Death Panels

[signals]

That is some nice convoluted logic. You just said that you do not believe in doctor assisted suicide. Fine don't do it. I am saying I do believe in the right to doctor assisted suicide. You may take advantage of it or not. I am not depriving you of an option as you are with your POV.

Kind of like the right wing nut jobs and abortion. Don't want one, fine don't have one but don't tell someone else what they may or may not do.

Since you have a problem with my POV does that mean you are pushing your belief? That is what you said right?

Something you can't understand is that I am not taking away your right to voice your opinion. You on the other hand can't comprehend that I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, but you seem to vilefy my point of view because it doesn't coincide with your agenda. 😛

 

[Ms Tree]

My view is my opinion. People have a right to disagree because I am not trying to push anything. Whether you or I agree we are both sharing our opinions. It doesn't matter if your point of view is different from mine, it is only an @$$#0!3 that everybody has.

Tell you what, if it isn't about the insurance lets continue to call it assisted SUICIDE. This way the...a-hem...loved one is made aware that they get butt-kiss! Now lets see if we can pass ASSISTED SUICIDE so people don't have to suffer 😛

Why exactly do we have to vote on what I may do with my body? Since when is it Anyone else interest?

 

[signals]

Why exactly do we have to vote on what I may do with my body? Since when is it Anyone else interest?

Trying to take your life will get you committed psychologically. Who are you to tell a doctor that you want him to commit murder. Might hold up for the fetus, but not for a fully developed person.

You can commit suicide and it is nobody's business, but if a doctor takes your life, call it what you want, but it is MURDER!

Of course immoral Eurotrash that can't vote and has no opinion in my political process, should go argue with the remaining Cold War communists/socialists of Europe instead of spreading garbage 😛

 

[Ms Tree]

There are numerous doctors who do not consider it murder. Murder typically is associated as killing someone against their will. If a doctor does not believe in it they do not have to do it and I woold seek a different doctor.

You can call it what ever you choose. I think it is cruel and unusual punishment t to force some to live in misery and pain when they do not want to.

None is forcing you to take part in it. I am very glad that the doctors and staff at the hospice house where my mom was dis not prolong her suffering. They said it was time. We said our good eyes and they gave her the morphine.

Its none of your business what a doctor and patient agree to.

Just because a life is taken does not mean it is murder at least not in the legal sense. Oregon allows assisted suicide. I believe it is the Netherlands that also allow it. There is president for it.

I still do not understand what give someone else the right to decide what I may or maynt do with my body.

That is one of the resons I tend to vote democrat moreover than republican. They seem to have a little more respect for privacy.

 

[signals]

You continue to talk like a fool. Murder has nothing to do with one's will. Taking a person's life is murder.

You continue to share your warped views and continue to accuse me of IMPOSING my views 🙄

Doctors who don't see it as murder are just sadistic Nazis that derive pleasure from watching someone die.

I doubt regular people will put themselves in the care of a doctor that is a murderer.

And in case you fail to see it from your blinders, medicine is advancing beyond once dreams. We can cure cancer and ease people's suffering.

Better hurry and cash in that policy 😛

I don't believe you do vote 😛h34r:

 

[Ms Tree]

According to the law, euthanasia is not not murder. In Oregon it is legal under doctor supervision.

People actually will move to Oregon to meet the residence retirement so the they can be under the care of a physician to assist them with their suicide.

We cannot cure cancer, there are drugs that can in some cases delay the inevitable and is other cases put a person into remission for a period of time. Cancer still kills and cancer as well as countless other ailments can be extremely debilitating and decrease the quality of life. Some people do not want to be a burden to their loved ones. Some do not want to go through the indignity of not knowing their loved ones or them selves. Just because we can extend life does not mean we should in all cases.

Fact is that where it is legal it is a procedure that is used by people. You are by no means obligated to take advantage of this procedure how ever you still have o explained why you feel I should not have the right to do it if I choose to.

Quite a few people will store up drugs from script to do an OD because their doctor will not or is unable to assist.

Not sure why people are so scared of ding and being in control over their death. I suspect religious beliefs play a part in this.

 

[signals]

According to the law, euthanasia is not not murder. In Oregon it is legal under doctor supervision.

People actually will move to Oregon to meet the residence retirement so the they can be under the care of a physician to assist them with their suicide.

We cannot cure cancer, there are drugs that can in some cases delay the inevitable and is other cases put a person into remission for a period of time. Cancer still kills and cancer as well as countless other ailments can be extremely debilitating and decrease the quality of life. Some people do not want to be a burden to their loved ones. Some do not want to go through the indignity of not knowing their loved ones or them selves. Just because we can extend life does not mean we should in all cases.

