• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told...

LowDown said:
I agree that this is sometimes a problem. It is the responsibility of the care givers to help the decision maker see things clearly through an open and frank discussion of the situation, and this sometimes requires repeated discussions and time for development of trust. It should be explained that what the doctors need to know is what the patient would want for himself if he were able to tell them.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a huge amount of people that won't do that.
So the government is going to put a ceiling on end of life care.

A lot of people get disgusted by this though, but how much money should the government pay to extend one life, by one year?
$10k, $100k, $1mil, $1bil?
 
LowDown said:
So you agree that informed consent is necessary before a patient is put on a pathway that will end his or her life?

I don't have any problem with informing people of their options including things like this pathway, withdrawing life sustaining care, hospice care, etc.. That's a duty the caregivers have.

Still not sure I have your meaning.
Click to expand...

No one has sud otherwise. The op is from an unreliable source, thus not worth taking at all seriously. Too many try to use such misinformation th advance a false argument. No one has even suggested they not be informed. In fact, what th tea part and some republicans objected to and called a death panel was the provision that required they be informed.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes it's bad, because even though I truly feel for people loosing a loved one.
(I lost my grandmother, whom I loved dearly, to breast cancer that spread all over, about 4 or 5 years ago.)

There comes a time, when the person must let go and not continue to let their loved one suffer, plus cost the rest of us, to preserve a life that wants to end.
My grandmother wanted to quit her chemo, she was miserable, but no one would let her.
Click to expand...

What if the person is not suffering?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Depends.
If they're brain dead, why should they be kept on life support?
If they're sick but not feeling pain, awake and can do things, they should be left to do things, until they no longer can.
Click to expand...

Like with Terry Schiavo, she was already gone but part of her family needed her to remain on life support, they were the ones who would be suffering not her...they should have gotten what they wanted. Some people cannot let go and when the individual who is ill is not in a position to express their will and is not suffering as best as we can tell the family should be allowed to hang on to them for as long as they need to.
 
MaggieD said:
Why would I report you?

My husband died of lung cancer after a year-long battle. He had a tumor in his lungs the size of an orange. They removed one lobe. The surgery was excruciatingly painful. Horrible for him. The first day after surgery, they took him off most pain medication; he couldn't even talk he was in so much pain. He took radiation every day for six weeks -- we had to drive 150 miles every day for the treatments. The drive was extremely painful for him every single day.

The doctor recommended chemotherapy...said he'd take it for the rest of his life, although it might extend it. "Would you do it if you were him?" I asked. "If I had a son graduating from college, and I wanted to be there for his graduation? I might. Otherwise, I would not." (He didn't take it.)

Anyhow, before he recovered from the surgery? The cancer had moved to his spine. To his spleen. To his kidneys. He was in intractable pain for the rest of his life. Could barely walk. Only in the last few months did they medicate it away. And when they did that? He was gone as well. His death was horrible. I was with him every step of the way.

My dad had a stroke. He lived with it for nine miserable years. Hated his life. He could barely walk. Had lost any quality of life he had left. His wife had to work, so the kids helped out every single day of those nine years. He was always falling...one day he fell and really hurt his back. The pain wouldn't subside. It left him crying like a baby and in agony every time he moved. Doctors couldn't find a reason for it...they put him in the hospital where he got pneumonia and his kidneys failed. The kidney doctor told us matter-of-factly that he'd be on dialysis at least three days a week for the rest of his life. "How about his back pain," we asked. "We can't do anything about that." We placed him in hospice at the hospital. He died in two days.

Don't call me a monster. I've been there and bought the T-Shirt. My heart's been broken twice -- with more in the headlights. I don't know how you can possibly take the position you're taking when you withdrew life support from your mother. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
Click to expand...

She was basically brain dead or very very near to it. My point was that she was diagnosed terminally ill in 1998 while her quality of life wasnt from that point getting any better to her her life was a valuable enough for her (and me, my brother etc) to take the effort to continue living. You made a generalization asserting that terminal ill people shouldnt try to stay alive because you think that it is not worth the money. You need to realize terminal does not always mean that the patient is going to die in a couple days or even a couple months and you have no right to decide whether their quality of life is worth living in. The reason is because you are not that individual nor are you the family of that individual. What I went through and what you went through was unique to the situation at hand. In my case it did cost medicare groups of money to keep her alive for years but she paid plenty into medicare throughout her life, but most of all she was a human being. Have some damn compassion instead of minding a checkbook that is not yours. I personally spent thousands of my own money and countless time to help her have the best life that she could in her condition. I have no regrets I would do it just the same given a second chance.

So who are you to say what costs too much when it comes to another individuals life?
 
Monserrat said:
Like with Terry Schiavo, she was already gone but part of her family needed her to remain on life support, they were the ones who would be suffering not her...they should have gotten what they wanted. Some people cannot let go and when the individual who is ill is not in a position to express their will and is not suffering as best as we can tell the family should be allowed to hang on to them for as long as they need to.
Click to expand...

