• 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!

It's baaaaaack!

Barbbtx said:
I don't like the questions on page 21. They could lead someone to become depressed instead of being optimistic about their situation. I wouldn't want a loved one of mine worrying about being a burden or worrying about money for example.
Click to expand...

****, I work as the personal caregiver for my father who suffered a serious traumatic brain injury. Some would say that this qualifies as being a "burden". The money situation in my family is completely ****ed.

If I went back in time with video of him as he is today and showed it to th eman he use dto be, he would have eaten a bullet right then and there. I know how my father was, and the man he was would much rather be dead than in the situation he is in.

A realistic description of what occurs is absolutely important for an informed decision. Sugar coating things is total bull**** and it ****s over the person who is making the decision.
 
Tucker Case said:
So you believe that man should play God and prevent people from reaching the kingdom of heaven through artificial means?
Click to expand...
I think killing someone off is more "playing God" than...uh...not killing them off.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't like the questions on page 21. They could lead someone to become depressed instead of being optimistic about their situation. I wouldn't want a loved one of mine worrying about being a burden or worrying about money for example.
Click to expand...

Barb, the booklet looks at all sides, tries to present arguments for people to think of from staying alive no matter what to pulling the plug when life support is needed. Picking out one page of questions and saying it is bad because of those is silly. When the VA workbook came up last time, I was the one who actually read it and countered all the people who kept pulling comments out of context. It's not going to work trying to paint this as wanting our vets to decide to die, or death panel type crap. It just does not work.
 
Redress said:
Barb, the booklet looks at all sides, tries to present arguments for people to think of from staying alive no matter what to pulling the plug when life support is needed. Picking out one page of questions and saying it is bad because of those is silly. When the VA workbook came up last time, I was the one who actually read it and countered all the people who kept pulling comments out of context.
Click to expand...
I had to do the same thing with Arizona SB 1070 (especially after it had been amended by HB 2162).
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
I think killing someone off is more "playing God" than...uh...not killing them off.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. Hooking someone up to feeding tube or a life-support machine is "playing God" way more than not hooking them up to these things is. ASsisted suicide is merely acting out the wishes of the person. Why is it that you feel the government is far more competent to make that decision than the person who is sick, their families, and their doctors?

I ask because, for me, this isn't some abstract theoretical situation. It is a question I have faced directly (deciding one whether or not life-saving means should be employed with a loved one).
 
Tucker Case said:
Depends on the situation. Hooking someone up to feeding tube or a life-support machine is "playing God" way more than not hooking them up to these things is. ASsisted suicide is merely acting out the wishes of the person. Why is it that you feel the government is far more competent to make that decision than the person who is sick, their families, and their doctors?
Click to expand...
Well assisted suicide is more than just withholding life sustaining measures. It's actively providing drugs to kill someone. Doctor's should not be in that business. Have you ever seen interviews with Dr. Death ~ dude was crazy. He didn't believe in seat belts either.

I ask because, for me, this isn't some abstract theoretical situation. It is a question I have faced directly (deciding one whether or not life-saving means should be employed with a loved one).
Click to expand...
I know, I am sorry about your dad. I believe in the patients rights to refuse heroic measures but I don't think a feeding tube is a heroic measure.
 
X Factor said:
Well assisted suicide is more than just withholding life sustaining measures. It's actively providing drugs to kill someone. Doctor's should not be in that business. Have you ever seen interviews with Dr. Death ~ dude was crazy. He didn't believe in seat belts either.
Click to expand...

True. I was confused by the "bias in favor of life" and assumed it extended further than just assisted suicide.

Kevorkian is not the end all and be all of assisted suicide. I've encountered people who were suffering terribly while simply awaiting a slow and agonizing death. To me, it seems execcively cruel to force them to endure such hardship if that is contrary to their will.



I know, I am sorry about your dad. I believe in the patients rights to refuse heroic measures but I don't think a feeding tube is a heroic measure.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words. I disagree about the feeding tube because during one period of his coma, that was all that was needed to keep him alive
 
Tucker Case said:
True. I was confused by the "bias in favor of life" and assumed it extended further than just assisted suicide.

