Death panels are here!

[Harpy Eagle]

The embryo (babies are born) doesn't have a fucking clue what's going on so do maybe we want to compare this to pulling the plug on a vegetable? It's still a moral question, I understand you don't want to accept that because you believe the government should stay out of moral dilemmas, but taking a life certainly has moral implications, no?

True, they do not have a clue. So we should wait to kill them so that we can get their input.

There is no moral reason to kill a baby in the womb, which is why even you had to make it a value issue.

But hey, maybe I am wrong. So, give me your best moral argument as to why a mother should be allowed to kill her child so as to not interfere with her career?

Or maybe we can go this route...give me a moral argument why it is ok to kill the baby in the womb but not ok the second it is born.

 

[whitehall]

If a breathing tube and ventilator was "all that separated him from death" it flies in the face of the claim that he was "alert and cognizant and pleading for his life".

 

[bendog]

"Do no harm", aye?

Dime to a dollar his insurance ran out.

Read the article, he had no insurance and there is a Texas law to protect the hospital.

So the article says that if a man doesn't have insurance, a hospital can kill him..

Which is what we said all along. Death panels. People who kill people based on their biased and uneducated determination of their quality of life, their financial, and/or ideological, status.

I think this one is a little of each.

I see, so you're going to focus on 'death panels' even though this is not the 'death panels' that were talked about when passing Obamacare. That right wing lie was about a government agency that was going to decide who lived or died if they HAD Obamacare insurance. This is a completely different nut.

KG is nuts about abortion, and this is really what the bs about "death panels" is about, and that's what G5000 attempted to explain, I think. I mean everyone I know doesn't like abortion. It would be a really good thing if no woman ever decided abortion was the least really crappy option out there. But that's really not the issue with "death panels" despite the nutters' attempts to confuse things.

A ventilator is something they put you on if you are so sick you cannot breath. Generally people who cannot breath are considered to be "dying." We all die in the end. Generally its considered ethical and humane to put a person on a ventilator is there is some hope that whatever is preventing their not being able to "breath" can be treated, and they will be able to "breath" in the future. If it is a medical certainty that the person will NEVER BE ABLE TO BREATH, THEY ARE DYING.

KG's schtick is life must be preserved at all costs, be they financial, ethical, moral or humane. As a society we have not really come to terms with terminal illnesses. It's not exactly a secret that hospice care for cancer patients includes a shot of morphine to put a person out of their misery near the end, and the person says when they can't take the pain anymore. But those people are not being "kept alive" with a machine that breathes for them with the certainty that they will never be able to breath again without a fucking tube stuck down their throat into their lungs and a machine that forces air into the lungs.

there is no rational comparison to ventilator support and abortion. Regardless of how you feel about either. KG thrives on misapprehension and irrelevancies.

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

 

[HappyJoy]

The embryo (babies are born) doesn't have a fucking clue what's going on so do maybe we want to compare this to pulling the plug on a vegetable? It's still a moral question, I understand you don't want to accept that because you believe the government should stay out of moral dilemmas, but taking a life certainly has moral implications, no?

True, they do not have a clue. So we should wait to kill them so that we can get their input.

Why would you torture them like that? That/s just cruel.

There is no moral reason to kill a baby in the womb, which is why even you had to make it a value issue.

Which tells me you are pro-life for moral reasons, no? I mean, you kind of just said that.

But hey, maybe I am wrong. So, give me your best moral argument as to why a mother should be allowed to kill her child so as to not interfere with her career?

Um, because it's up to her and the embryo (again, children are born) doesn't know what's going on. How do you feel about disposing of unwanted fertilized eggs created during IVF? I mean they are literally created knowing that many are going to be destroyed, should that practice stop?

Or maybe we can go this route...give me a moral argument why it is ok to kill the baby in the womb but not ok the second it is born.

For someone who doesn't think this is a moral issue you sure are throwing out a lot of moral questions.

My answer is I don't have an answer for you, it's not my decision to make. Personally a 3rd trimester abortion to me sounds awful and I believe those only happen to save the mother's life or due to severe health issues with the baby. But in the end, I don't have to make these awful gut wrenching decisions. For some reason Mr. Libertarian you want the government to decide these moral issues for us.

I'm going to assume at this point that you said 'fuck it' and snuck out the back door with the fucking dog, am I right or what?

 

[bendog]

If a breathing tube and ventilator was "all that separated him from death" it flies in the face of the claim that he was "alert and cognizant and pleading for his life".

Not at all. You don't think some people are cognizant when they take their final breath?

 

[jc456]

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

But how? That's the issue. You can't just say "oh they'll get paid, it's ok" without addressing how... unless you want them to eventually all disappear completely.

dude, I already listed those who would.

 

[jc456]

the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?

The government forces your industry to give your product and services to people who cannot pay for it?

I think you are not telling the truth.


Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

yep

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

 

[jc456]

they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.

That is not the same as forcing starbucks to give that same person some coffee and a snack.

sure it is. They already gave away their coffee.

The government forces them to give away their coffee? Really...can you provide a link please.

why did they then? to stay in business?

