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.

 

Two Decades to an American Culture of Death

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Two Decades to an American Culture of Death

This is getting scary.

www.lifetree.org...


Introduction

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:


Obama Nazi Health-Care Plan Revolves Around Hastings, Agency of the British Crown's Eugenics Moveme
www.abovetopsecret.com...

After starting this topic, I found this.


Some people really need to wake up.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
It's here. It came in with chants of 'yes we can'. :shk:

Obama Health Advisor - Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel
Obama's Science Czar - John Holdren

And of course there is Obama himself. (*shudder)



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's here. It came in with chants of 'yes we can'. :shk:

Obama Health Advisor - Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel
Obama's Science Czar - John Holdren

And of course there is Obama himself. (*shudder)


Thanks Flyers, I am still looking into all this,



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

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?


Really?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
No posters?

How about this?




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
please read the following shocking quotes from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health-care policy adviser to President Barack Hussein Obama, and (not coincidentily) the brother of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.


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,"


www.ncpa.org...

www.nypost.com...


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.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., and Margaret P. Battin, Ph.D.

content.nejm.org...


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."


Another reason why so many older people are in an uproar over Obama's health care plan?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   


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."


hmmmmmmm,



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
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 ' ?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

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 ' ?


Well I don't think it is an either or situation,

It is about how much money the government can save by letting an older person die,

Now I do understand life saving measures eventually should be questioned,

but 65?

I have seen people come back from the brink of death to live many more worthwhile and productive years,

I look at it this way I am 60 I and my husband and many seniors payed into SSI all these years,

How ironic, that just at out retirement age, if one of us takes ill someone will decide whether we have a right live.

[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Yeah, but the article specifies that persons of a particular age-group will be given preference in the event of 'scarcity'.

The second part of the article discusses patients for whom death is a certainty. It explains that by not prolonging life, considerable savings can be assured for the patients, their families and the tax payer.

It's ironic really, because one of the topics the Aussie government censored (on internet) was euthanasia, lol. Now we have the US (which dictates to Australia) recommending 'assisted suicide'.

It's good news, imo. Most people in the final stages of terminal disease do not wish their life (and suffering) to be prolonged for their own sake AND for the sake of their loved ones.

It used to be accepted that doctors and nurses would 'help them on their way'. Then, numerous doctors were sued for their humane intervention and people desperate for their suffering to be ended for them, couldn't find anyone to help them.

Sounds as if common sense has prevailed and once again, there's a hope that under this new proposal, people won't be forced to live until their final, painful breath .. but instead will be 'assisted' when the point of no-return has been reached and acknowledged, via merciful dose of morphine or similar, just like the old days when people said (re: their recently deceased loved one) ' Well, they're not suffering any more thank goodness '.

It WAS a massive waste of resources for people with no hope of recovery to be forced to stay alive, often at cost of tens of thousands of dollars and round the clock care.

In Australia a group of people took part in a televised discussion after groups of older people made it known that they'd produced a euthanasia drug which they could use when they no longer wanted to live. They were arrested, apparently, despite they'd produced the concoction on their own property and it was for their own use. Most said they were enjoying life, but wanted the drug for later, in case doctors kept them alive against their will. All believed the decision to end their lives was a personal one and said they believed it their right and no-one else's business as to when they decided to sign out.

Their arrests, combined with the jailing of elderly people who'd assisted loved ones to die, sparked alarm in the elderly community, also those with terminal and debilitating conditions. Some flew to Mexico to purchase the life-ending drug. They were forced to secrete it in their bodies in order to get back through customs on their return to Australia. I mean, it's ludicrous. These were all older people with good reputations, often with great careers behind them, and they had to smuggle the stuff through in body cavities as if they were criminals.

One woman was a real character. She'd had two near-death or clinically dead (can't remember exactly which) experiences already and was in remission. She said she'd 'died' the first time and was furious when doctors revived her. So, in addition to the euthanasia cocktail she obtained in Mexico, she'd also got someone to tattoo right across her chest ' Do Not Revive '. It looked like a home-done tattoo and must have hurt. But she was adamant and very outspoken during the interview. All the older people were. Their main concern was being forced to stay alive by doctors who had no option due to legislation.

