Posted on 08/14/2009 6:51:27 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
There is NOTHING WRONG with a “living will” but I do not want those would profit from my death to be able to EXECUTE that living will by executing ME!
Read the bill, troll bigot.
The government gets to KILL YOU by denial of care, regardless of your living will wishes, in certain cases. It depends on what the “death panels” decide.
Also, the Terry Shiavo case was troubling to many of us, primarily BECAUSE we allowed an abusive spouse to kill the only witness to a possible crime, in other words, it was:
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
Like duh, thats what I told you in #76
"within the limits of generally accepted health standards"
Do you understand "limits"?
Well, here it is.
I haven't read this yet, only skimmed it. I've worked up the fortitude to read the outline of topic headings, and, like pretty much everything else I've read associated with this white house initiative, the language is dark, ominous, and just plain unbelievable.
I have to go slow with things like this. Encountering tortured logic, to me, is like eating poison.
Do you think Obama was right, when Obama was the ONLY person in the Illinois Legislature to argue against a law that would mandate medical care be provided to live, born babies who had survived an attempted abortion?
Do you agree with Zeke Emanuel, Obama’s chief health care adviser, that those with dementia or alzheimers or disabilities should NOT get medical care that would prolong their lives?
Do you support Oregon’s assisted suicide, or euthanasia laws?
If so, would you support the government taking over the role of the patient, in making a decision in favor of death?
You are a liberal.
Worse than that, you are a dishonest, bigoted liberal troll here to lie and try to pit conservatives against one another.
It is not working.
You, and your Nazi President, are going down the tubes on this one!
I don't think that number is possible. If the "Terry Schiavo affair motivated many to get a living will," (and it certainly afforded lawyers an opportunity to exploit headlines about it), it has not reached 30% in that short time, unless perhaps 25% or so already had them.
Also, I don't think it's constructive to paint a living will as an advocacy for death -- unless it's being pushed by somebody with an incentive. And of course, the Obama administration sees itself as having an incentive. It is, however, so far over the line of limitations on what a government's responsibilities are, as to make it a mockery. And it would be merely that if it weren't so blatantly totalitarian.
It is not without precedent in the Nazi regime. And here's some documentation of that:
One such theorist, Adolf Jost, issued an early call for direct medical killing in a book published in 1895 and significantly entitled “The Right to Death” (Das Recht auf den Tod). Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American tradition of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual’s “right to die” or “right to death” or “right to his or her own death,” as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state’s right to kill. While he spoke of compassion and relief of suffering of the incurably ill, his focus was mainly on the health of the Volk and the state. He pointed out that the state already exercises those “rights” in war, where thousands of individuals are sacrificed for the good of the state. Ultimately the argument was biological: “The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.” The state must own death — must kill — in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy.²*The crucial work — “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life” (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) — was published in 1920 and written jointly by two distinguished German professors: the jurist Karl Binding, retired after forty years at the University of Leipzig, and Alfred Hoche, professor of psychiatry at the University of Freiburg. Carefully argued in the numbered-paragraph form of the traditional philosophical treatise, the book included as “unworthy life” not only the incurably ill but large segments of the mentally ill, the feebleminded, and retarded and deformed children. More than that, the authors professionalized and medicalized the entire concept. And they stressed the therapeutic goal of that concept: destroying life unworthy of life is “purely a healing treatment” and a “healing work.”³ -- http://www.mazal.org/Lifton/LiftonT046.htm
Thank you so much!
The best you can do is call me names, which means I have beat you.
The federal govt has mandated that hospitals pass out living wills since 1990.
Lawyers have been advising clients on living wills for a long time.
As Senator Issackson pointed out, the states are also involved in this, either thru their AG or social agencies.
And yes, if asked, Doctors will discuss living wills.
But back to the central point, Palins Alaska Living will, Part 2, paragraph 6a.
"Choice To Prolong Life I want my life prolonged as long as possible within the limits of generally accepted health standards
There are limits. And somebody determines what those limits are.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
The living will is NOT, by itself, the problem!
The problem is an anti-life, anti-human rights administration intent on cutting health care costs by killing off sick people!
There is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST here, the government should NOT be involved in this!
Your references to encouragements of hospitals and States to encourage final directives and living wills is TOTALLY ridiculous and without merit! For one thing, as it sits today, any of us can take a case to Federal Court, for denial of our RIGHTS, if we are denied treatment based on age or disability -—
HOWEVER, under the Obama-Pelosi plan, we have NO LEGAL REDRESS, the Courts are DENIED JURISDICTION in any case of denial of care!
Have you READ the bill?
I do not care to change your mind, you are beyond hope.
My goal is only to educate those who read your militant pro death stupidity, as to who you really are.
Nor did you quite prove it. It's highly suspect.
I'm not following the rest of your lively debate.
This was back in 2006, it is probably higher now
I HAVE A LIVING WILL, that is not the point!
The Federal Government should NOT be mandating such things, or suggesting the language that such living wills should contain, nor should any government agent approach any of our parents or loved ones on such a matter.
It is the CONFLICT OF INTEREST, of these gouls in the Obama Administration, that has many of us so upset.
Put it this way, if you had a life and death issue with one of your family members, and you wanted that person to live, and the only doctors availabe were an abortionist, a Jack Kevorkian type doctor, or a normal, true doctor who believed in the sanctity of life, who would you pick to rescue your family member?
Obama is pro death, there is no doubt about it.
I do not want anyone so morbidly in love with death anywhere NEAR my family members or anywhere near the health care industry!
Again, it is the SUM TOTAL of all the emphasis on the Obama-Pelosi plan.
They are obsessed with death, and with rationing of health care.
Read the bill.
Do your homework.
Even if you have a living will to prolong your life, there are limits and someone will decide those limits in accordance with generally accepted health standards.
That is the way it is now.
If a doctor were paid to counsel a patient, none of that would change. It would still be done in accordance with generally accepted health standards.
Read the bill!
Quit reading KOS and DU and LEARN to read the actual legislation!
And that’s a key point.
With private insurance, you have recourse (depending on the state) via arbitration and/or the steps of the courthouse, if you or a loved one is denied care.
Under this plan, your recourse is:
nada
nothing
and you damn well better learn to like it, besides.
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.