Health Care Bill: SEC. 1553. Prohibition Against Descrimination On Assisted Suicide., page 1

Sorry about the caps, but that is how it is written. Does that mean this bill is actually a corporate contract?? Anyway, the section in question.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Government, and any
13 State or local government or health care provider that re14
ceives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under
15 an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan cre16
ated under this Act (or under an amendment made by this
17 Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health
18 care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity
19 does not provide any health care item or service furnished
20 for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting
21 in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted
22 suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

docs.house.gov...
(pg 360)

Are they saying that no one may be discriminated against when is comes
to assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

Euthanasia. Wow, sounds like someone putting down a dog.

Am I interpreting the wording wrong, or are they setting up the
country for legal euthanasia in FEMA death camps?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by 911stinks]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20-3-2010 by Duzey]

reply to post by 911stinks

---

Like many others, this paragraph seems very ambiguous, to me.

On the surface, it seems to say that a facility can not be discriminated against, just because they do not provide assisted suicide services. (I can't believe this even has to be addressed...Anyway...)

However, the wording is very odd. Why was the term "health care provider" included in the list of those who are prohibited from the act of discrimination, alongside "the Federal, State or local government?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by 911stinks

---

Any government office (VA comes to mind) or health care provider (including hospitals, clinics, long term care, etc) that receives money from the government (taxpayers) can not be discriminated against on the basis that they didn't offer assisted suicide services, euthanasia, mercy killing.

that they didn't offer assisted suicide services, etc.


Begging your patience, but could someone please explain how that translates to being a green light for euthanasia, suicide assistance, etc. ?

reply to post by 911stinks

---

so long as such item, good, benefit, or service
16 is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the
17 purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason

.


Despite the title, doesn't this say 'no' to assisted-suicide, euthanasia ?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Dock9]

reply to post by 911stinks

---

It doesn't seem very confusing to me...and I think it is saying the exact opposite of what the OP is saying.

Let's break it down. Let's get rid of the numbers and the funky spacing. And put some ephasis on some words.

(a) IN GENERAL.—
The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

Basically this is saying the government or any health care provider that uses funds from this Act...MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE...against any "health care entity" that DOES NOT PROVIDE assisted suicide services.

If you look at the bill...they define "health care entity" as (I removed the line numbers and fixed spacing):

(b) DEFINITION.—
In this section, the term ‘‘health care entity’’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

So it means that the government (fed, state, or local) or healthcare providers that recieve funds from this Act (hospitals, physicians, etc.) can not discriminate against:

-A physician who does not provide assited suicide services. For example, a hospital can not say they won't hire a physicians JUST because he doesn't provide assisted suicide.

-A hospital who does not provide assisted suicide services. For example, the government can not descriminate and maybe withhold funds from a hospital because they don't provide assisted suicide.

-A HMO or insurance plan who does not cover assisted suicide. For example, the government or a health care provider (hospital, physician, etc.) can't say they won't accept an insurance plan JUST because they don't cover assisted suicide.




I hope this helps clear things up. This is a GOOD thing...they are saying that if a physician DOESN'T want to provide assited suicide...this will PROTECT HIS RIGHTS to do so.

It is confusing language...but it is possible to understand...and I hope by breaking it down that everyone here can see that this isn't an evil plan to make all physicians or hospitals kill every patient.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

Basically this is saying the government or any health care provider that uses funds from this Act...MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE...against any "health care entity" that DOES NOT PROVIDE assisted suicide services.

Doesn't that means that SOME WILL PROVIDE assisted suicide services? Where is it buried in the bill is the question now.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

---

Basically this is saying the government or any health care provider that uses funds from this Act...MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE...against any "health care entity" that DOES NOT PROVIDE assisted suicide services.

Doesn't that means that SOME WILL PROVIDE assisted suicide services? Where is it buried in the bill is the question now.

Bingo! That's exactly what I'm saying. It allows for the services, as suggested in the title.

reply to post by Vitchilo

---

Assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon. So I would assume (but have no proof) this was the doing of an Oregon Senator to protect physicians in his state...or maybe it is a pro-active action because knowing Oregon already has legal assisted suicide...more states may follow. It address an already legal procedure in one state in the United States...so they do have to address it.

No where else in the bill is assisted suicide mentioned...you can do a simple text search and see that yourself.


This is to PROTECT those that don't want to provide that service...it doesn't make it legal.

edit to add:

It is also legal in Washington and Montana. So three states have legal assisted suicide. Only 34 states directly prohibit it. So it is the responsibility of the law makers to address this issue.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 6 days ago with 51 member flags

Mystery teen illness: Brokovich team barred from testing school grounds
  Posted 12 days ago with 47 member flags

Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags

A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 9 days ago with 28 member flags

Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 5 days ago with 20 member flags

FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags

Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water!
  Posted 2 days ago with 17 member flags

MPD/DID and Quantum Psychiatry
  Posted 12 days ago with 12 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: