ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Justices signal possible trouble for Obamacare mandate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 3:51 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 3:32 pm

>But then again, so much of this world doesn't believe in the right to life.  Doing it just to save money is just an excuse.

>I'm not sure I understand; an excuse for what? What other motives would they have (assuming the inquiry finds that this was in fact the case)?
There are many people that want to kill others for many reasons.  Why do you think Obama supports killing children who lived through an abortion?  And why do people murder their own unborn children?  Why is the US government actually forcing religious institutions to not only agree to murder, but support & pay for it too?   It's all the same mindset - lack of respect for life.


But here - there are "death pathway targets" - how can that even exist?  That sounds like some sales quota for a store...


The goal of medical care is to help people, not harm them.  (But then again, I think that every profession should have that have that same goal.)

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 6:02 pm

Nope - I'm not buying it.  While I can logically understand someone wanting to die because they're going to die due to some other terminally (and painful) condition, you cannot make someone you're starving/dehydrating to death "comfortable."  It's inhumane and immoral.


I didn't say "comfortable", I said as comfortable as their condition allows for; sedation and painkillers are used to mitigate the pain.


Forgive me, but I'm not sure I see your logic; you appear to be arguing that putting them through the suffering of withdrawal of life support is inhumane and immoral, yet the whole rationale behind putting them on the pathway is because the suffering of prolonging their lives would be greater than this alternative.


 


Oh - and this practice isn't being limited to just critically ill children - it's also being applied to "disabled" children.


Severely disabled to the point of a terminal diagnosis; the LCP pathway is an end of life palliative care pathway, you can't get on it unless the prognosis is terminal.


 


There are many people that want to kill others for many reasons.  Why do you think Obama supports killing children who lived through an abortion?  And why do people murder their own unborn children?   It's all the same mindset - lack of respect for life.


I'm not sure what you're referencing specifically regarding Obama, but I'm assuming from context you're arguing from an anti-abortion stance.


I'm not sure though what relevance the myriad of reasons people choose to have an abortion would have to doctors monitoring patients on an LCP pathway; indeed, the children's families are the ones who ultimately make the decision, and if the various rationales for having an abortion were in play in their decision making, they would never have got to this point - they would have had an abortion already.


It seems unnecessary to suggest ulterior motives when others already potentially exist and indeed are the focus of the official inquiry.


 


But here - there are "death pathway targets" - how can that even exist?  That sounds like some sales quota for a store...


I believe the issue was that hospitals were not giving the LCP pathway options quickly enough to patients who were eligible for it, leading to people dying in hospital unnecessarily instead of at home or at a hospice with a modicum of dignity.


The "targets" I believe were to ensure the preferred amount of eligible patients were given the LCP pathway option, but obviously this inquiry is aiming to confirm whether they were abused or not.


 


The goal of medical care is to help people, not harm them.  (But then again, I think that every profession should have that have that same goal.)


Indeed; the rationale behind the LCP pathway is that continuation of care to a terminal patient with no realistic chance of recovery will cause them more harm than withdrawing care.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 6:08 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 6:02 pm

>

>Nope - I'm not buying it.  While I can logically understand someone wanting to die because they're going to die due to some other terminally (and painful) condition, you cannot make someone you're starving/dehydrating to death "comfortable."  It's inhumane and immoral.

>I didn't say "comfortable", I said as comfortable as their condition allows for; sedation and painkillers are used to mitigate the pain.

>Forgive me, but I'm not sure I see your logic; you appear to be arguing that putting them through the suffering of withdrawal of life support is inhumane and immoral, yet the whole rationale behind putting them on the pathway is because the suffering of prolonging their lives would be greater than this alternative.
Still not buying your rationale to murder children... or anyone for that matter.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 6:13 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 6:02 pm

>Oh - and this practice isn't being limited to just critically ill children - it's also being applied to "disabled" children.

