It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
From 1996 forward, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and George Soros's Project on Death in America (PDIA) implemented end-of-life (EOL) programs that fit into a three-point strategy to change American culture. Bioethicist Daniel Callahan (healthcare rationing proponent), argued that America was a death-denying society, and suggested a three-point plan for cultural change. The strategy for change was published in a 1995 Hastings Center Report. Callahan's three points were later refined in recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. Those three areas of emphasis -- professional education, institutional change, and public engagement -- provided the framework for RWJF funding thereafter. In the timeline below, we have flagged the EOL programs with corresponding icons:
Originally posted by Femacamper
I heard that when the British Queen goes pheasant hunting, she has people in the woods getting them to all fly towards her, and finally there are hundreds of them in the air.
Apparently it's been caught on video her wrangling their poor little necks too...it's like she's got some major malfunction or something. Perhaps it's related being married to Prince Phillip, who said if he died he would like to come back as a virus and wipe out 80% of humanity.
Nice people we have ruling us, huh?
From: Principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions, January 31, 2009
Also see: Deadly Doctors, New York Post, June 24, 2009
"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."
"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."
"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated"
"Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
From: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008
"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"
From: Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008
"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,"
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
End-of-Life" Counseling sessions required every 5 years for all seniors over 65 in Obama Care.)
"There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable."
"Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: "Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better." Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: "Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide" and "the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care."
"Although the cost savings to the United States and most managed-care plans are likely to be small, it is important to recognize that the savings to specific terminally ill patients and their families could be substantial. For many patients and their families, especially but not exclusively those without health insurance, the costs of terminal care may result in large out-of-pocket expenses. Nevertheless, as compared with the average American, the terminally ill are less likely to be uninsured, since more than two thirds of decedents are Medicare beneficiaries over 65 years of age. The poorest dying patients are likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries. Extrapolating from the Medicare data, one can calculate that a typical uninsured patient, by dying one month earlier by means of physician-assisted suicide, might save his or her family $10,000 in health care costs, having already spent as much as $20,000 in that year."
"Drawing on data from the Netherlands on the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and on available U.S. data on costs at the end of life, this analysis explores the degree to which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide might reduce health care costs. The most reasonable estimate is a savings of $627 million, less than 0.07 percent of total health care expenditures."
by dying one month earlier by means of physician-assisted suicide, might save his or her family $10,000 in health care costs, having already spent as much as $20,000 in that year."
Originally posted by St Vaast
Practically speaking, the allocation criteria make sense. Someone has to draw the line in emergency situations. Otherwise, people would fight and bite each other like dogs to get treatment for themselves and their own.
The criteria is dispassionate. Humans in crisis are emotional and irrational.
If your 23 year old could be saved at the cost of a 65 year old, is anyone here claiming they'd nobly drag their 23 year old to the side and say, ' Oh no. Give the life-saving medicine to that old woman over there. Don't worry about my daughter, I can always have another ' ?
Euthanasia also known as mercy killing is a way of painlessly terminating one’s life with the "humane" motive of ending his suffering. Euthanasia came into public eye recently during the Terri Schiavo controversy where her husband appealed for euthanasia while Terri's family claimed differently. This is a classical case shedding light on the pros and cons of mercy killing. Albania, Belgium, Netherlands, Oregon, Switzerland and Luxembourg are some places where euthanasia or assisted suicide has been legalized. Let's have a look at the arguments that will help us understand the reasoning for / against mercy killing.
Pro Euthanasia Arguments
Legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate suffering of terminally ill patients. It would be inhuman and unfair to make them endure the unbearable pain.
In case of individuals suffering from incurable diseases or in conditions where effective treatment wouldn’t affect their quality of life; they should be given the liberty to choose induced death.
Also, the motive of euthanasia is to "aid-in-dying" painlessly and thus should be considered and accepted by law. Although killing in an attempt to defend oneself is far different from mercy killing, law does find it worth approving.
In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising situation.
Euthanasia should be a natural extension of patient's rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death for him. Maintaining life support systems against the patient's wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isn’t the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic?
Family heirs who would misuse the euthanasia rights for wealth inheritance does not hold true. The reason being even in the absence of legalized mercy killing, the relatives can withdraw the life support systems that could lead to the early death of the said individual. This can be considered as passive involuntary euthanasia. Here they aren’t actively causing the death, but passively waiting for it without the patient’s consent.
It can be inferred that though euthanasia is banned worldwide, passive euthanasia has always been out there which can also be called as passive killing and moreover law doesn’t prohibit it. Disrespect and overuse of (passive) euthanasia has always existed and will be practiced by surrogates with false motives. These are the ones who don’t need a law to decide for one’s life. Present legal restrictions leaves both the incurable patients as well as pro euthanasia activists helpless who approve euthanasia as good will gesture for patient’s dignity.
Health care cost is and will always be a concern for the family irrespective of euthanasia being legalized.
Cons of Euthanasia - Reasons Against Euthanasia
Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law. It’s a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.
Human life deserves exceptional security and protection. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life. Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.
Family members influencing the patient’s decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue. There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.
Even doctors cannot predict firmly about period of death and whether there is a possibility of remission or recovery with other advanced treatments. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths that could have well survived later. Legalizing euthanasia would be like empowering law abusers and increasing distrust of patients towards doctors.
Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society. Would mercy killing transform itself from the "right to die" to "right to kill"?
Apart from the above reasons, there are some aspects where there is a greater possibility of euthanasia being mishandled.
How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn’t agree?
Interestingly enough the bill funds abortion on demand, essentially destroying the tax base needed to fund the health care bill! With insufficient funds, it is now incumbent on society to eliminate the feeble and elderly.
It'll be ok. You know what they say .. 90% of the things we go grey worrying about ... never happen. You'll be fine .. you'll go out bungy-jumping into a mountain of marshmallows at age 99, wearing a baby pink jumpsuit with a plunging neckline. ok ?