It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Wants To Euthanize Americans

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


I hold everyone involved harmless in my father's case. 100% agree with you that no one wants to see someone else suffer unnecessarily. Everyone did the best they could under the circumstances.

The medical industry is a monster however. Not the nurses and care-givers!




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Why put all that in a new bill? All of the conditions and pre-requisites are already in place. What's the point of making a new bill for something that is already working???



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

[start sarcasm]
Obama just solved the social security crisis, kill everyone before they get to the age of 65.

Brilliant!
[end sarcasm]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 





I will not speak for other hospitals, but in the hostpital where I work (ICU nurse) we do not just keep people alive "for the money." We follow the wishes of the patient, and the family. Sometimes the family just doesn't want to let go. I have had many long frank discussions with family members, explaining what their loved ones were going through, and the chances of survival with any kind of quality of life. (This was done at the doctor's direction, after he had discussed it with them, or it was initiated by a loved one, who was confuesed and didn't know which way to turn.)

The hospital made a mistake by resusitating you father if he had an advanced directive, but in all fairness to the nurses, their first instinct is to save the patient. If the living will was on the chart, the doctor should have asked a couple of pertinant questions, and then called it.

The problem is, the doctors, the nurses, everyone involved are human and they dislike seeing someone under their care die. Young nurses and doctors are the worse, because they are "gung ho" and haven't seen the suffering that can occur at end of life.

I am a firm believer in DNR's and living wills. It should be the patient, and the family who makes that decision. If they desire input from the doctors and nurses, it should be availabe.


You said exactly what I wanted to say.

Health care givers do not know or care about a person's insurance or ability to pay.

Add to the above that their are checks and balances (nothing to do with money). In some instances a death within 30 days of dismissal from a hospital is considered a fault of the hospital. Records are kept by outside agencies on such things and sometimes published in the paper. There is peer review within hospitals; for instance, a patient returns to the hospital within a certain time frame...these records are reviewed for quality of care and sometimes the doctors get warning letters or have to defend their actions.

There has been much talk about having to follow 'best practice' as though it will somehow limit what physicians are allowed to do. These are regimes that have proven to work in the best interest of the patient. Most hospitals already require physicians to follow these practices. There is nothing new here. What is new is the government in the health care business.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I don’t reply to political posts on ATS because there are very few instances where middle ground is found by the “true believers” who post for either side. Rather, it seems, those of us who have opened our eyes not only to the “evils” of our political opposition, but have become disenfranchised by the actions and ignorance of our own party, seem to be in the minority even on a site like ATS. It’s better watch the zealots tear each other to shreds with witless barbs and propaganda designed to enrage instead of enlighten.
However, upon reading this thread, I could not help but be troubled not only by the fervor with which the OP’s supporters rallied to rabble rouse their minions to anger over this supposed injustice, but moreso, by the acquiescence of any of those who oppose the OP’s reporting. Thus, I hope address the OP’s post point-by-point.

First, statement:
“we should be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity. The section requires that they talk to their doctor, not a lawyer, about living wills, durable healthcare powers of attorney, hospice, etc.”

A quick look at the actual language of the section in question reveals this to be false. Truth is the section of this proposed bill would only make it necessary that health care providers counsel elderly patients about end of life care and the options available to those patients at a minimum of once every five years. No where does it say that they must counsel the elderly to choose to sign DNR forms, or that the patients are not allowed to counsel with their families and or their attorneys as well. This is simply fear mongering and has no place in intelligent debate.

Second Point:
“Given the progressive intelligentsia already being on the record in favor of euthanizing the elderly, it is no small leap to see where the Democrats are headed with this”.

Response:
This must be a joke right? There is not now, nor has there ever been a defined movement of ideas or people which could be labled the “progressive intelligentsia,” rather it is being loosely used to define an amorphous amalgamation of people and prescribe to them a definite/on record preference to euthanize the elderly. Hell, “the elderly” is not a definite term for that matter. Thus, to simply make up a group of people and say that they are “on record” in favor of one thing or another is simply building an argument which is inherently false.
Further, to claim that it is not a “small leap” to see where the Dems are headed with this is simply ludicrous. I submit that it is indeed a giant leap of astronomical proportions to assume that simply because a section in a proposed health care bill requires medical personal to counsel patients over a certain age about the “end-of-life” options such as signing a DNR form, that said bill is tantamount to “Obama wants to kill your grandmother,” is not only wrong it is willful ignorance to a degree close to bordering on criminal negligence.

Third Point:
“Legally forcing senior citizens to have “death with dignity schedules every few years is just another way to say the government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide to save the system money.”

Response:
Not much to say here except that anyone who can extrapolate that required counseling every five years is another way to say that “the government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide to save the system money” is beyond any hope of reasoning with, and will continue to spout things like “deny ignorance” while personally embracing that very ignorance like a child clings to a binky.

I recommend we all remove our personal binkies (which we all have) and try to find the truth behind the lies. We are all being lied too on both sides and until we recognize this and try to build something new together we will fail.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Come on people, why are some of y'all being so literal about this?

I did more than than read the bill, I read between the lines.

* PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE FOR END OF LIFE CARE
* the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization
* shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment

They are weaving a web and these consultation sessions will involve nothing more than dictating their grim reaper agenda using the Doctor as a proxy.

