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: 46291

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 3:45 pm

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

>and severly disabled can mean being kept alive through feeding tubes.
But that doesn't mean "terminally ill."  Usually when a doctor says someone is going to die, they don't say "severely disabled" - they like the word "terminal."  Disabled just means that they can't do things for themselves.


There are too many situations where people have been given a dire diagnosis that was plain wrong.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 5:05 pm

Obviously it has to be taken on a case by case basis, but I think it is often a kindness when people are being artificially kept alive and there is no hope of recovery or any quality of life, to remove the artificial support and let nature take it's course. 



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 5:14 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:05 pm

>

>Obviously it has to be taken on a case by case basis, but I think it is often a kindness when people are being artificially kept alive and there is no hope of recovery or any quality of life, to remove the artificial support and let nature take it's course. 

>
I understand - but artificial life support is completely different than disabled or terminally ill.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 5:21 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:14 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:05 pm

>

>

>Obviously it has to be taken on a case by case basis, but I think it is often a kindness when people are being artificially kept alive and there is no hope of recovery or any quality of life, to remove the artificial support and let nature take it's course. 

>
I understand - but artificial life support is completely different than disabled or terminally ill.


I think people have to be dependent on feeding tubes for this. If people are incabable of eating or drinking on thier own it is a means of artificial life support



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 5:26 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:21 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:14 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:05 pm

>

>

>

>Obviously it has to be taken on a case by case basis, but I think it is often a kindness when people are being artificially kept alive and there is no hope of recovery or any quality of life, to remove the artificial support and let nature take it's course. 

>
I understand - but artificial life support is completely different than disabled or terminally ill.

I think people have to be dependent on feeding tubes for this. If people are incabable of eating or drinking on thier own it is a means of artificial life support

not necessarily.  There are people who are physically and/or handicapped who cannot feed themslelves and need assistance.


My wife has a co-worker with a daughter has a condition where they cannot feed her normally (she can't take in food orally) - they feed her intravenously when she sleeps.  (I can point out many other stories, and I suspect if you look around, you can find others yourself.)


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

>

>you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.

>
I wasn't trying to.  But so is chemotherapy or an artificial heart.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 03 2012, 9:19 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

>

>

>you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.

>
I wasn't trying to.  But so is chemotherapy or an artificial heart.


no those are treatments for a disease that can be cured or made manageable



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 11:58 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 9:19 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

>

>

>

>you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.

>
I wasn't trying to.  But so is chemotherapy or an artificial heart.

no those are treatments for a disease that can be cured or made manageable

And?  It's still an artificial means of keeping people alive, and hopefully curing them - that's the goal.  It's the very opposite of euthanasia.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:08 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 04 2012, 11:58 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 9:19 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

>

>

>

>

>you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.

>
I wasn't trying to.  But so is chemotherapy or an artificial heart.

no those are treatments for a disease that can be cured or made manageable

And?  It's still an artificial means of keeping people alive, and hopefully curing them - that's the goal.  It's the very opposite of euthanasia.


 


well, one treats a disease and one doesn't.  Surely you can see the difference



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:20 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:08 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 04 2012, 11:58 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 9:19 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.

>
I wasn't trying to.  But so is chemotherapy or an artificial heart.

no those are treatments for a disease that can be cured or made manageable

And?  It's still an artificial means of keeping people alive, and hopefully curing them - that's the goal.  It's the very opposite of euthanasia.

 

well, one treats a disease and one doesn't.  Surely you can see the difference

Well... euthanasia definitely doesn't "treat" disease....  I can't see how any medical provider who took an oath to do no harm (and actually has integrity to follow that oath) could purposefully kill a patient.


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:27 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:20 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:08 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 04 2012, 11:58 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 9:19 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 03 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 03 2012, 5:43 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>

>you can argue that there is no justification to ever remove a feeding tube, but you can't really argue that it isn't a artificial means of keeping people alive.

>
I wasn't trying to.  But so is chemotherapy or an artificial heart.

no those are treatments for a disease that can be cured or made manageable

And?  It's still an artificial means of keeping people alive, and hopefully curing them - that's the goal.  It's the very opposite of euthanasia.

 

well, one treats a disease and one doesn't.  Surely you can see the difference

Well... euthanasia definitely doesn't "treat" disease....  I can't see how any medical provider who took an oath to do no harm (and actually has integrity to follow that oath) could purposefully kill a patient.


withdrawing care for a terminal patient who is so close to death we are only prolonging thier suffering is not killing someone.  You know that.



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:35 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:27 pm

>withdrawing care for a terminal patient who is so close to death we are only prolonging thier suffering is not killing someone.  You know that.
There's a difference with withdrawing care (stopping chemo, etc.) and actually killing them.  You know that.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 12:56 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:35 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:27 pm

>

>withdrawing care for a terminal patient who is so close to death we are only prolonging thier suffering is not killing someone.  You know that.
There's a difference with withdrawing care (stopping chemo, etc.) and actually killing them.  You know that.


ok bambam


 


Allowing the terminally ill to die a few days early rather than prolong their suffering is the exact same thing as not treating a curable disease. 


 


you win.  Can't imagine what I was thinking. 



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Dec. 04 2012, 5:19 pm

So, in addition to the thousands of pages in Obamacare and all the related tens of thousands of pages of regulations, the IRS just dumped 159 pages of Obamacare tax rules onto us....

Post Reply

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