End of life counseling

[Westside Steve]

So aside from any other point I think end of life counseling is a good idea.

I doubt there's one of us here who would wish to live on machines or be cobbled together just to keep fluids coursing through a near corpse.

 

And when that end is imminent I'm sure it can be very frightening so I'd hope there's someone to help me through the decision to let go.

 

Edward G in Soylent Green

 

Is there anyone who would NOT want the "no extreme measuures" text in our living will?

 

WSS

[Chicopee John]

Is there anyone who would NOT want the "no extreme measuures" text in our living will?WSS[/b]

 

I'd want it there, Steve.

 

To me, the irony is that many folks who favor this type of government intervention are the same folks who believe that a number of things - including a woman's 'right' to choose - want to keep government out of personal decision making.

 

On the other hand, the flip side is that those who are against government intervention in this case (intervention is probably not the correct term) are the ones that favored the crazy example of Repubs. rushing back to Washington on that weekend in order to intervene in XXXXX's case.

 

There are no lack of hypocrites.

 

[Westside Steve]

There are no lack of hypocrites.

 

 

Correct you are.

 

There are enough smart compromises out there that this bill could actually get done right.

But............

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

I'd want it there, Steve.

 

To me, the irony is that many folks who favor this type of government intervention are the same folks who believe that a number of things - including a woman's 'right' to choose - want to keep government out of personal decision making.

 

On the other hand, the flip side is that those who are against government intervention in this case (intervention is probably not the correct term) are the ones that favored the crazy example of Repubs. rushing back to Washington on that weekend in order to intervene in XXXXX's case.

 

There are no lack of hypocrites.

 

I agree. I would want no extreme measures in my will. My mom made sure that verbage was in place before she died. Same with my brother. Anyone who wants to f'ck with someones dying wish should go to hell. That is the last thing left for them, I mean literally THE LAST THING.

 

There is life after death. When I go, after all the pain and suffering, I think I would look forward to dying. That is just part of the journey, our life now, is only a part of it.

 

People messing with their decision think that they are doing the dying person a favor, they are just impeding their journey.

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, end of life counseling has absolutely nothing to do with government intervention. It's precisely the opposite - allowing you to meet with a specialist/doctor to discuss your care options, and having that be covered by this new insurance plan. It's simply saying that these visits will be covered as part of the public insurance plan. That's it.

 

It's not analogous to the pro-choice position at all, so nor is it hypocritical to be for both.

[Chicopee John]

John, end of life counseling has absolutely nothing to do with government intervention. It's precisely the opposite - allowing you to meet with a specialist/doctor to discuss your care options, and having that be covered by this new insurance plan. It's simply saying that these visits will be covered as part of the public insurance plan. That's it.

 

It's not analogous to the pro-choice position at all, so nor is it hypocritical to be for both.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Heck.

 

Just a question................does not this capability already exist as Doctors are trained to counsel in such matters. Social workers are also available.

 

I know that this if for people who have insurance but I don't believe these types of sessions are at an additional charge. My mother in law just went through such a circumstance and her husband and family were made quite aware of the situation, prognosis, etc. They decided to let God do his work.

 

[WPB Dawg Fan]

Thanks for the clarification, Heck.

 

Just a question................does not this capability already exist as Doctors are trained to counsel in such matters. Social workers are also available.

 

I know that this if for people who have insurance but I don't believe these types of sessions are at an additional charge. My mother in law just went through such a circumstance and her husband and family were made quite aware of the situation, prognosis, etc. They decided to let God do his work.

End of life counseling is 'technically' available now...but they are not 'paid' separately, so many hospitals are not providing the counseling to the level which they should be provided.

 

By providing for payment under the new NIH, it will in fact give hospitals/physicians incentive to do this more thoroughly and thereby the believe is more people will opt out of the high cost of prolonging life through invasive means. Basically, the NIH is hoping to cut costs by educating the public about their options...and in this case I can find no fault in it. You still have the choice, you are just better educated.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, this often happens informally. But obviously, not everyone makes these arrangement ahead of time. All this section does is allow for you to schedule an informational session to go over these issues and have that be covered by your public insurance. If you don't need to schedule one because you've already made your wishes clear to the doctor or hospital staff, then you don't need to bother. But not everyone is going to be up on what those options are (I'm not) so your informational session would be covered.