Fact is that where it is legal it is a procedure that is used by people. You are by no means obligated to take advantage of this procedure how ever you still have o explained why you feel I should not have the right to do it if I choose to.

Quite a few people will store up drugs from script to do an OD because their doctor will not or is unable to assist.

Not sure why people are so scared of ding and being in control over their death. I suspect religious beliefs play a part in this.

Yes we can cure cancer. You are a total fool.

Again why are you having a problem with religion and the right.

Your opinions are foolish non sense and I am wasting my time arguing with the wind. We might not be able to cure all cancer, but we are moving towards the total annihilation of it.

Funny story, I was against stem cell research. Thanks to stem cell research we are diagnosing DNA to the point that we know what variables cause what and how to beat them. Through these processes they are about to put out a medication that makes chemo patients less sick and weak.

The problem with beating cancer is that most patients continue doing what they are doing like smoking and eating fatty foods.

Saying we cannot cure cancer, makes me want to say Enjoy Your Trip To Oregon 😛

 

[777 fixer]

Yes we can cure cancer. You are a total fool.

Again why are you having a problem with religion and the right.

Your opinions are foolish non sense and I am wasting my time arguing with the wind. We might not be able to cure all cancer, but we are moving towards the total annihilation of it.

Funny story, I was against stem cell research. Thanks to stem cell research we are diagnosing DNA to the point that we know what variables cause what and how to beat them. Through these processes they are about to put out a medication that makes chemo patients less sick and weak.

The problem with beating cancer is that most patients continue doing what they are doing like smoking and eating fatty foods.

Saying we cannot cure cancer, makes me want to say Enjoy Your Trip To Oregon 😛

We don't cure cancer, we put into remission

 

[Ms Tree]

You seem to have some issues with consistency.

First Suicide is illegal a person will “get you committed psychologically” but if I commit “suicides it is nobody's business” so which is it?

Now “we can cure cancer” but then “We might not be able to cure all cancer, but we are moving towards the total annihilation of it.”

Can you please pick a side and stick with it? It is very difficult to argue a point when the target keeps moving.

OK wait, I think there might be a language issue here. Are you saying that we can cure cancer (as in we have the ability to find a cure at some point) or are you saying that we can cure cancer now? I think you are saying the former.

Assuming you are saying that we will be able to cure cancer some tie in the future may be true. I have no idea what the future holds. There may be somethings that cannot be fixed.

The issue is that right now there is no cure. In some cases the treatment can be worse than the illness to the point where some do not seek treatment. There are illness that can befall the human body that can cause excruciating pain or loss of dignity. Some people do not wish to endure that. As far as I am concerned it is their right to end their life as they see fit. Whether or not you agree with their choice really is not relevant.

You still have not explained why you think we should be able to vote on a persons right to end their life on their own terms. I know we do vote on individual rights (prop 8) but I am asking why you think that is justified? What if we decided to vote on limiting rights of naturalized citizens? Are you up for that?


I thought you were against abortion, at least that is what one of your previous posts seemed to imply but now you are in favor of stem cell research?
You are one strange bird.

 

[signals]

We don't cure cancer, we put into remission

Yeah and 'remission' is giving people their lives back.

 

[signals]

You seem to have some issues with consistency.

First Suicide is illegal a person will “get you committed psychologically” but if I commit “suicides it is nobody's business” so which is it?

Now “we can cure cancer” but then “We might not be able to cure all cancer, but we are moving towards the total annihilation of it.”

Can you please pick a side and stick with it? It is very difficult to argue a point when the target keeps moving.

OK wait, I think there might be a language issue here. Are you saying that we can cure cancer (as in we have the ability to find a cure at some point) or are you saying that we can cure cancer now? I think you are saying the former.

Assuming you are saying that we will be able to cure cancer some tie in the future may be true. I have no idea what the future holds. There may be somethings that cannot be fixed.

The issue is that right now there is no cure. In some cases the treatment can be worse than the illness to the point where some do not seek treatment. There are illness that can befall the human body that can cause excruciating pain or loss of dignity. Some people do not wish to endure that. As far as I am concerned it is their right to end their life as they see fit. Whether or not you agree with their choice really is not relevant.

You still have not explained why you think we should be able to vote on a persons right to end their life on their own terms. I know we do vote on individual rights (prop 8) but I am asking why you think that is justified? What if we decided to vote on limiting rights of naturalized citizens? Are you up for that?


I thought you were against abortion, at least that is what one of your previous posts seemed to imply but now you are in favor of stem cell research?
You are one strange bird.

Instead of twisting things...
Siucide is illegal. If you admit or are caught trying to commit suicide you will be committed...Twist one!
There are many types of cancers. It is not ONE cancer. Twist 2!
Bladder cancer is easily treatable. Pancreatic, not so much. But we are 'beating' it! Twist 3!
We can cure cancer now. Not all cancers, but cancer. We have found foods that actually destroy cancer cells. We are moving to cure all cancers, and I am a witness. Again, many cancer patients don't do anything to help fight their cancer as they continue to smoke and eat an unhealthy diet.
Saying the treatment is worst than the cure means that you are without hope and perhaps deserve to have a physician murder you as you are advocating.
My choice is irrevalent, yet you are sadistic enough to think you can play god or darwin. Twist 4!
I don't believe we should vote on such a thing...since you don't vote...but I don't think the politicians should alter laws to satisfy the sadomasochists of our society that want to imply their views on the majority. Twist5!
Go ahead and twist all the rights of LEGAL citizens. You can't stop me from voting. Twist 6!
I never said I was against abortions. Twist 7!
I'm all for it because the only ones having it done are the upper and(what is left) of the middle class. The lower class, or the rich poor, wouldn't kill their MONEY child$$$$!
Stem cell research is what is going to cure many diseases and ills that effect man. Why wouldn't I be for it?

 

[Ms Tree]

Assisted suicide in Oregon is not illegal and you will not go to jail. I realize it is illegal in other parts of the country and what you still have not answered is why do you think you have the right to tell me that I cannot kill my self?

There is not cure for cancer. There is treatment. Tumors can be removed but there is no cure. They call it remission for a reason. Other wise they would say you are cured. There is a difference even if you do not wish to acknowledge it.

Lets take your bladder cancer example. The 5 year survival rate (note it is not a cure) according to cancer.org is 98% if you catch it at stage 0. Stage I your 5 year survival rate drops to 88%. Stage II it drops to 68%. Stage III 46% and stage IV you might as well pack it in because you are a gonner ... 15% survival rate after 5 years.

Pancreatic cancer... yea.. your screwed. Latest stats I could find were from 1995-2001. Best case scenario is if you are a black American woman in which case you have a 5.6% chance of making it to 5 years. If the cancer is localized your odds increase to 16%.


Perhaps you should do some research in to cancer treatment (or as you call it, 'cures'). There is a reason people will forgo treatment and chose to live out the rest of their life as best they can.

How am I playing God or Darwin? I am simply saying that people should have the choice to lead their own lives as they see fit without the likes of you intervening and telling them what you think is best for them.

The law makers are can only enact laws based on the COTUS. Where in the COTUS does it say that I should not have sole control over my own life? I would think the right to privacy would cover that quite nicely.

 

[signals]

http://live.psu.edu/story/55260

The word kills means we are reversing who's killing who.

You are playing god by saying that my statements are irresponsible meaning that only you have all the answer.

I really don't give a rat's ass what anyone does with their lives. They should do it in the privacy of their own home. Your privacy is just that, private, so it shouldn't even be opened for public debate!
Again whatever you choose to do with your body is your own business, if you want to kill yourself, go right ahead, but don't try to justify it by using suffering as a shield. Illegal or not, the mental health community still views suicide as a mental illness. And the insurance companies are the ones who are laughing.

 

[Ms Tree]

The right is the one who is bringing this to the public. They are the ones who do not want people to be allowed to have a doctor assist them in ending their lives. The arguments are typically morality based and not legally based. The sad part of it is that there a lot of people who are taking it upon them selves to stock pile meds enough for a OD. It's dangerous if it goes wrong.

I believe it should be legalized and if a proposition ever comes up here in TX (unlikely in this backwards state) I will vote for it but I know it will fail.

So I guess we are done with the cancer cure stuff?

 

[muff daddy]

muff daddy, on 21 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:
But the point here is it is the ideology of the Progressive Left that will be forced upon the sick and elderly because they do not contribute to society anymore.

Show me a single example. The woof if you work together bought to be able find at least one example. Just one.

Its called the Complete Lives System. Fathered by Ezekiel Emanuel, health policy advisor to Barack Obama.

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity – those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations – are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

Some people wrongly suggest that allocation can be based purely on scientific or clinical facts, often using the term “medical need”. There are no value-free medical criteria for allocation.


Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.

~*~​

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.

~*~​

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.

~*~​

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending.

By utilizing the complete lives system graph we can reduce waste and provide more services for those who are still capable of worthy contributions to society as a whole.
One should feel good that our government has had these discussions regarding early and late life societal contribution as being a future basis for life extending treatments.

This reminds me of a quote:

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”