Dick Cheney

[Emma]

Why on earth would they waste a new heart on that man? He's old and very sick, they should have given one to someone who is young and has a life to look forward to.

Pathetic.

Why?.... Perhaps it is the Hippocratic Oath

Don't worry, but do be careful what you wish for....

-----

Otherwise, stay healthy or you might find yourself the next 71 year old being denied treatment as
an unnecessary cost to the State or for being "obsolete" as of use to the State. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc"][/ame]

This has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath. Medicine has limited resources; rationing, triage and decisions on the allocation of these limited resources is as old as the profession itself.

I don't think this was a "waste" of a good heart. There are specific criteria that move one up or down a transplant list, and apparently Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it, and those physicians and other professionals involved in organ procurement and transplant services are not going to risk their programs and their careers by allocating a heart to him if there had been a match further up the list. A match came available in that area and he was offered the chance for the transplant. That's all there is to it.

 

[zeke]

Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it,

Proof once again that some people will believe anything.

Doctors should have let him die on the table. Would have done the world a favor. IMO.
But there is still hope he could die soon. I will keep my fingers crossed.

 

[Emma]

Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it,

Proof once again that some people will believe anything.

Doctors should have let him die on the table. Would have done the world a favor. IMO.
But there is still hope he could die soon. I will keep my fingers crossed.

Again, these people were not going to risk their programs and careers by disregarding the criteria and rules just because of who he is.

He does have a hard road ahead; this is no guarantee he will live. I think wishing that he would have died on the table or 'soon' is pretty damned disgusting. I disagreed with pretty much everything he stood for politically, but this isn't about politics, IMO.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Why on earth would they waste a new heart on that man? He's old and very sick, they should have given one to someone who is young and has a life to look forward to.

Pathetic.

Why?.... Perhaps it is the Hippocratic Oath

Don't worry, but do be careful what you wish for....

-----

Otherwise, stay healthy or you might find yourself the next 71 year old being denied treatment as
an unnecessary cost to the State or for being "obsolete" as of use to the State. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc"][/ame]

This has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath. Medicine has limited resources; rationing, triage and decisions on the allocation of these limited resources is as old as the profession itself.

I don't think this was a "waste" of a good heart. There are specific criteria that move one up or down a transplant list, and apparently Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it, and those physicians and other professionals involved in organ procurement and transplant services are not going to risk their programs and their careers by allocating a heart to him if there had been a match further up the list. A match came available in that area and he was offered the chance for the transplant. That's all there is to it.

Agree that resource allocation is a factor and there is no "free lunch" in economics, though the term triage might is better suited for emergency room treatment.

The previous poster's claim was one of judgment on the "worth" of a person
The Hippocratic Oath does not call for such a thing and in spirit to treat all the same
regardless of who or what they are......

 

[Sarah G]

Why on earth would they waste a new heart on that man? He's old and very sick, they should have given one to someone who is young and has a life to look forward to.

Pathetic.

Why?.... Perhaps it is the Hippocratic Oath

Don't worry, but do be careful what you wish for....

-----

Otherwise, stay healthy or you might find yourself the next 71 year old being denied treatment as
an unnecessary cost to the State or for being "obsolete" as of use to the State. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc"][/ame]

This has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath. Medicine has limited resources; rationing, triage and decisions on the allocation of these limited resources is as old as the profession itself.

I don't think this was a "waste" of a good heart. There are specific criteria that move one up or down a transplant list, and apparently Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it, and those physicians and other professionals involved in organ procurement and transplant services are not going to risk their programs and their careers by allocating a heart to him if there had been a match further up the list. A match came available in that area and he was offered the chance for the transplant. That's all there is to it.

Emma, a lot of people get turned down for procedures like these if they don't have insurance or resources to pay. People go bankrupt, they sell everything they have to stay alive. This guy just happened to have the money.

Somebody got turned down because we're trying to keep Cheney upright.