No, not if it is costing us (taxpayers) resources.
If they can pay it, on their own, sure.

Tax dollars should be for the living, not the dead.
 
lizzie said:
The individual has no right to demand that others pick up the cost of their care indefinitely.
Click to expand...

She was on medicare and some supplemental insurance. And well she was my Mom I gladly gave what she needed.

So go beat your partisan drum elsewhere. Perhaps you dont give a **** about your loved ones but I do and spent 13 years showing my love and spent money I could have really used invested my business. The key here is that it was not your choice and she paid plenty into medicare nothing was not earned. But thanx for the tired partisan sound bite it really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, not if it is costing us (taxpayers) resources.
If they can pay it, on their own, sure.

Tax dollars should be for the living, not the dead.
Click to expand...

The tax payers are going to have to pay if we want a universal healthcare system that is just, it's required in order to stave off abuses. If we cannot commit to that or are just unwilling than a universal state run health care system will never work.

Those tax dollars would be for the living, not the dead, the family is still alive, it would be for them.
 
Monserrat said:
The tax payers are going to have to pay if we want a universal healthcare system that is just, it's required in order to stave off abuses. If we cannot commit to that or are just unwilling than a universal state run health care system will never work.

Those tax dollars would be for the living, not the dead, the family is still alive, it would be for them.
Click to expand...

No, universal health care does not work, when it provides unlimited medical care.
That's why nearly all systems of UHC have limits, otherwise it would bankrupt the state.

A family holding on to a dead family member, through artificial means, is just delaying reality.
You don't have a right to that.

Most people, in the know about Medicare costs, fully recognize, that this is going to happen and soon.
Why? because we can't afford it.
 
MaggieD said:
Please give us a link showing what, in regards to "death panels" was removed from the healthcare bill. You can't. Because it was never there.
Click to expand...

Section 1233 of Obamacare, which deals with mandatory end of life planning, was removed from the bill.

This part of the text makes it obvious that a gray area has been created for government bureaucrats to be given authority to order some patients to be deprived of life saving healthcare intervention.

"(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

"(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

"(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

"(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

"(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."


Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth
Click to expand...

There's the text and it was removed from the bill. If it was really the, "big lie", why was it so quickly removed? The Dems didn't even put up a fight, before removing it. Why?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
She was basically brain dead or very very near to it. My point was that she was diagnosed terminally ill in 1998 while her quality of life wasnt from that point getting any better to her her life was a valuable enough for her (and me, my brother etc) to take the effort to continue living. You made a generalization asserting that terminal ill people shouldnt try to stay alive because you think that it is not worth the money. You need to realize terminal does not always mean that the patient is going to die in a couple days or even a couple months and you have no right to decide whether their quality of life is worth living in. The reason is because you are not that individual nor are you the family of that individual. What I went through and what you went through was unique to the situation at hand. In my case it did cost medicare groups of money to keep her alive for years but she paid plenty into medicare throughout her life, but most of all she was a human being. Have some damn compassion instead of minding a checkbook that is not yours. I personally spent thousands of my own money and countless time to help her have the best life that she could in her condition. I have no regrets I would do it just the same given a second chance.

So who are you to say what costs too much when it comes to another individuals life?
Click to expand...

And who are you to judge me? The doctors did not tell your mother she was terminally ill in 1998. That may be what you heard, but that's not what they said. COPD is a progressively and debilitating fatal illness. That is a very different thing from terminal brain cancer or terminal lung cancer. I'd suggest you understand that other people besides yourself have compassion for people. And sometimes? The most compassionate thing we can do??? Is to let them go. If you don't get that? That's on you.

Stop judging others with a broken yardstick.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Those costs are ballooning because of baby boomers.
Medicare spending is going to be reduced, that is just one part of the over all reduction in spending and limiting of benefits, that will eventually happen.
Click to expand...
lizzie said:
The point is that in cases such as my father's, someone NEEDS to make these decisions, and there are many people in our society who cannot make them, based in reality. The reality is, nobody has a right to unlimited care on the taxpayer's dime. You know that I am a reality-based individual, who takes individual responsibility seriously. If a person wants unlimited care, he should be the one to pay for it- not the collective taxpayer. We simply can't afford to do it, and at some point, limits must be made, based on necessity.
Click to expand...

These people spent their entire working lives paying into medicaid, the world's largest ponsi scheme, and when it comes time to cash that out, "Sorry, our government has horrifically mismanaged that money, so your life is now too expensive."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, universal health care does not work, when it provides unlimited medical care.
That's why nearly all systems of UHC have limits, otherwise it would bankrupt the state.

A family holding on to a dead family member, through artificial means, is just delaying reality.
You don't have a right to that.