So anyway, I think the article is referring to two (or more) different sets of circumstances. In times of medical shortages, then they'll prioritise with the older and youngest being required to defer to people in the prime of life.

The second part of the article is lifting the prohibition on assisted suicide, which for many people will be a huge relief. The thing many older and ill people fear is becoming a living corpse, forcefully kept alive and swathed in tubes and machines, using up valuable resources and putting their loved ones through the wringer. They'll be very happy to know that they can now again rely on medical staff to pull the plug for them. I very much doubt doctors and nurses will suddenly start euthanasing healthy, vibrant sixty year olds because of the change in legislation. If they did, there'd be hell to pay, and prohibitive legislation would be returned, along with massive court cases and publicity. That's my take on it, anyway



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
HI St Vaast,

I myself wouldn't want prolonged suffreing.

However, I don't trust the government,



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Let's look at Pros and Cons of Euthanasia,
www.buzzle.com...


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?


There is to much room for abuse, IMHO

[edit on 103131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



No, don't trust them all that much myself. But sometimes I wonder if we create monsters from a pack of very ordinary and unimaginative politicians.

If masses of formerly healthy older people suddenly began 'dying' though, it would be noticed and there'd be one hell of a noise. Not only that, ordinary doctors and nurses aren't bereft of conscience -- if they received a directive to kill off loads of older people, the whistle-blowers would hit internet and tell all, anonymously or even openly. Some would tip-off the relatives. Times change, but people don't and at heart, most people are decent and would rather quit their job than become State-sanctioned murderers. Of all those in society, doctors and nurses are made fully aware of their own mortality. And the vast majority of them wouldn't want to go to their own graves with hundreds of murders on their report-cards.

It will be a comfort, I'm sure, for many to have the reassurance that if a time comes when they can't breathe, can't swallow, can't eat, can't hear and don't even want to try, that someone will come and gently send them off to lullaby-land. It's the idea of being a burden that many older and sick people fear most.

Anyway, here's a thought -- a lot of nurses have a healthy respect for the paranormal because of various weird experiences they have or hear about from others. So if you even suspect someone's going to jab you with Bye Bye drug and you're not ready to go yet, just let them know in no uncertain terms that if they finish you off before you're ready, you'll come back and scare the daylights out of them until they die of fright, after which you'll be there waiting for them ... insert evil old lady laugh here, lol.

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 ?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Sadly, my grandmother was snatched from death's door by a trip to the hospital, where she was resuscitated and kept hooked up to IV's which kept her from dying. She survived a year after that in a nursing home, praying everyday to die. Even my mother realized that her mom had really died that day a year before, a year before she finally was allowed to die. Her kidney treatments could have been given to a younger person who needed it; such treatment was a waste, and all parties knew it.

Even with private insurance, an elderly family member was told there was nothing more the medical profession would do for him to treat his cancer, when he showed back up at the hospital demanding treatment...they had done all they could and it was time for his wife to take him back home to die.

We should not view modern medicine as the fountain of youth. If death is not sudden, the best we can want is to die with dignity, on our own terms, painfree. When we thought that modern medicine could relieve us of the sadness and emotional pain of death/dying, we no longer talked of a "death bed" and the "death watch". Yet a death bed and a death watch is precisely what provides comfort to the dying. We need to understand death and the dying process, put it back in our own hands, not the hands of a doctor or even a hospital.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   


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.


I don't know guys.

So eliminate the baby-boom generation as quickly as possible, and keep the birth number down,

Sounds like a plan.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   


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 ?


That sounds awesome, actually,

One of the things I like about getting older is I feel I can be myself for the first time in my life and use old age as my excuse.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 





Her kidney treatments could have been given to a younger person who needed it; such treatment was a waste, and all parties knew it.


Do you really know that a younger person was denied treatments because of grandmaw?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Obama Nazi


Thats as far as I had to read to realize your post has no significance whatsoever. Nice SNF count there. Glad you don't have to post anything intelligent to achieve that.







 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join