>Severely disabled to the point of a terminal diagnosis; the LCP pathway is an end of life palliative care pathway, you can't get on it unless the prognosis is terminal.
Not necessarily terminal - the information coming out is that not all the people are terminal.  Just because someone has, say Down's Syndrom, doesn't mean that they should be killed.  And yes, there are people who are calling for people who are "disabled" (like mentally handicapped) to be euthanized because they are a "drain" on society.  Reminds me of Hitler.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 6:35 pm

you know this is legal in the United States too right?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 6:39 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 6:02 pm

>The goal of medical care is to help people, not harm them.  (But then again, I think that every profession should have that have that same goal.)

>Indeed; the rationale behind the LCP pathway is that continuation of care to a terminal patient with no realistic chance of recovery will cause them more harm than withdrawing care.
By denying them food/water and add to their suffering?  That doesn't make sense.  I've seen starvation - it's really bad and painful. You and I will just have to disagree - I'm pro life and cannot see how murdering someone is considered helping them.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 6:40 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 02 2012, 6:35 pm

>

>you know this is legal in the United States too right?

>
Euthenasia/abortion/murder?  Sadly, yes.  Thanks to many who don't understand the value of life.  When life is looked at as expendable, all sorts of atrocities can be done.... the slope is very steep and slippery.


 


But just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 10:03 pm

Still not buying your rationale to murder children... or anyone for that matter.


With the greatest respect, you haven't presented any counter-arguments to any of the points I brought up in my last post other than repeating your original claim that it's "murder". It isn't, legally or ethically - if the doctors were themselves administering a treatment which directly caused death (e.g. injecting a lethal agent), you would have an argument that it was, however this is not the case.


 


Not necessarily terminal - the information coming out is that not all the people are terminal.  Just because someone has, say Down's Syndrom, doesn't mean that they should be killed.


Out of curiosity, where are you getting your sources from? The LCP is a palliative care pathway; by its very definition, the patient has to be terminal.


In reality, the LCP has an extensive screening check-list that needs to be approved before funding can be granted and the care started - indeed, the problem has been that people have not been granted funding when they have been eligible, hence the "targets" being implemented as mentioned previously.


As such, a non-terminal patient would never meet the requirements of the check-list and consequently would never receive funding; I suspect you may be missing some context from whatever sources you are using.


 


And yes, there are people who are calling for people who are "disabled" (like mentally handicapped) to be euthanized because they are a "drain" on society.  Reminds me of Hitler.


Indeed, but I'm not sure its relevance to this particular case; you can always find someone somewhere supporting the most repugnant of causes, but this particular one isn't the rationale behind the LCP pathway.


 


By denying them food/water and add to their suffering?  That doesn't make sense.  I've seen starvation - it's really bad and painful.


Indeed (although in this case, medication is provided to reduce the suffering as much as is possible), but the point you seem to be missing is that the alternative is even worse than this.


As mentioned in the article, the decision to withdraw nutrition is not taken lightly; it's only implemented when the projected suffering the patient will incur from it is less than what they would suffer if their life were prolonged somewhat.


 


You and I will just have to disagree - I'm pro life and cannot see how murdering someone is considered helping them.


At its core it's very simple - the patient suffers less. I would also suggest that some of the issue lies in the fact that you are using emotive yet inaccurate labels like "murder" which will naturally skew perspective.


 


Euthenasia/abortion/murder?  Sadly, yes.  Thanks to many who don't understand the value of life.  When life is looked at as expendable, all sorts of atrocities can be done.... the slope is very steep and slippery.


You've actually got this backwards; the LCP doesn't devalue life - quite the opposite, it's whole rationale for being is to preserve quality of life above mere quantity.


The life is not simply expendable - vast amounts of time and resources are poured into attempting to reduce the patient's suffering as best as is able.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 8:58 am

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 10:03 pm

>

>Still not buying your rationale to murder children... or anyone for that matter.

>With the greatest respect, you haven't presented any counter-arguments to any of the points I brought up in my last post other than repeating your original claim that it's "murder". It isn't, legally or ethically - if the doctors were themselves administering a treatment which directly caused death (e.g. injecting a lethal agent), you would have an argument that it was, however this is not the case.

>Not necessarily terminal - the information coming out is that not all the people are terminal.  Just because someone has, say Down's Syndrom, doesn't mean that they should be killed.

