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.
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by beezzer
So what if they do? Are you one of those super-rich bastards that's been screwing people out of their money all these years?
Or are you just another Palin Programmed Shill?
Its nice to know that you place people within these two groups..........because you either have to be a programmed shill.........
Or you have to be a rich person that screws people..........because everyone knows all rich people screw everyone......
Are you aware of your own ignorance are you in such blissful denial that you are hopelessly lost?
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Matrix Rising
The Progressives want to kill off the elderly to control costs in order to protect the State and it's Government program.
Why are you repeating this again, even if it has been debunked on page 2? Repeated lie wont become truth.
I really do not understand this hate against euthenasia. As long as it is their own free choice, who the fudge are you to stand in their way? I know I would rather be put down then suffer needlessly or get pumped full of painkillers and turn in to a vegetable
The rule was issued by Dr. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to the Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.
Berwick has argued that rationing will have to be implemented eventually, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 billion in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public healthcare systems.
Finally, you and others are admitting to what I'm saying. The guy you quoted even said Hitler was right.
If a person wants to end their suffering and pain that's fine but that's a private matter. It shouldn't be pushed by the State in order to cut cost in some Government program.
A measure providing for free advice on how individuals can create living wills to inform their doctors and families what kind of end-of-life care they want.
Originally posted by Pitons
Elderly men have rights to live. They earned it. They built the country for the next generation.
Sick (ordinary ilness) have rights to healthcare.
Mentally ill, genetically defected who are uncapable of doing deeds to the society should be castrated.
Originally posted by whatukno
And yet, conservatives want to end these programs altogether and shunt the money into wall street. So, who wants to kill granny again? The people who want to reform these programs and make sure that they last, or the people that want to end these programs altogether and give the money to people like Bernie Madoff?
I don't believe you.
Perhaps you have some statistics to back up your claims, no?
Government Report Answers Who Lives, Who Dies: nursinglink.monster.com...
Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding whom to let die.
Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia.
The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego, California, and lead writer of the task force report.
The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources -- including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses -- are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said.
Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.
"If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states.
To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:
• People older than 85.
• Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
• Severely burned patients older than 60.
• Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
• Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts.
Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield."
The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force.
If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here."
James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association, said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions.
He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive.
Bentley said it's not the first time this type of approach has been recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that "this is the most detailed one I have seen from a professional group."
While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said.
Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for everyone."
That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said.
"You never know," Devereaux said. "SARS took a lot of folks by surprise. We didn't even know it existed."
The Associated Press