death panels

The link is to a right wing hit piece but I agree with this, and I am on the wrong side of the equation.

"The 2003 paper goes on to say, "Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice. Every old person was young once, and every young person will be old too (if given the chance). In fact an important form of reciprocity is built into the life-years approach. If regulatory policy is based on life-years, every person will, in a sense, be both benefited and burdened, and in exactly the same way. Indeed, every person will be both a beneficiary and a victim of the relevant discrimination. People--the same people--will be benefited when they are younger and burdened when they are older."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... cliff.html

A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.

An interesting concept that production is measured in welfare. I suppose any other measure would constitute greed.

daisypusher wrote:

A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.

An interesting concept that production is measured in welfare. I suppose any other measure would constitute greed.

IF I understand your point, I think you are misunderstanding his. I do not think he is using welfare as in "government charity".

HBO is airing a documentary this month entitled "How to Die in Oregon." It follows some patients who have gotten the drugs for physician aid in dying. The law was enacted in 1984. Shortly after that, HBO aired a documentary on some people who were considering aid in dying. This is a new documentary.

The URL for the HBO synopsis of the show is:

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/how-to ... opsis.html

For such an enlightened state, however, this patient was not considered eligible for further treatment for his cancer:

In addition, the documentary profiles Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old uninsured Oregonian with prostate cancer, who is outraged when he is denied health care by the state and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead. Ultimately the state reverses its position when Stroup goes public with his story, but the chemotherapy treatment does not save his life.

The state told Randy Stroup that the chemotherapy would do not cure him and they had done enough for him. He had the chemo but died four months later.

While I am for some type of national healthcare system, NOT vouchers, this type of situation MUST not be allowed to happen. Just because you don't have money should not mean you should not get the treatment those with money can get.

I watched my dad die from prostate cancer and it is not pretty. Of course, no cancer is pretty as it ravages the body and the mind.

It is also interesting that since 1984, only 500 people have chosen assisted suicide. Assisted suicide in this case is where the doctor prescribes the medication and explains how to use it. That is the extent of the doctor's involvement, unless they choose more involvement, as in the case of Cody Curtis, who asked that her oncologist be there, because they had become truly good friends.

The cameras are outside the house when Cody goes through the last process of dying.

The documentary is very well done.

And please don't turn this into an assisted suicde topic. I put this here mainly for what happened to Randy Stroup.

So he was told the chemo would be ineffective but chose to undergo the treatment at taxpayers expense anyway?

What needs to be addressed is too many doctors have the mentality to keep the patient alive even if the patient will spend the rest of his life in misery. I know a stroke victim who no longer recognizes anyone but has been kept alive for the past five years. Very sad, but also very expensive.

Yes, but I'm reminded of the Terri Schiavo case, where the woman was clinically a vegetable for years, but the pro-lifers in the Congress and the State of Florida intervened and would not let them accede to her wishes not to be kept alive in such a state. So, when does the patient and the family's wish to allow a dignified death get to override the political posturing of those who refuse to let it happen on "moral grounds"? How much "taxpayer dollars" (since that seems to be the obsession here) have to be spent to allow someone to be "approved" to die with dignity?

Question? Why do we pay for cancer treatments for prisoners on DEATH-ROW?

Interesting question ....When does a right to lifers desire to save lives get trumped by their desire not to have their tax dollars spent on saving lives?