Some years ago, a good friend of mine went in for his annual checkup and they found a cancerous tumor. After considering all the options carefully, he decided to let nature take his course. He was a man of means and had good medical insurance, but he made an informed decision that the last few months of his life would be more valuable spending it with his family and with all his facilities intact rather than subject himself to the rigors of chemo. He lived only three months after that diagnosis but had a wonderful three months with his family and friends, never once allowing any of them to express sympathy for his terminal disease.
Another dear friend, who is not a man of means, has gone through repeated rounds of chemo at one of the nation's top cancer clinics. It has gone into remission, only to return months later. He still has kids to raise and his wife and family are with him to continue whatever treatments are available for whatever time he has left.
The point is that two very different and two very good men are making totally opposite decisions for different reasons.
And whether or not, as a friend, I approve of their decisions is not relevant because it is a decision for them, their families and their doctors. It is not a decision which I aspire to make as their friend and it is certainly not a decision for some government bureaucrat to make who knows far less about these men, their families and their circumstances than I do as a close friend.
Who knos more about running Death Panels than a Reich?
You sound like a good Friend.
My Best Friend recently passed away.
He was a Viet Nam Vet and his cancer was Service related.
His Doctor managed to keep him alive for Fifteen years after Diagnosis.
Five different types of treatment were use over the years.
We had lots of good times, even the last few years.
Stevie was Very Competitive and felt he had beaten the odds and outlasted his original prognosis by years.