Most people, in the know about Medicare costs, fully recognize, that this is going to happen and soon.
Why? because we can't afford it.
Click to expand...

You absolutely have a right to hold onto you family member if they aren't really 'dead'. No one has a right to tell you that your loved one has to die because they don't want to spend tax payers money on sustaining life.

Yeah I'm not sure universal healthcare will work either, it's a step towards a Utopian society which is why people want it, it's ideal but it's not feasible in my opinion not at this time.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
These people spent their entire working lives paying into medicaid, the world's largest ponsi scheme, and when it comes time to cash that out, "Sorry, our government has horrifically mismanaged that money, so your life is now too expensive."
Click to expand...

You get the gist of it bro.
But honestly, most of those people receive far more in benefits, than they ever paid in.
 
Monserrat said:
You absolutely have a right to hold onto you family member if they aren't really 'dead'. No one has a right to tell you that your loved one has to die because they don't want to spend tax payers money on sustaining life.

Yeah I'm not sure universal healthcare will work either, it's a step towards a Utopian society which is why people want it, it's ideal but it's not feasible in my opinion not at this time.
Click to expand...

The government has the right, to not pay for any of it.
Sustaining life is debatable.

If a person is brain dead, keeping them on life support is sustaining an empty vessel.
It's like leaving a car running, with no driver.
 
apdst said:
Section 1233 of Obamacare, which deals with mandatory end of life planning, was removed from the bill.

This part of the text makes it obvious that a gray area has been created for government bureaucrats to be given authority to order some patients to be deprived of life saving healthcare intervention.

There's the text and it was removed from the bill. If it was really the, "big lie", why was it so quickly removed? The Dems didn't even put up a fight, before removing it. Why?
Click to expand...

Please give me a link that shows Section 1233 was removed from the final legislation. Your link doesn't show that and, in fact, refutes your so-called death panels. I thought this ridiculous argument had gone up in the smoke it deserved. Apparently not with everyone.

Providing a fee schedule for doctors to discuss end-of-life planning with their patients is hardly a death panel. WTH is wrong with people?
 
No one should be deprived the option of life saving healthcare. If they chose to fight knowing they will not feel well then that's their choice to make, not the governments.
 
digsbe said:
No one should be deprived the option of life saving healthcare. If they chose to fight knowing they will not feel well then that's their choice to make, not the governments.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as they pay for it, without using Medicare.
If you disagree, how much should Medicare pay to sustain one life for one year.

Is that number infinity dollars?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You get the gist of it bro.
But honestly, most of those people receive far more in benefits, than they ever paid in.
Click to expand...
And if they hadn't? What if that was the first time they'd ever used medicaid? Is there a credit limit that if you go over they tell you to **** off? We either need to get rid of medicaid or honor our committments.
 
Well, just my two cents...I think it is a quality of life issue. If there is no living will, or end of life instructions of the patients wishes, then I am not sure I want the government making that decision for me. As imperfect as a family member is at these sorts of things, a cold disinterested bureaucrat I am not sure I want giving the thumbs up or down....
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And if they hadn't? What if that was the first time they'd ever used medicaid? Is there a credit limit that if you go over they tell you to **** off? We either need to get rid of medicaid or honor our committments.
Click to expand...

We're not going to get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and they're not going to continue to pay for unlimited benefits.
That's what is going to happen, very soon.

There is no changing that.
Americans are not adult enough to, be reasonable about this, nor are they adult enough to take care of themselves, without whining.
So the government is going to do stuff, most won't like, but will tolerate.
 
Monserrat said:
You absolutely have a right to hold onto you family member if they aren't really 'dead'. No one has a right to tell you that your loved one has to die because they don't want to spend tax payers money on sustaining life.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. If people want to hold on to their family members so bad, why do they warehouse them in nursing homes where care is marginal at its very BEST?? So they can visit them for an hour every two weeks and complain about the awful care they're getting? Are they there feeding them three times a day? Changing their diapers? Holding their hands when the pain is overwhelming? Then when they go into the hospital with pneumonia, these same people want them on life support, artificial feeding tubes, etc., etc., until their loved ones slowly wither away. Pick 'em up and take 'em the hell home. Feed them. Change them. No? I thought not. Throw them to the taxpayers and then call the rest of us heartless.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We're not going to get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and they're not going to continue to pay for unlimited benefits.
That's what is going to happen, very soon.

There is no changing that.
Americans are not adult enough to, be reasonable about this, nor are they adult enough to take care of themselves, without whining.
So the government is going to do stuff, most won't like, but will tolerate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I've just been spoiled by Germany when it comes to health care. Whether looking per capita, or as a percentage of GDP, costs here for the entire medical system are about half of what it is in the states. Here nobody who gets cancer is told to **** off, they don't kill their old people who cost too much, and everyone who is sick gets treated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom