"This person suffering from hereditary
defects costs the people 60,000
Reichmarks during his lifetime. People,
that is your money. Read 'New People'."
Posted on 06/22/2005 1:25:39 AM PDT by FairOpinion
The politicization of Terri Schiavo prompted the American Medical Association on Tuesday to adopt policy opposing any legislation that presumes patients would want life-sustaining treatment unless it is clear that they would not.
Tuesday's action at the annual meeting of the nation's largest doctors group also reaffirms existing AMA policy that says it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Nice pun on lady justice.
But as the spouse you had final say. That's how it is in most states at least. I fail to see the problem. And surely it wasn't 15 years
Better get some more beds. The general public is still against presumption of death according to the AMA's own studies.
And unfortunately the general public, Democrats and Republicans, believe this comes at no cost, while in fact it comes either through higher taxation or higher hospital bills which are passed on through Medicare (leading to higher taxation either way)
Let me correct that statement..it's not the society or the people that want Carte blanc to kill others, it's the majority of Physicians, the insurance companies and a few wackos cheering on the sidelines for full blown euthanasia.
Yes I know. I won't even tell you about the last time I went to the doctor, only to have them offer me euthanasia over my severe head cold. It is not the majority of Physicians nor the insurance companies. Contrary to popular kooky beliefs around here of late, the general medical profession is not 'out to get us all'. And the last place I want support from is a bureaucratic government official. You believe by giving those idiots the power to prevent something, think again. The next time it may be against your opinion and you've already given them the power
Studies show that the medical profession would like that little problem called a living will to be taken care of as well.
Could you provide some of these 'studies'? And nothing from the Empire Journal or Life News. I don't take anyone seriously that calls a quack a 'Nobel Prize nominee'
Go ahead and raise my rates..they never had a problem with it before ...why now?
Ah yes, you 'conservatives' always thinking ahead. Put the insurance companies out of business and just drive us straight towards nationalized medicine in your never-ending quest to right the wrongs. And if you think nationalized medicine would support these claims, they would be even worse
Have you ever heard of a little proposal to let people pay into a medical saving account to supplement for premium health care if they choose it? It follows along the same line of thinking for private social security accounts.
Neither social security or any form of medicare should exist in the first place. But that's what differentiates Republicans and conservatives. Republicans actually believe government is good for something and can help you.
Sounds like a conservative stance to me to let those who have worked their arses off all their lives decide if they want to pay extra themselves to live on this planet for as long as they choose, in whatever condition they choose.
Um, no one is debating if you want to spend all your money on keeping a loved one alive. However, the argument is that a spouse who knows the wishes of their spouse should have the right to disconnect life support if there is no living will without government intervention
I've actually seen some Freepers promoting the idea that non-producers do not have the right to suck up any resources that are necessary for their survival. If someone isn't capable of living without assistance, they have no right to life. I just can't imagine how anyone developes such a hateful attitude.
Teehehehe....Cute.
http://www.togopeacefully.com/DOCTOR.html
....survey of Wisconsin physicians which found that 27% of them said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if it were legalized. Catholic and fundamentalist physicians were less likely to be willing. Family and general practice physicians were most willing ....
In 1995, the Center for Ethics in Health Care at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland surveyed 2,761 of the state’s physicians after Oregon voters passed Measure 16 allowing physician aid-in-dying. Dr. Lee reported the following numbers:
73% believed that terminally ill persons have the right to suicide;
66% believed that physician assisted suicide is ethical;
60% believed that physician assisted suicide should be legal;
46% would be willing to comply with a patient’s valid request;
21% had been asked for a lethal prescription in the past year;
7% had written a lethal prescription before Measure 16 passed.
Dr. Bachman reported that of 1,119 Michigan physicians surveyed in 1994 and 1995 40% favored a law permitting physician-assisted suicide. When asked if they themselves would be willing to participate in physician assisted suicide or in voluntary euthanasia, 52% said they would not, 13% said they might participate only in assisted suicide and 22% said they might participate in both.
The July 14, 1994, New England Journal of Medicine contained a “Special Article” entitled, “Attitudes Toward Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Among Physicians in Washington State.”
The results: of the 1,355 eligible physicians who received our questionnaire, 938 (69%) responded. Forty-eight percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that euthanasia is never ethically justified, and 42 percent disagreed. Fifty-four percent thought euthanasia should be legal in some situations, but only 33% stated they would be willing to perform euthanasia. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents agreed with the statement that physician-assisted suicide is never ethically justified, and 50 percent disagreed. Fifty-three percent thought assisted suicide should be legal in some situations, but only 40 percent stated that they would be willing to assist a patient in committing suicide.
A January 1988 poll of 7,000 physicians in Colorado polled by the Center for Health Ethics and Policy at the University of Colorado found that 14% have helped patients stockpile lethal doses of drugs; 60% had had patients for whom euthanasia would have been justified if legal; 35% would have injected a lethal drug dose had such a practice been legal.