>Out of curiosity, where are you getting your sources from? The LCP is a palliative care pathway; by its very definition, the patient has to be terminal.

>In reality, the LCP has an extensive screening check-list that needs to be approved before funding can be granted and the care started - indeed, the problem has been that people have not been granted funding when they have been eligible, hence the "targets" being implemented as mentioned previously.

>As such, a non-terminal patient would never meet the requirements of the check-list and consequently would never receive funding; I suspect you may be missing some context from whatever sources you are using.

>And yes, there are people who are calling for people who are "disabled" (like mentally handicapped) to be euthanized because they are a "drain" on society.  Reminds me of Hitler.

>Indeed, but I'm not sure its relevance to this particular case; you can always find someone somewhere supporting the most repugnant of causes, but this particular one isn't the rationale behind the LCP pathway.

>By denying them food/water and add to their suffering?  That doesn't make sense.  I've seen starvation - it's really bad and painful.

>Indeed (although in this case, medication is provided to reduce the suffering as much as is possible), but the point you seem to be missing is that the alternative is even worse than this.

>As mentioned in the article, the decision to withdraw nutrition is not taken lightly; it's only implemented when the projected suffering the patient will incur from it is less than what they would suffer if their life were prolonged somewhat.

>You and I will just have to disagree - I'm pro life and cannot see how murdering someone is considered helping them.

>At its core it's very simple - the patient suffers less. I would also suggest that some of the issue lies in the fact that you are using emotive yet inaccurate labels like "murder" which will naturally skew perspective.

>Euthenasia/abortion/murder?  Sadly, yes.  Thanks to many who don't understand the value of life.  When life is looked at as expendable, all sorts of atrocities can be done.... the slope is very steep and slippery.

>You've actually got this backwards; the LCP doesn't devalue life - quite the opposite, it's whole rationale for being is to preserve quality of life above mere quantity.

>The life is not simply expendable - vast amounts of time and resources are poured into attempting to reduce the patient's suffering as best as is able.

>
Murdering people is valuing life?????  I hear the same arguements from the abortion activists too.  Too much Margaret Sanger illogic.


Remember, I used to work in a hopital to help put myself through school and part of that time was in an oncology clinic.  There were many people that were diagnosed with something terminal and only given a few days/weeks/months to live..... but many lived much longer than that... years longer.  Some didn't even have what they were diagnosed with.  Choosing to kill someone because they've been diagnosed with something just makes it a self-fulfilling.  We all die one day.... the question is how and why.  Next people will decided to start euthanizing those critical care patients with chlorine gas or bullets and still say it's "humane."


 


Look - we're just not going to agree at all.  You're going to continue to try to excuse/justify killing people and I won't excuse it.


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 388

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 9:50 am

He's right, Vorta. It's useless to argue with him. The more reasonable you are, the more illogical he becomes.


But since he insists on taking the high road, ask him about being a veteran. Ask him why he willingly joined an organization that rationalizes "murder" on a massive scale. Ask him if he ever killed anyone. Ask him how he feels about capital punishment. Ask him how he feels about the death of Osama bin Laden.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 2:27 pm

aren't we talking here about people who are so ill they are dependent on a feeding tube?  not people who are actually still living their lives.


 


and nice one BamBam   no we don't remember you worked in a hospital.  Believe it or not we aren't taking notes when you post


 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 2:51 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 2:27 pm

>

>aren't we talking here about people who are so ill they are dependent on a feeding tube?  not people who are actually still living their lives.
not necessarily.  That may be the majority, but from what some people who work there are saying, some are not = there just "severely disabled," which does NOT mean that they're terminally ill.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 2:53 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 2:27 pm

> no we don't remember you worked in a hospital.  Believe it or not we aren't taking notes when you post
Sometimes I forget not everyone has been around as long as I have.  Too many people have figured out who I am and contacted me via other means.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 3:05 pm

I've been around plenty long enough.  I'm just not stalking people. 


 


and severly disabled can mean being kept alive through feeding tubes. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46314

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 3:22 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 3:05 pm

>

>I've been around plenty long enough.

>
I know - you're one of us "oldies."

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum