RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 2:49:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, because it is a fundamentally government decision right now, Kevorkian pathology is illegal in this country....and for all their blustering about government out of their lives, conservatives want patriot acts, right to life, creationism and all sorts of control by government.
They want to choose, not you.

Ron


Please refrain from speaking about what conservatives want. You clearly dont have a clue.



DomKen -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 2:49:33 PM)

To get people on Medicare to make living wills so they get to make the decisions about how their life will end?



mnottertail -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 2:50:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, because it is a fundamentally government decision right now, Kevorkian pathology is illegal in this country....and for all their blustering about government out of their lives, conservatives want patriot acts, right to life, creationism and all sorts of control by government.
They want to choose, not you.

Ron


Please refrain from speaking about what conservatives want. You clearly dont have a clue.


if you will refrain from speaking at all, ever.



windchymes -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 3:13:37 PM)

I've worked in hospitals as a lab tech for the past 20 years, and have so many times seen families gathered outside of the doors to rooms and ICU units, sobbing and wailing for the medical staff to "do whatever it takes" and "I don't care how much it costs" to keep 95 year old Uncle Harold alive, even though his tired out old body is doing its best to die, both his legs have already been amputated, he can't sit up or feed himself, has to wear a diaper because he has no bladder or bowel control, and his lungs are so full of fluid, he has to be suctioned out every half hour. 

I had a friend once who had a total meltdown because his 89 year old father had a massive heart attack and died quickly in his bed.  He beseeched and berated the Lord above for the cruelty and unfairness that dear old dad "had to die that way".   I mean, come on.....89 and dying quickly and peacefully after such a long and healthy life before that.

What we need to do is accept that we're born, we live, and we die.  Celebrate the life our loved ones had and then let them go when it's time.

And in case someone wants to suggest I put myself in their shoes.......I accepted that my 67 year old father chose not to have chemo for the cancer they found, and that my 70 year old mother who was in end-stage renal failure AND had congestive heart failure signed a DNR order....AND donated her body to science for research. Of course it was sad to see them go, but I don't regret honoring their wishes when it was time.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 3:28:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

Who wonders why Newsweek feels that this is a case that needs to be made?
Perhaps because it is important, factual, and timely.  Nah, that can't be it....must be an attempt to fool the public into accepting those damned death panels we've heard so much about.



What do you think the purpose of the end of life counseling is?


Well, here's just a wild-ass guess - maybe it's voluntary counseling sessions on end-of-life issues, including what a living will is and how to make one, how to make relative or friend a health care proxy,  what hospice care is and how to use hospice services, and information about medications for chronic pain. In other words, exactly what the proponents say it is. Do you have some factual reason for believing otherwise?

Factual, I said?



Leiren -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 4:13:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

If there is no love, nor usefulness, and if the cost is exorbitant, and if the person is in excessive, not treatable pain, then I say kill them. Recompense the living relatives financially.



I know I wouldn't want to live with a disease that can't be cured and available treatment would only prolong my pain and suffering for a few more months.

I just find your wording to be extraordinarily cold. You stated: "Just kill them and recompense the living relatives financially."

Sorry, but that just makes my blood run cold that you would think killing someone's loved one and then paying money to relatives is an acceptable means of 'solving the problem'.





Kirata -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 5:08:26 PM)

~ FR ~

I don't think we should ever give up on someone who still wants to live.

K.




Rule -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 5:15:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leiren
I just find your wording to be extraordinarily cold. You stated: "Just kill them and recompense the living relatives financially."

Sorry, but that just makes my blood run cold that you would think killing someone's loved one and then paying money to relatives is an acceptable means of 'solving the problem'.

It's called weergelt. (I have reason to assume that I am descended - among others - from Vikings.)

You are quite right. I am the coldest person alive. I am always amazed when people accuse me of having emotions. [8|] (Though I am happy to say that these last couple of years some emotion is returning.)

As for myself, if ever I die again, I would like to die honorably, with sword in hand, e.g. in an arena. Part of the ticket sales ought to go to my relatives and friends.

Of course there are also plenty of psychopaths who would be willing to pay for a license to murder. Why not turn a profit on death for the relatives and friends?



Rule -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 5:23:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I don't think we should ever give up on someone who still wants to live.

I agree, on condition that it is affordable. However, when it is a hopeless case and living prolongs suffering of subject and of relatives and friends, a tough decision must be made.

North American Indians, if I recall correctly, used to give a huge party for the elderly person and then quickly moved on, leaving him or her behind to starve to death. Sometimes the celebrant managed to join them again, and then again the awkward procedure would be repeated. Unless some psychopath warrior doubled back and secretly murdered the celebrant.

Some African tribes accuse everyone who is fifty or older of being a witch and burn them alive; a rather brutal form of retirement, I say.



Kirata -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 6:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I agree, on condition that it is affordable....

Well, personally, I cannot rationalize withholding treatment from people in need because there's no cash crossing somebody's palm.

K.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 6:20:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I agree, on condition that it is affordable....

Well, personally, I cannot rationalize withholding treatment from people in need because there's no cash crossing somebody's palm.

K.