A sample of 600 physicians in California in 1988 found that 95% of them who have been asked to hasten death agreed that such a request can be “rational.” Nearly 23% said they had already helped people die, some of them have aided three or more patients to die. Forty percent said they thought other doctors hastened the death of some patients despite the legal prohibition.
The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine reported in February, 1996, that a survey of 879 doctors in adult intensive care units throughout the United States found that 96% of the doctors had discontinued medical treatment by either withdrawing or withholding treatment with the expectation that the patient would die as a result. Of the total, 85% had done so at least once in the last year.
Dying Well Network knows physicians in the Spokane, Washington area who are willing to aid terminally ill persons to hasten death, but does not connect terminally ill persons with these courageous(?)physicians. Persons seeking aid-in-dying are directed to their own physicians.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Reinhardt noted,
The Oregon AMA refrained from taking a position on a successful ballot initiative to legalize physician assisted suicide because its membership was sharply divided on whether to back or oppose the measure. Many more doctors support physician-assisted suicide but without openly advocating a change in the legal treatment of the practice. A recent study of Oregon physicians found that 60% of those who responded believed that physician-assisted suicide should be legal.
Doctor's bury their mistakes.
The AMA probably advocates creamation despite religious objections.
Who decides? What if there IS a living will saying do all and there is not scientific or any chance?
If the person is an organ donor, can doctors pull the plug faster? Does an organ donor card mean kill me fast?
Does insurance play a consideration? (they say no but the FACT is that lack of insurance increases you chances of death by "pulled plug.")
It's that compassionate part of "compassionate conservative" that gets the bean counters every-time.
"However, the argument is that a spouse who [may or may not know] the wishes of their spouse should have the right to [keep life support connected] if there is [or is not a] living will without [the courts or physician's] intervention."
There I fixed that for you.
Because 'compassionate conservatism' isn't conservative. It's repackaged big government liberalism and nothing else. Government knows best right?
"However, the argument is that a spouse who [may or may not know] the wishes of their spouse should have the right to [keep life support connected] if there is [or is not a] living will without [the courts or physician's] intervention."
And you know none of these things in the case in Florida or in any other instance you are not personally involved in. You did in your situation but you do not, and can not, know. Neither you or any other conspiracy theorist can divine what was said between spouses. And for you to use the government to require a spouse not to move on with his or her life because you disagree with the decision is just more big government intrusive liberalism
Patients gave the following reasons for wanting to die:
* future loss of control, 159 patients (77% of the total);
* being a burden, 156 (75%);
* being dependent on others for some or all personal care, 154 (74%);
* loss of dignity, 149 (72%);
* being restricted to bed more than 50% of the time, 119 (57%);
* experiencing severe depression or depressed mood, 114 (55%);
* experiencing severe suffering, 108 (52%);
* experiencing severe physical discomfort other than pain, 103 (50%);
* experiencing severe pain, 73 (35%);
* worried about medical costs, 48 (23%).
Note that pain is the least often given reason for wanting to hasten death. Loss of control and dignity, being a burden and dependent, and being restricted to bed most of the time are the reasons most often given for wanting to hasten death.
However, physicians were least likely to aid those who mentioned non-physical reasons and most likely to aid when physical pain was one of the primary reasons for asking. Physicians declined to give aid-in-dying to 114 of the 156 patients (73%) asking for it. They refused for the following reasons:
* the symptoms were potentially treatable, 26 (23%);
* the patient was depressed, 22 (19%);
* the patient was expected to live longer than six months, 21 (18%);
* the degree of suffering “didn’t justify” the request, 13 (11%);
* the physician didn’t know the patient “well enough,” 6 (5%);
* the physician “felt that physicians should never participate in physician-suicide,” 34 (30%);
* the physician was worried about legal consequences, 17 (15%).
And yet somehow the majority didn't give aid-in-dying to patients, the main reason of which the situation was potentially treatable. Tell me, how do you treat someone whose cerebral cortex has turned to liquid? Flash some sparkling lights at them? Darn that Nobel Prize Committee for not recognizing real 'talent'!!
What is the AMA decision/position on abortion? Hopeless cases?
Why do I care what their position is? It has nothing to do with keeping a body alive far beyond the time that a loved one may want as you would desire
The AMA is essentially a branch of Government. Do you really want the Government to tell you when your loved ones must leave this earth? From past experience, this seems contradictory with your views.
Thank you. This is exactly what I have been trying to tell billbears all along.
A JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) study found that 48% of seriously ill patients wanted to "use all available treatments no matter what the chance of recovery," compared with 31% of patients who disagreed,
also found that among physicians, only 7% agreed with the pro-treatment position, compared to 81% who disagreed.
No it's not contradictory to my views. My view has always been the decision is a state decision. Scalia's view and Madison's view both support this stance. Granted the issue in Florida was handled badly but when the national government got involved as a conservative first and foremost, the only stance I could take was against Congressional intervention
Did you see..the AMA is trying to block any STATE legislation for the presumption of life..not Federal.
From the AMA
Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis. (I, III, IV, V)
And that's the only place this should happen.
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.