 

Now, again, compare what this program is and what it does -- and what it doesn't -- and compare that to the rhetoric coming out of the Sarah Palin's mouth, and Newt Gingrich's mouth, and the mouths of the people on Fox, and at the town hall meetings, and you begin to see how f'cking crazy and ill-formed they are. Or in some cases, like Gingrich's, you're talking about people who are willfully misinforming the public.

 

Sarah Palin is different. She simply has no clue what she's talking about, and proves it repeatedly. (Again today on US loans to Brazil.) She has no basic policy knowledge, and yet this doesn't seem to stop her from stridently condemning policy she clearly doesn't understand. She'd be laughed off this message board. And yet someone thought she should be a McCain heartbeat away from the presidency.

 

I mean, think about what she did: she read or was told about the section on end-of-life counseling, and suggested that Obama wanted to create "death panels" that would decide whether or not her Down's baby lived or died based on his contributions to society.

 

Honestly, think about how irresponsible it is to have someone so damn ignorant and clueless making news and garnering a following? You might as well have Cal tell you what it says.

 

 

[Guest mz.]

Thank you for dismissing the death panel crap for our resident crazies here, guys. Now that it has an entire thread devoted to it, hopefully they'll actually absorb some of the explanations a bunch of us have been trying to give for days/weeks now.

[Westside Steve]

[quote name='heckofajobbrownie' date='Aug 20 2009, 10:43 AM' post='95432

 

Honestly, think about how irresponsible it is to have someone so damn ignorant and clueless making news and garnering a following? You might as well have Cal tell you what it says.

 

 

And the window of respectful discussion closes with a bang.

 

See what you get?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Is he wrong?

 

On what Dan?

The unprovoked attack on Cal?

 

 

But back to the subject I think it's immoral to knowingly deliver severely handicapped infants unless you personally have the means to care for them for the long haul.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The point is that the words coming out of the mouth of the most recent vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party are as about as uninformed as Cal's. Neither have them have a clue what they're talking about.

 

Consider this poll after the election:

 

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin.

 

Or a more recent one after she stepped down as governor: "Republicans by 71%-27% say they'd be likely to vote for her if she ran for president in 2012."

 

What I'm suggesting is that the base of the Republican Party is largely filled with unserious and factually-challenged people in a way that the Democratic Party is not.

 

Or look at this week's polls about Fox News viewers. Once again, they're far more likely to believe things about policy that simply aren't true than other viewers of CNN or MSNBC. This was true during the Bush years as well.

 

We see this alternative reality every day on this board. We saw it at the town halls. We see it in their preferred candidates.

 

It ain't pretty. But it makes the support for someone who spews such unadulterated nonsense as Sarah Palin understandable.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But back to the subject I think it's immoral to knowingly deliver severely handicapped infants unless you personally have the means to care for them for the long haul.

WSS[/b]

 

I had no idea that was the subject, since it hadn't been raised until now.

 

What you're saying is that only the well-off (caring for severely handicapped children is extraordinarily expensive) should not abort severely handicapped infants. If you aren't so well off, you should. And if you don't, that's immoral.

 

Is that it?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Joe Klein makes the same point as me today. It's a good read.

 

"How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?

 

I'm not going to try. I've written countless "Democrats in Disarray" stories over the years and been critical of the left on numerous issues in the past. This year, the liberal insistence on a marginally relevant public option has been a tactical mistake that has enabled the right's "government takeover" disinformation jihad. There have been times when Democrats have run demagogic scare campaigns on issues like Social Security and Medicare. ...But these are policy differences, matters of substance. The most liberal members of the Democratic caucus — Senator Russ Feingold in the Senate, Representative Dennis Kucinich in the House, to name two — are honorable public servants who make their arguments based on facts. They don't retail outright lies. Hyperbole and distortion certainly exist on the left, but they are a minor chord in the Democratic Party.

