medicines to allow her disease to reach its (now obvious to everyone) inevitable conclusion. Instead, a new procedure was tried and more manipulations and pain resulted, without healing.
The TADA is a good law. It would protect me if Texas law changed to make assisted suicide legal - under the law, I could refuse to follow the Directive of a patient who wanted to have his life ended prematurely.
The time for notice before and about the ethics committtee meeting is too short. But the 10 day limit is proably not too short.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of Triage or believe society has infinite resources.
Wasting money to no avail is a sure way to disaster. And spending hundreds of thousands on patients who by any reasonable measure are gone is a foolish waste of limited resources.
I think in those terms AT A CERTAIN POINT because every REALIST must. Can my emotions overcome this so that I would fund a treatment I had no hope would work for my wife? Yes. Would I demand that society or the insurance company do the same? No.
Demanding that society pay for such pipe dreams is NOT the way conservatives are supposed to think. Such emotionalism is the reserve of the Left.
You haven't heard me complain about other issues on this thread because THEY are NOT what THIS thread is about. And stop lying about society "killing them off" it is NOTHING but a lie and such hysterical exaggerations make it difficult for anyone rational to take anything you say seriously.
Your pretense that this is some kind of Nazi Germany is so far from the truth that it is laughable.
Do your kids never call you? Never visit you?
Reading your posts, I'm trying to figure out why you despise young people. You mask it with concern for the dying, but the contempt is clearly there.
It is not the Truth which affects me it is your fanatical refusal to face the fact that there are limited resources available for medical care. We already spend FAR more on health care than ANY society in history ever has. Your view of this nation is as sick and twisted as that of the Party of Treason which also screeches "Nazi, Nazi" at everything it doesn't like or understand.
We simply cannot pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for huge numbers of comtose, non-responsive, brain dead people to linger in limbo indefinitely. It will not happen and CANNOT happen no matter what you WANT or what I want. These choices are out of our hands. No medical system can do this for long.
These resources are in demand for many other areas which are not dead ends. Such medical welfare is pointless.
Don't confuse people with facts. Emotions should rule.
In Andrea's case, it wasn't the treatment that was judged to be futile. The doctor and the ethics committee judged Andrea's life to be futile. The decision to kill her based their perceptions of the quality of her life caused her undue harm. The decision to allow her to receive the care she'd paid for brought her much relief. The quality of the last week of her life was improved by not having to fight against those very people who were supposed to help her.
Take a look at my number 36. Is there anything in it that is false?
I don't believe that her life was judged to be futile. The treatment proved to be futile.
That should have been post number *32*
Texas Right to Life only helps uninsured MINORITIES. That's nice. I guess white people don't have a right to life.
Ok, stupid.
*Kicks self*
Re-read and discovered I am an idiot.
Go on with your regularly scheduled thread....
The autopsy proved she could not swallow. It also proved she was blind and most of her brain was gone.
The autopsy couldn't prove that she couldn't swallow.
Besides, she handled her own saliva well enough.
Even if she couldn't swallow - which, of course, she could, - research shows that those who are dying this way are most uncomfortable if their mouth is not kept moist. Humane comfort care would mandate oral ice chips or at least a swab.
The nerves were gone. There was nothing to prevent liquid(or solid) from going down into her lungs.
"Besides, she handled her own saliva well enough. "
No she did not. That was proven by the autopsy results.
No, nothing false. I didn't mean to suggest such. I just think we have a minor difference of opinion. Regretfully, I haven't much time lately to discuss this in detail. I appreciate your input.
Which nerves? the 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th? The cerebellum?
How could the autopsy show the opposite of what we all know:
There was severe damage to the cortical brain, but the lower brain was intact.
- The breathing and the heart worked well, as well as (reflexive or not) movements of the face, the eyes and the neck.
- There was no suctioning of secretions by the nurses. Bedridden atients with aphagia or dysphagia die of aspiration pneumonia, even with the best of nursing care, long before this woman did.
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.