It is good PR, which brings in more business. Same reason Budweiser gives away cans of water during natural disasters.

The difference here is a company choosing to do something and the government forcing them to do it. You, being a socialist support the latter.

it's called moral. And people who are truly moral would never allow an innocent life to die. The parents in England have both been wronged by immoral laws. laws are dictated by the populace. period. states and countries who dictate are immoral.

 

[HappyJoy]

Read the article, he had no insurance and there is a Texas law to protect the hospital.

So the article says that if a man doesn't have insurance, a hospital can kill him..

Which is what we said all along. Death panels. People who kill people based on their biased and uneducated determination of their quality of life, their financial, and/or ideological, status.

I think this one is a little of each.

I see, so you're going to focus on 'death panels' even though this is not the 'death panels' that were talked about when passing Obamacare. That right wing lie was about a government agency that was going to decide who lived or died if they HAD Obamacare insurance. This is a completely different nut.

KG is nuts about abortion, and this is really what the bs about "death panels" is about, and that's what G5000 attempted to explain, I think. I mean everyone I know doesn't like abortion. It would be a really good thing if no woman ever decided abortion was the least really crappy option out there. But that's really not the issue with "death panels" despite the nutters' attempts to confuse things.

A ventilator is something they put you on if you are so sick you cannot breath. Generally people who cannot breath are considered to be "dying." We all die in the end. Generally its considered ethical and humane to put a person on a ventilator is there is some hope that whatever is preventing their not being able to "breath" can be treated, and they will be able to "breath" in the future. If it is a medical certainty that the person will NEVER BE ABLE TO BREATH, THEY ARE DYING.

KG's schtick is life must be preserved at all costs, be they financial, ethical, moral or humane. As a society we have not really come to terms with terminal illnesses. It's not exactly a secret that hospice care for cancer patients includes a shot of morphine to put a person out of their misery near the end, and the person says when they can't take the pain anymore. But those people are not being "kept alive" with a machine that breathes for them with the certainty that they will never be able to breath again without a fucking tube stuck down their throat into their lungs and a machine that forces air into the lungs.

there is no rational comparison to ventilator support and abortion. Regardless of how you feel about either. KG thrives on misapprehension and irrelevancies.

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.[/QUOTE]

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The government forces your industry to give your product and services to people who cannot pay for it?

I think you are not telling the truth.


Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

yep

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

 

[jc456]

So the article says that if a man doesn't have insurance, a hospital can kill him..

Which is what we said all along. Death panels. People who kill people based on their biased and uneducated determination of their quality of life, their financial, and/or ideological, status.

I think this one is a little of each.

I see, so you're going to focus on 'death panels' even though this is not the 'death panels' that were talked about when passing Obamacare. That right wing lie was about a government agency that was going to decide who lived or died if they HAD Obamacare insurance. This is a completely different nut.

KG is nuts about abortion, and this is really what the bs about "death panels" is about, and that's what G5000 attempted to explain, I think. I mean everyone I know doesn't like abortion. It would be a really good thing if no woman ever decided abortion was the least really crappy option out there. But that's really not the issue with "death panels" despite the nutters' attempts to confuse things.

A ventilator is something they put you on if you are so sick you cannot breath. Generally people who cannot breath are considered to be "dying." We all die in the end. Generally its considered ethical and humane to put a person on a ventilator is there is some hope that whatever is preventing their not being able to "breath" can be treated, and they will be able to "breath" in the future. If it is a medical certainty that the person will NEVER BE ABLE TO BREATH, THEY ARE DYING.

KG's schtick is life must be preserved at all costs, be they financial, ethical, moral or humane. As a society we have not really come to terms with terminal illnesses. It's not exactly a secret that hospice care for cancer patients includes a shot of morphine to put a person out of their misery near the end, and the person says when they can't take the pain anymore. But those people are not being "kept alive" with a machine that breathes for them with the certainty that they will never be able to breath again without a fucking tube stuck down their throat into their lungs and a machine that forces air into the lungs.

there is no rational comparison to ventilator support and abortion. Regardless of how you feel about either. KG thrives on misapprehension and irrelevancies.

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

It's called quality of life for me. And family members can decide that. I lost both parents due to dementia. My mother couldn't say a cognitive word. Was biting nurses trying to help her. she finally stopped eating and her health deteriorated to the point we wanted her to be comfortable. She passed two days later. She had absolutely no quality of life. None, zip and me as her son, along with two sisters decided she suffered enough.

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure the same result doesn't occur regardless of insurance. Docs cannot ethically withhold treatment if there is more than a medical miracle the patient will recover. I hope there are very few docs who would keep a hopelessly ill person on a ventilator just for money. And by far the more common situation is when a patient failed to have an advanced care directive that provided artificial life support would NOT be used, and their family wants docs to cease using it. And that's why this law had the support of the state's medical assoc and the disability rights groups.

It's a very weird situation and that's why Votto had to go back to a TWO YEAR OLD NEWS STORY to start his retarded thread, that attracted KG like honey to a bee.

 

[jc456]

yep

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why would you torture them like that? That/s just cruel.