 

It is a very different story among Republicans. To be sure, there are honorable conservatives, trying to do the right thing. There is a legitimate, if wildly improbable, fear that Obama's plan will start a process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government. There are conservatives — Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative Mike Pence, among many others — who make their arguments based on facts. But they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal. The philosophically supple party that existed as recently as George H.W. Bush's presidency has been obliterated. The party's putative intellectuals — people like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol — are prosaic tacticians who make precious few substantive arguments but oppose health-care reform mostly because passage would help Barack Obama's political prospects. In 1993, when the Clintons tried health-care reform, the Republican John Chafee offered a creative (in fact, superior) alternative — which Kristol quashed with his famous "Don't Help Clinton" fax to the troops. There is no Republican health-care alternative in 2009. The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. And when Palin floated the "death panel" canard, the number of prominent Republicans who rose up to call her out could be counted on one hand."

 

 

 

[Guest mz.]

Does anyone else find it odd the two dimwits refuse to take part in the only sane discussion on this board?

[Guest mz.]

The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions.

 

Which makes you question their motivation, bigtime.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

What I'd say is that it's become increasingly rare to find a Republican -- even in Congress -- who is serious about public policy. What the majority of today's Republicans are motivated by is cultural resentment. The Tupas and Reihan Salaams and Ross Douthats of the world give me hope, but right now they're too small a minority to make a difference in the party.

 

It's like being a football coach, but instead of being versed in the Xs and Os of how the game is played, you've got a lot of sports talk call-in show opinions about it.

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Does anyone else find it odd the two dimwits refuse to take part in the only sane discussion on this board?

 

Let's see.

This is your offering and Hecks is another Palin rant.

 

I guess you're right.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

I had no idea that was the subject, since it hadn't been raised until now.

 

What you're saying is that only the well-off (caring for severely handicapped children is extraordinarily expensive) should not abort severely handicapped infants. If you aren't so well off, you should. And if you don't, that's immoral.

 

Is that it?

 

Not really.

 

I think if you get the heads up you should abort a severely hadicapped fetus.

 

If you can afford to keep one as a status symbol or conversation piece well......

 

And having ANY child you can't afford is immoral.

 

Like smoking when you can't pay the rent.

 

So you disagree and think every spina bifida fetus should be a ward of the state?

Is that it?

WSS

[Guest mz.]

And having ANY child you can't afford is immoral.

 

Probably, but this isn't something we can actually enforce. The best we can do in this arena is educate, educate, educate and hope the lessons take more often than they don't.

 

I think if you get the heads up you should abort a severely hadicapped fetus.

 

That's a personal choice. One an individual wouldn't even have if some folks have their way.

 

[Westside Steve]

That's a personal choice.

 

Everything's a personal choice mz the pussy.

WSS

[Guest mz.]

Unless that choice isn't afforded to you.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Not really.

 

I think if you get the heads up you should abort a severely hadicapped fetus.

 

If you can afford to keep one as a status symbol or conversation piece well......

 

And having ANY child you can't afford is immoral.

 

Like smoking when you can't pay the rent.

 

So you disagree and think every spina bifida fetus should be a ward of the state?

Is that it?

WSS

 

I don't think anyone should give a shit what you think they should do with their fetuses, healthy or otherwise.

 

As for the second line, I really don't know what to say about that. It sadly confirms what I already think of you. It's the kind of thing a truly bitter and nasty person would think. You even typed it out.

 

As for children who are born to parents who can't afford to raise them properly, of course the state should help provide services for those children. And we do. In my view not doing it would be immoral. It's certainly not the fault of those children that they're born into those circumstances. Children who are born with special needs are especially worthy of such help.

 

Honestly, where does this visceral, omnipresent hatred for poor people come from? If we had to pick one theme that runs throughout for your entire body of work on this forum it's that you hate poor people, especially when they have children. This forum was started about the end of life counseling measures being debated in the health reform package. And by page two you'd switched it to how much you hate poor people, especially when they don't abort their special needs babies.

