Surgeon General or obamacare czar.
Posted on 01/17/2011 11:31:19 AM PST by Nachum
When Jack Kevorkian came to the nation’s attention in the 1990s, reporters at first depicted him — correctly — as a macabre and megalomaniacal promoter of death. But he was remade into a popular icon, becoming a pet guest on 60 Minutes, treated to uncharacteristically softball interviews by Mike Wallace and fawned over by Andy Rooney, and then declared by Time magazine to be one of the major “celebrities” of the 1990s. Time even invited him to their 75th anniversary gala as a star guest. You knew the world was spinning the wrong way when Tom Cruise rushed up
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Kevorkian crazed???
If he is everyone who voted for Obamacare is just as crazed,
He is the poster boy for Obamacare and their death commission.
He basically was a serial killer who thought he found a niche that would let him indulge his urges without punishment.
In a civilized country that values HUMAN LIFE a debate about euthanisia is unacceptable.
It is a CLOSED matter reserved for loved ones who are directly involved. There is a time when there is no point in allowing a humanbeing to suffer and to let them slip away. However there is NO NEED for the PUBLIC to decide WHEN this is appropriate or the need for a one size fits all LAW to take away your PERSONAL RIGHT as to WHEN this is.
Years ago my grandmother had congestive heart failure. They drained her lungs of fluid and brought her back. When she was fine and in sound mind, she stated to NEVER do that again. She fully recovered and about two days later it happened again. We respected her wishes and let her slip away.
Her PERSONAL request is NOT up for PUBLIC DEBATE nor would we want LAWS to take away her request. It was a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER and that is the way it MUST stay.
You are absolutely 100% correct. It is a personal and private matter.I can personaly attest to that.
Your post makes no sense. You're saying that nobody should debate what public policy on euthenasia should be, then you're deciding what the public policy should be.
There are those who feel that allowing someone to "slip away" is murder and some who feel they should be helped along with poisons.
You personally cannot set the public policy without debate.
Head of HHS.
I think the majority of problems come in when the person is not aware and the family has conflicting opinions, or opinions that some people find unacceptable.
Like when rich old comatose grandma may or may not be in pain and needs expensive treatments that are eating into the inheritance.
There are so many issues that cloud the debate and make it not simple.
For me, if I am awake and decide it's time to go, I'll manage to get it done, no matter what the law.
If I want to poison my body, I should be able to do it without the FEDERAL or STATE government having any say on the issue.
You: Your post makes no sense. You're saying that nobody should debate what public policy on euthanasia should be, then you're deciding what the public policy should be.
Me: What we have in place NOW is proper. These decisions remain with the FAMILY and not STRANGERS and BUREACRAPPERS. I don't want to DICTATE what YOU do with family members. That is up to YOU, as an INDIVIDUAL. There is NOTHING “confusing” about that. We have NO “public policy” on when LOVED ONES SHOULD DIE and there should be NO “public policy” on this.
“There are those who feel that allowing someone to “slip away” is murder and some who feel they should be helped along with poisons.”
That's okay and WHY it should remain a FAMILY matter. We will NOT all agree on when that point is. It is a highly personal and INDIVIDUAL decision. PUBLIC POLICY has NO ROLE in that decision.
I mention my grandmother again. She was in her late 90’s. She had congestive heart failure. Her lungs were drained and she was well again. While she was better and in SOUND MIND, SHE requested that if that should happen again, to let her go and do NOTHING.
It happened again and we respected her wishes. We did NOT need a “public policy” or a “public debate” on what to do about HER WISHES. It was a FAMILY matter between her, us and her doctor.
IF OTHERS would not agree with the wished of the ill person, then THEY should have the RIGHT to do OTHERWISE. I do NOT want a one size fits all “policy” on such as personal decision.
YOU are suggested that we have a “one size fits all POLICY” and open for DEBATE on that issue. If perhaps, which would be unlikely public policy was to PROLONG HER LIFE and she DID NOT WANT that, should a family be FORCED to VIOLATE a persons wishes? Or should “public policy” regardless of the persons wishes be DENIED medical care because YOU OR I see the personal situation differently?
Since you didn't know MY grandmother, your opinion is NOT revelent to me. I literally don't care what STRANGERS think or FEEL about the situation. Our priority was what our grandmother WANTED. She lived a full life. She was a Christian. She wanted to go to heaven. There was nothing for us to gain financially. We simply respected HER WISHES.
“You personally cannot set the public policy without debate. “
I do NOT want a “public policy” on euthanasia. I do NOT want to determine the wishes of OTHERS. That is up to the individual, family and doctor. Obama care is what you must be seeking because HE WANTS a POLICY on THIS. I say NO! We do NOT have a “policy” for when a person should be denied medical resources and I do NOT want one. It should NEVER be up to the PUBLIC or LAWS that detemine when a life must end. Strangers should have NO SAY in that. You are taking Obama's bait or maybe "dead" this is what YOU DO WANT - OBAMA DEATH PANELS?
Again, in civilized countries, such as ours, we respect LIFE and the INDIVIDUAL. We will NOT live forever on earth. When the person who is ill and of sound mind wants NO heroic actions to prolong their life, that must be respected. If another person with the same problem WANTS heroics efforts made, that should ALSO BE RESPECTED. It is a highly personal matter and NOT OPEN FOR PUBLIC DEBATE or PUBLIC POLICY DICTATES.
In our situation there was nothing of value to inherit.
“Like when rich old comatose grandma may or may not be in pain and needs expensive treatments that are eating into the inheritance. “
The GOVERNMENT should have NO SAY on when a life ends. That is up to the individual who is suffering and hopefully wishes were made known BEFORE they were ill.
If you believe the GOVERNMENT will NOT push for DEATH under ALL circsumstance, “dead” you are not being realitic. This will take away INDIVIDUAL WISHES and make it a one size fits all FINAL solution. We DO NOT want that in the U.S..
One of the most important and proper roles of government is preventing the unjust and unlawful termination of life.
That is up to the individual who is suffering and hopefully wishes were made known BEFORE they were ill.
They often have not made their wishes known, or the family has different interpretations of those wishes.
Say the doctors believe the patient is unaware but not in pain - one child says she wants to die and the other child says she doesn't. If not the law (government), who makes the decision?
Of course these are proper issues for public debate and policy.
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.