Absolutely. I'm repelled by any suggestion that we, as a society, take even one step down that road.

At the same time, I absolutely support the right of people who are elderly and ill making their own informed choices on how to end their lives. The way I look at it; you've lived 70, 80 years - whatever - worked hard, maybe raised a family, had a life rich with experiences and contributions to society... you've damned well earned the right to end it on your terms, with dignity and respect. I believe that as a society, we have no moral right to stand in the way.



hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 6:51:11 PM)

End of Life decisions are something that I've been having to face with dad for the past 3 years, and which are still staring me in the face to a large extent.
 
I'm one of the lucky ones.  Dad has a DNR (do not rescusitate) and an AD (advance directive/living will) - between the two of which legally limit what the doctors are and aren't allowed to do to a large degree.  He can't be put on any sort of machines that will last longer than a 24 hour period, and not even that unless it's following surgery.  Surgical procedures are limited to those which ensure Quality of life, rather than Quantity of life - if it's something thats intended to keep him living at all, rather than to do things like maintain his mobility while he lives, then it's not allowed in the first place.  If he decides he's simply going to quit eatting tomorrow - we're not allowed to put him on feeding tubes or IV for fluids or nurishment.  If he decides he's simply going to quit using his oxygen - which he Needs in order to breath enough to sustain life - we can't do anything to make certain he stays on it, like trac tubes to keep him alive.
 
He's begged for death - more than once.  Legally, though, my hands are tied and so are his doctor's.  We can't legally do anything to help him end things, but if he decides to take matters into his own hands and starve himself we can't keep him from doing it.  Only ethically, we can't even encourage him to take that means to do things without our help.  And even if we did - the life insurance companies would rule it suicide, and therefore nullify his life insurance policy that he spent Years paying for so that when he's gone there's money to pay his last bills, bury him with, etc.
 
Personally, I hope the government suceeds in actually making some substantial changes in the way things work as far as end of life, the whole medical/ethical/legal run around combo, etc.  I don't have much in the way of faith that they'll do so - but lack of faith doesn't mean I don't still Hope.  I'm not a fan of Obama.  I didn't vote for him, and I have't seen anything since the inaugeration that's led me to change my opinions about his abilities.  I don't have faith in Any politician.  I'm also intelligent enough to acknowledge that the way things are doesn't work, and hasn't worked in a very long time.  Changes HAVE to be made.  The real question in my mind is not whether they're necessary, but how likely is it that we'll actually See any changes in MY lifetime....



TheHeretic -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 7:25:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Because hopeless pointless medical care for the terminal is exceedingly expensive and in many cases accomplishes nothing?



So now you are saying there WILL be death panels?  I mean, we'll find an acceptably Orwellian name for them (Happy Panels?  The Eternal Life Board?  Ooh!  How about "Reincarnation Therapists?"), but the principle stays the same.

Will you be sending Sarah Palin a little apology note?



SpinnerofTales -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 8:08:44 PM)

quote:

So now you are saying there WILL be death panels? I mean, we'll find an acceptably Orwellian name for them (Happy Panels? The Eternal Life Board? Ooh! How about "Reincarnation Therapists?"), but the principle stays the same.

Will you be sending Sarah Palin a little apology note?
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


No, we are saying that medical technology has, as technology often does, outstripped the ethical considerations of it's use. It used to be that there was no question that Doctors should do all they could to prolong life as long as they could. When things got to a certain point, their efforts meant nothing and people died. Now, with the machinery available, the heart can be kept beating, the blood pumping almost indefinitely. There are times when the conversation has to shift from what we can do to what we should do. This is one of those times. No one is talking about government death panels making these decisions. We are talking about discussing this matter in a sensible light.



DomKen -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 8:09:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Because hopeless pointless medical care for the terminal is exceedingly expensive and in many cases accomplishes nothing?



So now you are saying there WILL be death panels?  I mean, we'll find an acceptably Orwellian name for them (Happy Panels?  The Eternal Life Board?  Ooh!  How about "Reincarnation Therapists?"), but the principle stays the same.

Will you be sending Sarah Palin a little apology note?

Where did I say any such thing? Retract your lie.



Rhodes85 -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 8:19:10 PM)

LIES! after all everyone knows granny got run over by a raindeer.... [:D]



Arpig -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 9:05:42 PM)

quote:

Right. I can get that 100%. I guess my next question is....if its granny's decision, how does that automatically change it to the gov't decision?
It doesn't. That idea is one of the be-afraid-of-what's-not-there scare tactics used by opponents of the bill(s) before Congress.



Arpig -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/16/2009 9:08:04 PM)

quote:


What do you think the purpose of the end of life counseling is?
Why that's obvious willbeur, its to kill off all those nasty old folks who vote Republican...haven't you been following the news?



Leiren -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/17/2009 4:30:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Why not turn a profit on death for the relatives and friends?



Unbelievably crass. I'm hoping you're trying (unsuccessfully) to make a joke out of this.



Rule -> RE: Newsweek: The Case for Killing Granny (9/17/2009 5:15:31 PM)

Why, thank you!

I am all for death being honorable and dignified. I ain't a hypocrite about that.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0619812