 

Jesus...

[Westside Steve]

I don't think anyone should give a shit what you think they should do with their fetuses, healthy or otherwise.

 

As for the second line, I really don't know what to say about that. It sadly confirms what I already think of you. It's the kind of thing a truly bitter and nasty person would think. You even typed it out.

 

As for children who are born to parents who can't afford to raise them properly, of course the state should help provide services for those children. And we do. In my view not doing it would be immoral. It's certainly not the fault of those children that they're born into those circumstances. Children who are born with special needs are especially worthy of such help.

 

Honestly, where does this visceral, omnipresent hatred for poor people come from? If we had to pick one theme that runs throughout for your entire body of work on this forum it's that you hate poor people, especially when they have children. This forum was started about the end of life counseling measures being debated in the health reform package. And by page two you'd switched it to how much you hate poor people, especially when they don't abort their special needs babies.

 

Jesus...

 

Gee Heck, that's a pretty bitter response even for you.

I'm not sure why you choose to extrapolate all that from what I said but it doesn't much matter I guess.

 

You see it's natural for those who work harder are smarter or even luckier to have more money.

I'm guessing from your bragging that you make a good bit, probably more than I do,

That means that you can afford some things I can't.

Now I can either be happy with my own accomplishments and life or I can seethe and blame you, "de rich man" for all my troubles and demand equality.

It's as simple as that.

 

As to the fetus I don't expect anyone to care or not care what I think, least of all you.

It's a discussion board.

I don't expect my views are the same as many with whom I share other opinions.

 

But I do believe that medical technology is at a point where you can often predict a severly handicapped infant and that you should probably take steps to avoid that.

 

As a guy who thinks it should be OK to abort for hair color or convenience your position here sounds a bit odd to me.

WSS

 

This forum was started about the end of life counseling measures

 

BTW Heck, yes I know, I started the thread.

And providing neverending resources to keep someone alive who has no quality of life is certainly at the heart of that issue.

[Westside Steve]

Unless that choice isn't afforded to you.

 

 

But it is.

And nobody expects that to change.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

"You see it's natural for those who work harder are smarter or even luckier to have more money.

I'm guessing from your bragging that you make a good bit, probably more than I do,

That means that you can afford some things I can't.

Now I can either be happy with my own accomplishments and life or I can seethe and blame you, "de rich man" for all my troubles and demand equality.

It's as simple as that."

 

I think this is a pretty simplistic and binary way to view the world - the achievers vs. the complainers. I know you're really proud of it - it comes out in just about every one of your posts. But it's not all that insightful. And it's certainly not "as simple as that." The world is a very complicated place, as much as it eludes you.

 

And it's because you view the world in such a simplistic way that it allows you to make such broad and harsh moral judgments about people you don't know, whose situations you clearly don't understand, or even care to. You just got done typing out the idea that people keep their special needs children not because they love them or feel responsible for their care, but because they like them "as a status symbol or conversation piece." I really don't know what to say about that. Along with most of what you write, it confirms my belief that you have a real inability to understand anything about anyone who isn't you. You're not better than these people, Steve. You don't see the world any clearer. You just think you are, and you do.

 

You also listed spina bifida as some sort of malady that could never be countenanced (assuming the person who has it is born into a poor family) ignoring the reality that many people survive it and go on to lead healthy, productive lives. John Mellencamp had spina bifida as a child. He was also poor. Good thing his parents didn't think like you.

 

And let's not even mention the part where you, once again, made up some opinions for me and argued against those.

 

Honestly, it's like your intellectual and emotional growth was stunted as a teen. Just like they do, you think you've got it all figured out. But unlike them, you seem to be done learning.

 

[Westside Steve]

"You see it's natural for those who work harder are smarter or even luckier to have more money.

I'm guessing from your bragging that you make a good bit, probably more than I do,

That means that you can afford some things I can't.

Now I can either be happy with my own accomplishments and life or I can seethe and blame you, "de rich man" for all my troubles and demand equality.

It's as simple as that."