Kevorkian is not the end all and be all of assisted suicide. I've encountered people who were suffering terribly while simply awaiting a slow and agonizing death. To me, it seems execcively cruel to force them to endure such hardship if that is contrary to their will.
Click to expand...
There's lots of good pain-killers out there. People don't have to only suffer or die. Pain can be managed. I just like to bring up Kevorkian because he is kinda the face of assisted suicide, and, as I say, he was crazy.


Thank you for your kind words. I disagree about the feeding tube because during one period of his coma, that was all that was needed to keep him alive
Click to expand...
I don't see heroic as any life saving measure. Providing for the basic need of food or water is not heroic, it's well basic care.
 
X Factor said:
There's lots of good pain-killers out there. People don't have to only suffer or die. Pain can be managed. I just like to bring up Kevorkian because he is kinda the face of assisted suicide, and, as I say, he was crazy.
Click to expand...

For some pain, the only amount of pain killers that can ease the pain would create a zombie-state. Your method forces these people to choose between excruciating pain and a zombie-like state.

I see nothing wrong with allowing them to die with dignity and by their own choice.

I don't see heroic as any life saving measure. Providing for the basic need of food or water is not heroic, it's well basic care.
Click to expand...

I see forcing food and water into the person as heroic measures. If it's something that the perosn cannot do on their own, nor choose to have done to them, and they would die without intervention, it is "heroic" as it is saving their life which would not be sustained.
 
Tucker Case said:
For some pain, the only amount of pain killers that can ease the pain would create a zombie-state. Your method forces these people to choose between excruciating pain and a zombie-like state.

I see nothing wrong with allowing them to die with dignity and by their own choice.
Click to expand...
If somebody wants to take their life, I don't like it but I can't stop it, but I don't believe you can consent to your own killing and doctors should have no hand in it.


I see forcing food and water into the person as heroic measures. If it's something that the perosn cannot do on their own, nor choose to have done to them, and they would die without intervention, it is "heroic" as it is saving their life which would not be sustained.
Click to expand...
I just don't see being denied food and water as any kind of humane way to go.
 
X Factor said:
If somebody wants to take their life, I don't like it but I can't stop it, but I don't believe you can consent to your own killing and doctors should have no hand in it.
Click to expand...

What if the perosn is physically unable to take their own life?

Do you think that this inability removes their ability to choose for themselves?


I just don't see being denied food and water as any kind of humane way to go.
Click to expand...

Being denied food and water would imply that the person has a choice, and has chosen to have food and water.

This cannot be true in most feeding tube situations.

See, for both apsects, the main issue for me is choice. When there is an ability to choose for one' self, I support them in whatever choice they make. It's not my business (or anywone elses, IMO) what means they choose to employ in that choice.

When they don't have the ability to make a choice, it is then someone acting as "God". The only peopel who should have the ability to make such choices for another person are those closest to them because that choice should be made by someone who has a high likelihood of making the choice the perosn themselves would make. outsiders should be prohibitted form ever making these choices for others. It should be left to the loved ones, and nobody else.

If there is a disagreement among loved ones, then the one who is legally considered closest has the final say (Spouse/domestic partner, if any, would be first, parents if there is no spouse, and so on and so forth).

Obviously a living will would be the ultimate call, as that would be the choice made by the person in advance.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
My best friend is one.
Click to expand...

Then you should know what they hold dear. $$.

You are aware that it is the IRS that is set to manage this new government run healthcare right? And that they are bringing on 15k new accountants to do that? You think these people are going to be concerned with human worth or the bottom line?
 
Tucker Case said:
So are you saying his assumption is that people will be "tricked" into chosing death because of the wording of a question in a workbook??!?!
Click to expand...

That's what it seems to me he's suggesting.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't like the questions on page 21. They could lead someone to become depressed instead of being optimistic about their situation. I wouldn't want a loved one of mine worrying about being a burden or worrying about money for example.
Click to expand...

That's just ridiculous. Those are honest questions that should be asked. The effect those questions have on that person is about them, not the questions.
 
mac said:
Then you should know what they hold dear. $$.