So, in your view it is ok to kill them if they do not know it is happening. Does that carry over to all humans, or just the ones in the womb?

Which tells me you are pro-life for moral reasons, no? I mean, you kind of just said that.

I am pro-life for morals reasons, but the laws of our country on this subject have nothing to do with morals. More than anything they are a matter of practicality.

Um, because it's up to her and the embryo (again, children are born) doesn't know what's going on.

No, it is a child even before it is born. There was not one second that I did not think of my children as children even in the womb. I do not know of a single person how has ever said "I cannot wait till this embryo is born". Or "my wife is pregnant with our 3rd embryo".

For someone who doesn't think this is a moral issue you sure are throwing out a lot of moral questions.

You have made the claim it is a moral issue, all I am trying to do is get you to support your own claim. Why is it you cannot do that?

My answer is I don't have an answer for you, it's not my decision to make. Personally a 3rd trimester abortion to me sounds awful and I believe those only happen to save the mother's life or due to severe health issues with the baby. But in the end, I don't have to make these awful gut wrenching decisions. For some reason Mr. Libertarian you want the government to decide these moral issues for us.

The government already has made this decision for us, they said it is cool to kill the baby in the womb so that the mother is not inconvenienced. But there is not one, single, tiny little moral reason behind that decision.

Why cut it off at birth, why not give the mother 6 months to a year after the birth to decide if she really wants the child or not?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

 

[whitehall]

If a breathing tube and ventilator was "all that separated him from death" it flies in the face of the claim that he was "alert and cognizant and pleading for his life".

Not at all. You don't think some people are cognizant when they take their final breath?

We are free to imagine anything we want to about the mental state of terminal patients who are "separated from death" by a breathing tube and ventilator but the fact is that they are usually not "alert and cognizant and pleading for their lives" except in our own imagination. Clearly this is sensationalized news designed to elicit an emotional response.

 

[bendog]

If a breathing tube and ventilator was "all that separated him from death" it flies in the face of the claim that he was "alert and cognizant and pleading for his life".

Not at all. You don't think some people are cognizant when they take their final breath?

We are free to imagine anything we want to about the mental state of terminal patients who are "separated from death" by a breathing tube and ventilator but the fact is that they are usually not "alert and cognizant and pleading for their lives" except in our own imagination. Clearly this is sensationalized news designed to elicit an emotional response.

No we are not "all free."
“I Won’t Let You Suffer.” Three Things a Doctor Can Do for a Dying Patient.

Eat shit and die, asshole.

 

[my2¢]

I hadn't heard of this one in OP but recently became aware of deaths of 26 and 27-year-olds that could not afford insulin and passed away.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why would you torture them like that? That/s just cruel.

So, in your view it is ok to kill them if they do not know it is happening. Does that carry over to all humans, or just the ones in the womb?

Embryos aren't fully formed humans, I don't pretend they are.

Which tells me you are pro-life for moral reasons, no? I mean, you kind of just said that.

I am pro-life for morals reasons, but the laws of our country on this subject have nothing to do with morals. More than anything they are a matter of practicality.

You want government to make abortion illegal on your terms, for your reasons though, correct? Which would be moral.

Um, because it's up to her and the embryo (again, children are born) doesn't know what's going on.

No, it is a child even before it is born. There was not one second that I did not think of my children as children even in the womb. I do not know of a single person how has ever said "I cannot wait till this embryo is born". Or "my wife is pregnant with our 3rd embryo".

The fact that you think of unborn embryos as children is on you, it's not a clinical definition, so I disagree with you. Calling them babies or children is understandable and I've done the same but in reality it's a euphemism.

For someone who doesn't think this is a moral issue you sure are throwing out a lot of moral questions.

You have made the claim it is a moral issue, all I am trying to do is get you to support your own claim. Why is it you cannot do that?

That it's a moral issue? I never said it wasn't.

My answer is I don't have an answer for you, it's not my decision to make. Personally a 3rd trimester abortion to me sounds awful and I believe those only happen to save the mother's life or due to severe health issues with the baby. But in the end, I don't have to make these awful gut wrenching decisions. For some reason Mr. Libertarian you want the government to decide these moral issues for us.

The government already has made this decision for us, they said it is cool to kill the baby in the womb so that the mother is not inconvenienced. But there is not one, single, tiny little moral reason behind that decision.

I bring up morality because it's usually libertarians who do not want government to make laws on personal morality, maybe I'm wrong?

Why cut it off at birth, why not give the mother 6 months to a year after the birth to decide if she really wants the child or not?

Because the person at that point has constitutional rights.

You didn't answer my IVF question. Should that procedure end because ultimately that's going to lead to murder (in your eyes)?

Do you think women who get abortions should face the death penalty?

Do you think women should be allowed to get an abortion in the case of rape?

And of course, dog or embryos, make your choice yet?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I hadn't heard of this one in OP but recently became aware of deaths of 26 and 27-year-olds that could not afford insulin and passed away.

Does not surprise me. My son is a Type-1 and insulin is damn expensive even with great insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com