 

I think this is a pretty simplistic and binary way to view the world - the achievers vs. the complainers. I know you're really proud of it - it comes out in just about every one of your posts. But it's not all that insightful. And it's certainly not "as simple as that." The world is a very complicated place, as much as it eludes you.

 

It'd seem the cartoon you've made up from what I actually say is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness.

But you pretend to know it all.

Anyway even if you had a clue about how I am, I suppose it's less distatseful than merely using "poor people" as pawns or talking points to further thepower and riches of your party.

To you they're mere props.

 

And it's because you view the world in such a simplistic way that it allows you to make such broad and harsh moral judgments about people you don't know, whose situations you clearly don't understand, or even care to. You just got done typing out the idea that people keep their special needs children not because they love them or feel responsible for their care, but because they like them "as a status symbol or conversation piece." I really don't know what to say about that. Along with most of what you write, it confirms my belief that you have a real inability to understand anything about anyone who isn't you. You're not better than these people, Steve. You don't see the world any clearer. You just think you are, and you do.

 

And in that we are different how?

 

You also listed spina bifida as some sort of malady that could never be countenanced (assuming the person who has it is born into a poor family) ignoring the reality that many people survive it and go on to lead healthy, productive lives. John Mellencamp had spina bifida as a child. He was also poor. Good thing his parents didn't think like you.

 

Sounds like the pro life ads.

Too bad Terri Schaivo's family didn't share your newfound philosophy.

 

And let's not even mention the part where you, once again, made up some opinions for me and argued against those.

 

Let's not if you can't remember them well enough to say I'm wrong.

 

Honestly,

 

 

LOL

 

it's like your intellectual and emotional growth was stunted as a teen. Just like they do, you think you've got it all figured out. But unlike them, you seem to be done learning.

 

Oddly enough I think I see through the adolescent bullshit you think is so compelling.

 

You're like a little kid who thinks he's invisible because he's hiding under the bed.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It may be a cartoon, Steve. But it's also exactly what you offer. We've been doing this for what, three, four years now? I can't recall a time when you've escaped from your cartoon reality, where everyone starts on the same page, we're a pure meritocracy, and those who don't finish at the top should quit their bitching. You never add anymore complexity than that.

 

You even just wrote that they should stop demanding "equality." Yes, you're even against equality.

 

I know you're proud that you don't bitch about your lot in life, and hate people who do.

 

Okay.

 

Your other source of misery is your insistence that no one on earth has a genuine emotion in their body. People don't work to equalize opportunity because it's the right thing to do, they're "merely using "poor people" as pawns or talking points to further thepower and riches of your party." People don't love their special needs children and care for them because they could never imagine doing anything else, they didn't abort them because they want to use them "as a status symbol or conversation piece." And that's just from two posts ago. You do this constantly.

 

Again, you think you see the world clearly and see through bullshit. Did you ever think that maybe you're just an asshole? Because these are just the statements of a uber-cynic and an angry curmudgeon who knows no joy.

[Westside Steve]

You even just wrote that they should stop demanding "equality." Yes, you're even against equality.

 

I may get to the rest of the rant later but I had to laugh at this one.

 

So I'm assuming you're leading the fight to make sure Obama Ted Kennedy Oprah Bill Gates and whoever else has them gets rid of their private physicians, mansions, vacation homes, yachts, servants limos private jets tutors private schools etc etc......

Right?

Or are you against equality too?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, Jesus. That's not what the fight for equality refers to. And I can't believe you think it is. You're completely lost. And laughing at the same time. It paints a funny picture.

 

Equality refers to the long, historical fight for legal equality, and for the equality of opportunity. No one is talking about the equality of outcome. Nobody. Except you, apparently. This way you can have an argument versus nobody and win it.

 

You scoffed at people who "demand equality" in your previous post. Who might you suggest is for equalizing everyone's incomes? For repossessing Bill Gates' yachts? Can you name a single person?

 

Why can't you come down here and play with the rest of us sentient beings?

 

Equality of opportunity, Steve - can you at least be for that?