This piece of work was written by lawyers in "Legalese" so naturally they are not going to literally include the word "euthanize" anywhere in the bill.
Read between the lines and connect the dots.



eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh] –noun
1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.


Look it up!

While your at it take a look up the synonyms too.
Assisted suicide, putting of of misery, playing God, pulling the plug.
Not to mention: annihilation, casualty, demise, ending as in "end of life", eradication, expiration, fatality...

Newsflash: Americans will not want to wait for weeks, months or years to see if a certain procedure will be covered. No way, no how!
Europe and America are two different cultures so what works in Europe won't work in the US because Americans are used to getting things done NOW!
We live in a world of fast everything, fast food, fast cars, fast internet, so naturally we want fast results.
Europeans are accustomed to waiting patiently for care because they have no other option.
Hmmm, maybe that's why they claim to be more "civilized" than us Americans?
This might explain why they are too embarrassed to make a scene.

Americans wrote the book on "the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" and they're not buying any Snake Oil from Obama.

Here is another eye opener.
Obama wants to model his healthcare reform after Medicare, the same Medicare which he claims will soon go bankrupt (someone please explain this), while it has just been reported that the percentage of claims denied by Medicare happens to be higher than all but one of the private insurance companies.
Dallas Morning News link

Slightly OT, why should we trust Obama when not one of his campaign promises have yet to be kept?
In fact, he seems to be doing the complete opposite of what he promised to do.
Does anyone see a pattern here?

Believing Obama when he says his healthcare plan will be better and more efficient is like believing a used car salesman when he says "trust me".

Maybe some crossword puzzle expert can help me out here, there must be a _blank_letter word for "stealing from the dead".
(Ex. BarryHood, he'll rob from the dead to give to himself.)

If this thing passes, I've got the perfect logo, Obama as the Grim Reaper.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I think it should be a personal choice, I don't think it should be illegal, and I don't see any harm in requiring this advance planning.


Do you not see any harm in advanced planning in general or do you not see any harm in the government deciding what your "options" for death are?

Could you please clarify.


Oh, I said earlier that it was a very slippery slope, and that money should not figure into the equation at all!

I see plenty of potential pitfalls! However, we have plenty of pitfalls in the current environment as well. Right now the Healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies are running unchecked. The law supports their efforts to keep you alive at all costs and bilk the insurance providers.

At least in the new system it is kind of a check and balance. Government Insurance vs. Profit Mongers.

I don't see a problem with the "planning" and foresight of an inevitable death, but I don't want the decision based on anyone's "budget"!!!!

Someone mentioned terminal kids earlier. That is a huge topic! No parent is going to opt for an early exit for their kid. If the gov't steps in and says that they have to, it will result in serious shockwaves!

By the same token, the gov't should not say that they 'cannot' opt for an early exit and prosecute those that assist them.

The problem with helping someone make an early exit is there is almost always someone who profits from it or a decision is made during a period of depression.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Come on people, why are some of y'all being so literal about this?

I did more than than read the bill, I read between the lines.



You may have read between the lines, but it seems you didn't read the lines themselves.

All of the provisions outlined under that section of the bill are related to patient choice. Not government choice, not doctor choice, not insurance company choice. The patient decides their end of life care. If they want to be kept alive on a machine, or loaded full of drugs to keep on kicking as long as possible, that is their right under this bill.

They also have the right to say they don't want to be kept on feeding tubes, or suspended in a coma for 30 years, etc. It is about the right to die with dignity, not being forced to.

Source (the bill itself):



‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary);

‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

‘(iii) the use of antibiotics;

‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.


(emphasis mine)

The bolded sections should be pretty clear-cut. There is no between the lines when all of the care is up to 'the individual' (the patient).



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
"Obama Wants To Euthanize Americans"!!! Did'ja hear that everyone? Wow, just look at that headline. Of course it's true. Friends we must continue to DENY IGNORANCE....! Obama is planning on EUTHANIZING AMERICANS! I read it here first! That darn ole' Obama, he's just bound and determined to bring our whole country down! ;(



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

He may be a "adulterous scumbag" but this has no bearing because the Obama bill should speak for itself.

I suggest you forget about the "scumbag" radio host and read the universal End Of Life healthcare bill.
Here it is again


You forget that in society anytime a deflection of your point can
be made, you better believe someone is going to take your point
and run it down the tangent trail.

The bill is to send counselors out to guilt the nearly dead into
getting on with it.

It does not compare to what the nazi's did with their elderly,
but we all must admit it is a step in that direction.

The elderly are already the most likely age group to commit suicide.

Why not hire over priced psych grads to go around and use
social psychology to make these already depressed used up
"human resources" cash in for their ass-et value.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Okay guys...I haven't read thru the whole post and all the replies, but I watched this item being debated in comittee on C-span. This particular amendment was presented by Ensign-a Republican.

I'm a liberal, I happen to think this is a good thing.

Many people do not have their end of life wishes recorded. The family fights whether or not to keep their family members on life support.

Your end of life plan maybe to be kept on life suppport until the machines wear out...or it could be to pull the plug.

This part of the bill puts the end of life wishes between a patient and a doctor. The current system puts the end of life issue between a patient, a doctor and lawyer. For many of the elderly, the filing of end of life wishes is an expense many of them can not afford.

Edited for clarity.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by its bologna]




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join