You are aware that it is the IRS that is set to manage this new government run healthcare right? And that they are bringing on 15k new accountants to do that? You think these people are going to be concerned with human worth or the bottom line?
Click to expand...

You do understand that accountants are also bounded by professional ethics, so money is not the only focus. And just because there will be a lot of accountants involved does not mean what you want it to mean. Sorry. No evidence.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's what it seems to me he's suggesting.
Click to expand...
Alls I'm saying is that a guy that co-authored a workbook about end of life decisions is a proponent of physician assisted suicide. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
 
X Factor said:
Alls I'm saying is that a guy that co-authored a workbook about end of life decisions is a proponent of physician assisted suicide. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
Click to expand...

And though I don't agree with your assessment because of the questions themselves, I understand and respect your concerns.
 
liblady said:
on the one hand, you are one of the people who RANT on and on about people's taxes, and yet, you want to pay for a very old woman's pacemaker. dishonest.
Click to expand...

This is what gets me. They want to gripe about how costly Medicare is, then when cost saving matters are brought up such as - is it cost effective for Medicare to pay for a heart transplant for a 90 year old with liver cancer? Not that in every circumstance will someone be denied insurance payment for a transplant, just that the overall feasibility of the procedure should be looked at. Then they want to club you over the head with 'death panels' and 'killing granny'.

It's kinda like trying to herd cats...LOL... :lol:
 
Redress said:
Barb, the booklet looks at all sides, tries to present arguments for people to think of from staying alive no matter what to pulling the plug when life support is needed. Picking out one page of questions and saying it is bad because of those is silly. When the VA workbook came up last time, I was the one who actually read it and countered all the people who kept pulling comments out of context. It's not going to work trying to paint this as wanting our vets to decide to die, or death panel type crap. It just does not work.
Click to expand...

I looked through the whole thing and thought it was good. I just don't like page 21.

I heard that the End of Life in the HC bill comes with printed brochures, a movie and I imagine scripted questions the doctor/nurse/ or whoever else is allowed will be required to ask at the time of each annual physical before they get paid for the counceling. Sorry, but I just don't like the government having their hands in this.
More suspicion arises with the way Obama put this back in the day after Christmas, against the will of Congress and the will of the people.
We know that elder care is costly and for this bill to work it's going to have to be rationed. To pretend that the End of Life section will not encourage less treatment by guiding a person and their family away from life then is just naive in my opinion.
 
X Factor said:
There's lots of good pain-killers out there. People don't have to only suffer or die. Pain can be managed. I just like to bring up Kevorkian because he is kinda the face of assisted suicide, and, as I say, he was crazy.


I don't see heroic as any life saving measure. Providing for the basic need of food or water is not heroic, it's well basic care.
Click to expand...

I never want someone to allow me to starve to death or die of thirst and I don't know that I could do that to a loved one. That was the only way my husband could eat the last yr and a half of his life, although he wasn't bedridden. He couldn't swallow due to having his tongue, jaw removed from cancer. I agree this is just a basic need and nothing heroic about it.
 
BWG said:
This is what gets me. They want to gripe about how costly Medicare is, then when cost saving matters are brought up such as - is it cost effective for Medicare to pay for a heart transplant for a 90 year old with liver cancer? Not that in every circumstance will someone be denied insurance payment for a transplant, just that the overall feasibility of the procedure should be looked at. Then they want to club you over the head with 'death panels' and 'killing granny'.

It's kinda like trying to herd cats...LOL... :lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe conservatives care about the individuals than the "collective" society.
Liberals seem to willing to throw individuals under the bus if they are perceived as being a burden on the collective.
 
Barbbtx said:
I never want someone to allow me to starve to death or die of thirst and I don't know that I could do that to a loved one.
Click to expand...

Thankfully with end of life counseling you can make those wishes known. And now the counseling will actually be covered.
 
Redress said:
Thankfully with end of life counseling you can make those wishes known. And now the counseling will actually be covered.
Click to expand...
If someone was not physically sick yet indicated they wanted to starve themselves to death, would you just let them do it?
 
X Factor said:
If someone was not physically sick yet indicated they wanted to starve themselves to death, would you just let them do it?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom