Replies

Thanks, BB

Deciding to kill one's family member is a hard choice for some, perhaps made easier by a new law.

Methinks this law just might have helped Mikey if he had been in Pennsylvania at the time. Looks to me like it may have saved him some unsavory juggling with compliant judges. Perhaps others will interpret it differently.

When Kay Iellimo was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in October, she didn't have a living will. But her family knew she didn't want to live hooked up to ventilators and struggling through chemotherapy treatments.

On Dec. 30, Iellimo, 74, died "beautifully and peacefully," with no attempts at resuscitation. The family had chosen her daughter, Sharon Panaia, to make the end-of-life care decisions for her.

Snip...

Today, a new Pennsylvania law governing end-of-life care decisions goes into effect. The law is designed to make the process easier on families and fulfill patients' wishes regarding life-sustaining measures. It seeks to avoid controversies such as the prolonged battle over the care of Terri Schiavo, who died in Florida in 2005.

Easing the way for hard choices

8mm

Thanks for finding this, pzenger. (Posted above at #1,1812)

So many for so long here tried to show a conservative side of cheering on Mikey for his deeds. Perhaps it was equivocal enough for many to be convinced that maybe Mikey was really doing something good. For those still clinging to lingering wistful dreams, here is one more clear illustration of the far left position of Mikey, a position I prefer to just call evil.

Mikey takes his daily kos.

Also he begs for money.

...........................

It’s almost two years now since Terri’s case and my life were front page news around the world.

It seems like just yesterday that right-wing radio shows and internet "news" sites were challenging the President and Congress to illegally inject themselves into my most private and personal decisions.

Everyone remembers what happened: they did.

And but for the courage of a few judges we all would have been witnesses to perhaps the most political and outrageous abuse of power. And if you’re reading this you know the political fall-out from their self-righteous decisions..................................

But wait, there's more! This is a sample. Be sure to read the rest of his stuff.

I'm asking - What Now? Need your input (poll).

8mm

I found a website that was set up specifically to "help Pennsylvania patients and caregivers gain a better understanding of living wills, health care agents, and this new law." Pennsylvania Medical Society I can't find anything on their website that reveals the actual contents of the law, or any links to anyone who does. They obviously don't really want anyone to understand Pennsylvania's new law, or they'd provide a copy of it. Or at least a link to it.

Okay, I finally found it. Act 169. Enacted by Senate (SB 628 ) Nov 19, 2006. Signed by Gov. Rendell the next day.

This is a dangerous law. On the plus side, it does offer some protection for vulnerable individuals. If your health care agent orders your death, you can rescind the order even if you're not competent, assuming you're able to inform the doctor. That's the only protection I found. Everything else is geared toward killing you.

There is no need for a person to express a desire to forgo any treatment. If you don't specify, there can be no presumption that you would want to live.

Your health care agent does not need to prove he's following your wishes. He's only required to consider them, as well as other factors like your condition, prognosis, finances, etc. Your expressed wishes bear no more weight than any other factor. There is no provision for challenging the decision to starve and dehydrate you to death.

If you do not assign a health care agent, one will be appointed to you. That agent has the same power as one that you could have assigned personally. They have the power to have you starved and dehydrated to death, and there is no provision for anyone else to dispute this. The law is unclear, but it appears your health care provider is the one who appoints your health care agent, according to preset guidelines. Your health care agent can be replaced "for cause," but they don't say what constitutes cause, or the procedure for replacing them. I guess the doctor just picks the next available relative, friend, or neighbor on the list.

Health care workers are protected from prosecution, whether they act in accordance with your wishes or not. As long as they act in good faith. And that doesn't mean they have faith that they're following your wishes. Your wishes bear no more weight than any other factor. They just have to have faith that they're doing the right thing, whether you like it or not.

If you sign an advance directive, it goes into effect when you are "determined by the attending physician to be incompetent and in a terminal condition or in a state of permanent unconsciousness. They don't require the team of doctors that the Nazis required. Just one doctor. They allow no distinction between terminal, end-stage, and unconscious. There may be procedures you would wish to forgo during the end stage of a terminal disease, but if you put that in writing, you will be denied those procedures at any point during the terminal illness, or even in the absence of a terminal illness if you're "permanently unconscious." They removed the wording that would have specifically allowed you to make different provisions for a terminal condition as opposed to brain damage. It's now considered one and the same. And you don't really have to put it in writing at all. You will have a health care agent, whether you assign one, or someone else does. That health care agent wields enormous power to make life and death decisions for you, based in part on what he thinks you might want, but not entirely.

Ain't we got fun?