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 ...
"....and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."
So I guess the trick is to avoid the 45 percent.
Please see my post #64.
The AMA opposing any legislation that presumes patients would want life-sustaining treatment
The AMA policy says it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the patient's best interests.
And per the standard in the Terri Schiavo case "life-sustaining treatment" is food and water
So it is ethical to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, no presuming patients would want life-sustaining treatment, and food and water provided to you are life-sustaining treatment
So if a Government court or Doctor decides your incompetent, your live is at there discretion to take based on what they decide is in your best interest...
What I don't get is some "Libertarian" thinking that its right to giving this much power to the Government or Doctors
Do you have any information on the lobby efforts of the scientologists in Florida? Wonder how much power is exerted over the lawmakers?
Good post...Bump!
Not all doctors have taken the Hippocratic (sic) Oath, and Primum non nocere is actually not in it, anyway. However, there's a prohibition against lethal doses.
You have the right to draw your .45 and tell them to stop. ;-)
Let me rephrases that... What I don't get is why, giving this much power to the Government or Doctors by default over mine or any other person life fits in to some "Libertarian" philosophy of government
Its one thing to say the gov has no right to, against my will, to prevent me from dying
Its another thing for the government, doctors or government appointed guardian to assume its there right to decide without my explicit permission to take my life (removing food and water is taking a life) unless I'm in a position to say no
Interesting point. You are right - they are usually yelling about government overstepping its bounds - but they seem to like this statement. Hm...........veeeeerrry interesting..........
How very sad.
My opinion - We will just have to stay out of hospitals as they will be the slaughter houses. Every pill, every shot, every time the nurse runs tests, you will worry that they are analyzing whether you get to live or not.
Right - "best interests". What? Are they afraid they might kill the patient if they do not stop treatment?
Looks like a little bit of lawsuit prevention is going on with this statement.
Well I was going to say, they certanly work more then three days a week.
More like 12 hour shifts a week, and then a week off.
It ain't no 24 hours a week.
"My opinion - We will just have to stay out of hospitals as they will be the slaughter houses. Every pill, every shot, every time the nurse runs tests, you will worry that they are analyzing whether you get to live or not."
Let's hear it for HOME CARE.
That's a good idea - but guess it can't be the Nurses Home Care - because they may also judge us in the privacy of our homes. We will just have to come up with a neighborhood HOME MEDICAL CARE RESPECTING SANCTITY OF LIFE or HMCRSL.
We will have videos running during our visit to prove that we did nothing to kill but helped. We might need a doctor to give us medical advice that we can enact (but at least he won't have access to the patient).
There will be peace and security for all - no more sleepless nights watching for when those nurses try and pull something on you while you sleep.
Maybe pro-lifers need to form some kind of coalition to watch each other's backs.
.. it is ethical in some cases to discontinue life-sustaining treatment if it is in the care taker's best interests.
You are right about that!
It was illegal to deny a patient food and water in Florida too.
Impressive.
"So I guess the trick is to avoid the 45 percent."
Being religious isn't always a presumption of goodness. Many terrorist afterall believe in a "God".
"What I don't get is some "Libertarian" thinking that its right to giving this much power to the Government or Doctors"
you left out and the guardians.
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.