 

[Emma]

The previous poster's claim was one of judgment on the "worth" of a person
The Hippocratic Oath does not call for such a thing and in spirit to treat all the same
regardless of who or what they are......

All are not treated the 'same' ... like I said above, rationing and decisions on how to allocate limited resources is the reality of healthcare and always has been.

The only thing I wonder about regarding Mr. Cheney is his age; apparently the team felt that he was a viable candidate regardless. If he had other co-morbidities and risk factors such as diabetes, he most likely would have been turned down. We also don't know the specifics of how this heart was chosen for him; it could well be that there was another person out there in this area who (for whatever reason) was unable to undergo this surgery at this time, effectively bumping Mr. Cheney up the list. I suspect if there had been a healthy younger person available, they would have received this heart.

 

[Unkotare]

Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it,

Proof once again that some people will believe anything.

Doctors should have let him die on the table. Would have done the world a favor. IMO.
But there is still hope he could die soon. I will keep my fingers crossed.

You realize that YOU are a horrible person, right?

 

[Sarah G]

That's beneath you.

Not really.

I agree. Nothing is beneath a low-life bottom feeder.

I'm glad you admit you're a bottom feeder.

 

[Emma]

Emma, a lot of people get turned down for procedures like these if they don't have insurance or resources to pay. People go bankrupt, they sell everything they have to stay alive. This guy just happened to have the money.

Somebody got turned down because we're trying to keep Cheney upright.

I don't think he was chosen to receive this heart because he had the money. There's no way to know who was turned down or if that actually happened. There are time and distance limits on these transplants, too. So depending on where they harvested the heart, there were a limited number of people (matched) who were available to be the recipient.

I've known people who work in organ procurement. I really don't think they, or the physicians and programs dedicated to transplant services, are going to risk it all for the sake of keeping this particular person alive.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The previous poster's claim was one of judgment on the "worth" of a person
The Hippocratic Oath does not call for such a thing and in spirit to treat all the same
regardless of who or what they are......

All are not treated the 'same' ... like I said above, rationing and decisions on how to allocate limited resources is the reality of healthcare and always has been.

The only thing I wonder about regarding Mr. Cheney is his age; apparently the team felt that he was a viable candidate regardless. If he had other co-morbidities and risk factors such as diabetes, he most likely would have been turned down. We also don't know the specifics of how this heart was chosen for him; it could well be that there was another person out there in this area who (for whatever reason) was unable to undergo this surgery at this time, effectively bumping Mr. Cheney up the list. I suspect if there had been a healthy younger person available, they would have received this heart.

While I agree with you, for the most part

You using "equity of results" to judge equality

I am using "equality before the eyes" of the doctor

Really no different than our own legal system
Being equal before the eyes of law does not
mean equity of results

 

[WillowTree]

Why on earth would they waste a new heart on that man? He's old and very sick, they should have given one to someone who is young and has a life to look forward to.

Pathetic.

I thought libturds denied the "death panel" mentality,, and here it is in all it's glory.. glory be. shades of Sarah Palin.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Had a heart transplant today.

I wish him a good recovery.

Yeah....he's long-overdue for one, serious
ASS-KICKIN'!!!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbDfYzq_HaQ&feature=related]Truth about Halliburton and Dick Cheney - YouTube[/ame]

I suggest we have a Lottery....to see who GETS the opportunity to kick the shit outta him....a Lottery limited to family-men.....in their 20s-or-30s....who need heart-transplants.

If they've got combat-related PTSD, they get an auto-pass to the front-of-the-line.​

 

[Emma]

While I agree with you, for the most part

You using "equity of results" to judge equality

I am using "equality before the eyes" of the doctor

Really no different than our own legal system
Being equal before the eyes of law does not
mean equity of results

There isn't "equality before the eyes"; they look at the individual and weigh risks vs benefits in deciding what treatments to offer, if any.

