Replies

Did you read the link at the WSJ?

(snip)

“Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?”

Good lord...this is PURE EVIL!!

Indirect link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nat-health/message/628

By Ann Potempa Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/lifestyles/story/0,2649,258358,00.html
(Published April 17, 2001)

Medical ethics started making its way into conversations several decades ago as
people debated organ transplants and other new procedures.

Today, ethicists have much more on their minds. They’re discussing whether it’s
right to ration health care, as is done in organ transplantation. The human
genome project comes with a slew of questions still unanswered.

“We have to start talking about how we’re going to use this stuff,” said Emily
Friedman, an ethics analyst from Chicago who spoke last week during the annual
Biomedical Ethics Symposium at Providence Alaska Medical Center.

The genome project has been on the symposium’s agenda before, so Friedman and
other ethics-minded physicians, nurses, social workers and clerics picked other
matters to talk about. Some of the issues touched close to home, like the
question of physician-assisted suicide. The Alaska Supreme Court is deciding
whether it should be legal for a physician to help a mentally competent,
terminally ill patient commit suicide.

Dr. Robert Pearlman, a professor at the University of Washington School of
Medicine, talked about an ethical dilemma that could affect any Alaska resident
or physician. When patients become sick or injured and cannot speak for
themselves, physicians and family members are left in the confusing position of
not knowing how to treat them. They question the patient’s quality of life,
Pearlman said: “Is this what Grandmother would have wanted?”

New technology enables patients to stay alive longer. But how would they feel
about machines keeping the body running when the mind isn’t?

Health workers have been asking patients to fill out “advanced directives,” any
legal or informal form, such as a living will, that allows people to specify how
they wish to be treated if they are ever in a situation where they cannot speak
for themselves.

A “living will,” which takes effect while the person is alive but unable to
communicate, concentrates only on care decisions. (A regular will takes effect
after death and deals with estate and property concerns.) Directives also can
establish a power of attorney, someone who will make decisions for patients when
patients can’t make them on their own.

Pearlman told the audience about studies and statistics that showed that, even
with advanced directives, there’s still a lot of inconsistency between what
patients want and how they are treated. Part of that inconsistency comes from
how little many people know about planning ahead.

“No one taught us how to do it,” Pearlman said. “They didn’t tell us when to
discuss it.”

People facing certain health risks, such as dementia or terminal illness, should
consider planning ahead, Pearlman said, to determine for themselves how they
want to be treated later in life. Planning minimizes potential conflicts between
family members and physicians. It also reduces the chance that a patient will be
given too little or too much treatment.

Pearlman said the terms used in advanced directives can be misunderstood. People
often say they don’t want to end up as “a vegetable.” But can these people say
what that means to them? The same goes for coma. Pearlman said he asked a number
of people what “coma” meant to them, and they gave him a variety of definitions.

“What we want is a shared understanding of terms,” he said.

Pearlman and his colleagues have created a 50-page booklet that helps people
think about how they want to be treated if they face dementia, a stroke or other
health problem. The booklet, “Your Life, Your Choices,” asks such specific
questions as: If you needed CPR, a feeding tube or a ventilator to live, would
you want it? Would you rather die naturally and not have the treatment? Or do
you not know how to answer this question yet?

“Your Life, Your Choices” can be downloaded free from the Web site
www.va.gov/resdev/programs/hsrd/ylyc.htm