Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More evidence that Texas is a shit hole state run by shit heads. We should give it back to MexicoA Tragic Case of Modern Bioethics: Denying Life-Sustaining Treatment to a Patient Who Wanted to Live
A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.
And the ethics committee cannot be questioned in any way, nor can we know who they are and these people need no qualifications.
Scary stuff
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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.
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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
No, NOT for lack of insurance.
What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.
It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.
Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.
When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.
You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.
The people who bring us:
and
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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
No, NOT for lack of insurance.
What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.
It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.
Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.
When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.
You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.
The people who bring us:
and
So, it seems you think that care providers should provide care for anyone, regardless of ability to pay.
Do you also think that the Govt should force restaurants to feed the hungry regardless of their ability to pay?
Should a landlord be forced to give housing to the homeless regardless of their ability to pay?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
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.
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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
No, NOT for lack of insurance.
What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.
It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.
Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.
When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.
You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.
The people who bring us:
and
So, it seems you think that care providers should provide care for anyone, regardless of ability to pay.
Do you also think that the Govt should force restaurants to feed the hungry regardless of their ability to pay?
Should a landlord be forced to give housing to the homeless regardless of their ability to pay?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
will they die if they don't bake the cake?
He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
Hey Dunce, the guy referenced in the OP didn't have insurance.
So, once again the question is what do you think should be done for people without insurance?
Did you hit yourself with a hammer or something?
dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.
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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
yeahI 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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
No, NOT for lack of insurance.
What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.
It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.
Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.
When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.
You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.
The people who bring us:
and
So, it seems you think that care providers should provide care for anyone, regardless of ability to pay.
Do you also think that the Govt should force restaurants to feed the hungry regardless of their ability to pay?
Should a landlord be forced to give housing to the homeless regardless of their ability to pay?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
will they die if they don't bake the cake?
It is always a possibility.
ohhhkay
He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
Hey Dunce, the guy referenced in the OP didn't have insurance.
So, once again the question is what do you think should be done for people without insurance?
Did you hit yourself with a hammer or something?
He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
I said there were many ways to get the money, you keep choosing to ignore that. that's on you. and again, asked and answered.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
You're answer is to pass the bill to hospitals who are just going to make everyone else pay for it?
He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
Hey Dunce, the guy referenced in the OP didn't have insurance.
So, once again the question is what do you think should be done for people without insurance?
Did you hit yourself with a hammer or something?
There have always been charity hospitals and funding for those who don't have insurance or the money to pay for their treatment.
Always.
it was already answered. move on.He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
Because you won't answer the question, duh.
yeahYeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
No, NOT for lack of insurance.
What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.
It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.
Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.
When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.
You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.
The people who bring us:
and
So, it seems you think that care providers should provide care for anyone, regardless of ability to pay.
Do you also think that the Govt should force restaurants to feed the hungry regardless of their ability to pay?
Should a landlord be forced to give housing to the homeless regardless of their ability to pay?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
How do you feel about the government forcing bakers to bake a cake?
will they die if they don't bake the cake?
It is always a possibility.
dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.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.No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.
There's a difference.
Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
You're answer is to pass the bill to hospitals who are just going to make everyone else pay for it?
it was already answered. move on.He just continues with the rhetoric. He'll keep asking the same stupid question, and he'll keep asserting "lack of insurance kills people" over and over, though it isn't true..because that's how death cultists hide their actions.dude, with all due respect, asked and answered.it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.
If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?
The nazis and commies did the same thing. They insisted on taking over the care of the crazies and the sick..then when they had control, they killed them.
That's what these people are. That's why they are so adamant about single payer..it gives the state the authority to kill the weak, the vulnerable, the ill.
And in their minds, that means more resources for them.
Because you won't answer the question, duh.