 

[Sarah G]

Why on earth would they waste a new heart on that man? He's old and very sick, they should have given one to someone who is young and has a life to look forward to.

Pathetic.

I thought libturds denied the "death panel" mentality,, and here it is in all it's glory.. glory be. shades of Sarah Palin.

The death panels have never gone away they exist only for those who don't have the resources to stay alive. Palin used her death panel talking points as a political football railing against Obamacare.

Don't think she has any empathy for her fellow man. I do, see the difference?

 

[Neotrotsky]

While I agree with you, for the most part

You using "equity of results" to judge equality

I am using "equality before the eyes" of the doctor

Really no different than our own legal system
Being equal before the eyes of law does not
mean equity of results

There isn't "equality before the eyes"; they look at the individual and weigh risks vs benefits in deciding what treatments to offer, if any.

To the point that the doctor is not using non relevant factors or personal non-relevant opinions
sure it is "equality before the eyes" of the doctor

eg Even if a doctor was from one political party and the patient from another

The oath would not allow him to approach treatment on them differently

 

[Emma]

To the point that the doctor is not using non relevant factors or personal non-relevant opinions
sure it is "equality before the eyes" of the doctor

What???

 

[WillowTree]

Why on earth would they waste a new heart on that man? He's old and very sick, they should have given one to someone who is young and has a life to look forward to.

Pathetic.

I thought libturds denied the "death panel" mentality,, and here it is in all it's glory.. glory be. shades of Sarah Palin.

The death panels have never gone away they exist only for those who don't have the resources to stay alive. Palin used her death panel talking points as a political football railing against Obamacare.

Don't think she has any empathy for her fellow man. I do, see the difference?

so you mocked Sarah Palin and denied death panels and all the while you knew she was right and that they existed.. We see how you are now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whether a person dislikes his politics or not we should not wish him ill.

FUCK HIM!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4]DICK Cheney "SO" - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ&feature=related]US Troops in Iraq talk about Halliburton & KBR - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Neotrotsky]

I thought libturds denied the "death panel" mentality,, and here it is in all it's glory.. glory be. shades of Sarah Palin.

The death panels have never gone away they exist only for those who don't have the resources to stay alive. Palin used her death panel talking points as a political football railing against Obamacare.

Don't think she has any empathy for her fellow man. I do, see the difference?

so you mocked Sarah Palin and denied death panels and all the while you knew she was right and that they existed.. We see how you are now.

This is the delusional thinking of the left that resource allocation will be more "fair" under gov't control. Does anyone really think that the President and other politicians
and friends of them are going to have the same doctors and treatment?

We only need to look at Papa Obama's decision to deny vouchers for poor black kids to go to the same private school as his kids , to see that is not going to be the case.

Really, trusting politicians ,,,,,,
I would rather put my trust in the hands of a real free market for health care then the cold hands of some gov't bureaucrat, any day.




If the bill to eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the real death panels,
does not pass the Senate and/or the SCOTUS does not "defang" Papa ObamaCare, we may soon get a taste of the brave new world.

No doubt with the help of the power of the state, our future will be bright for seniors
and others

The recent mammogram decision by a gov't panel to throw long-time guidelines for breast cancer screening,
is a small taste of future cost control under PapaObama Care and the IPAB.


let us hope that the SCOTUS rules to reign in PapaObama Care.
Otherwise, stay healthy or we could find ourselves the next 71 year old being denied treatment as an unnecessary cost to the State or for being "obsolete" as of use to the State.

A Rousseauian future we should all hope to avoid.....




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc]Obsolete - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

Mr. Cheney was at or near the top. I don't believe who he is had anything to do with it,

Proof once again that some people will believe anything.

Doctors should have let him die on the table. Would have done the world a favor. IMO.
But there is still hope he could die soon. I will keep my fingers crossed.

I am hoping you die a painful horrifying death.

It is quite easy to level the playing.