California Adopts Right To Die Law

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oregon heath plan had decided the $4,000.00 a month wasn't in the budget but the $50.00 death pill was.

As long as it was "her decision" to make.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.
"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.

http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html

The doctor assisted suicide "works just fine."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The doctor assisted suicide "works just fine."

Yeah...someday, it's not too hard to imagine some future Joe Biden up on tv telling us it's our patriotic duty to take the less expesive remedy.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Yeah...someday, it's not too hard to imagine some future Joe Biden up on tv telling us it's our patriotic duty to take the less expesive remedy.

Its all in the name of pro-choice.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I disagree. You're assuming a right to yourself that you don't have. Killing is killing no matter if that person is someone else or yourself. Why this fascination with death? Why do we turn to death as the answer to every difficult situation in life? Why is it that you can arrest someone for murder?

Fascination with death? What's the fascination with pain? Sometimes there's no good choice, you decide which one sucks less for you.

Why can I take money out of my bank account but not out of yours? That's your difference between arresting someone for murder and for what we're actually talking about.

Oregon heath plan had decided the $4,000.00 a month wasn't in the budget but the $50.00 death pill was.

Hold on, is health care a right now? I thought INGOtarians didn't believe in health care as a right. Free market, etc.

But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.

Different topic. So, do we now have the right to gov't funded experimental treatments or marginally effective treatments? Huh, I was big time liberal socialist commie when I said there's a right to health care. Now all of a sudden it's hip, because people can die if they don't get it? Huh, who knew?

 

[actaeon277]

Still waiting for the news certain California politicians are going to take advantage of this.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have personally known two (2) people off the top of my head that chose to die.

One was a 92 year old woman, very kind and decent, who was blind, suffering from shingles, on dialysis and just wasn't up to "enduring" the constant struggle of fighting to live (ie. dialysis.) We talked about it many times on the van and when I brought up her family members who loved her and cared about her, she responded that her daughters were in their 60's - 70's the grandkids were grown and the great grandkids never came around to see her.

She ended her life by refusing to continue dialysis treatment. It took about three (3) weeks or a little longer for her to pass away. Not pleasant.

The other was a 37 year old man who had a large brain tumor. He had fought cancer for years and when I met him he had discovered that it had metastasized through several other parts of his body. I brought him back from radiation after they had first put his head in a vice so tight (to target correctly) that he said the pain almost made him pass out. He struggled for awhile and was a great guy with a good personality and demeanor.

He ended his life by refusing any further treatment for cancer, either chemo or radiation. It took several monthes for him to pass away. It was an ugly way to go.

Unless we can walk in someone else's shoes directly and take all of their pain, misery and suffering on ourselves, which we cannot do, then we need to STFU and let them decide how to meet their maker! It is between them and their destiny and nobody else needs to get their damned noses involved.

I've known a few more but these two (2) stick out. Both were great people, not family, not friends, just clients I had the privilege to drive. They weren't dumb, weak, or lazy. They were fighters who had born their own crosses as far as they could. Who the F are we to say, "Oh, you can't throw in the towel. That isn't right. Endure more pain and agony because "I" don't believe you should quit."

Each of us has a limit, a breaking point. Mental, physical, spiritual. All of our limits are different. We should help one another as best as we can, but that doesn't mean pushing people beyond where they can go.

Death isn't the enemy. Death isn't good or evil, it just is. What IS good or evil is how WE help others to face death. Many times this is giving love, compassion and encouragement. Helping our fellow human beings to carry a weight they cannot carry alone. But sometimes there is a weight only one person can carry, that no one can carry for them. Encouragement to go farther is one thing, not allowing them to throw in their own towel is another.

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's see...

1. I do not believe suicide to be morally right. That said, each right enumerated in the First Amendment is necessarily based on the freedom of thought, which ultimately works out to the right to be wrong. Consequently, it is not my prerogative to demand that you refrain from being wrong in your own choices regarding your own person. This isn't abortion where the argument is that a woman has the 'right' to kill someone else.

2. Given that the free market has already been removed from the realm of health care, it seems to be a very short step from making it permissible for someone to choose to pack it in to making it the only financially viable 'choice' when such a person no longer has the money involuntarily taken in the name of health care which could be 'better' spent on someone else, and then on to making it not a choice but a mandate to be euthanized when by some 'objective' standard, someone else determines that you are not worth the cost of keeping you alive. Some people made a great deal of fun of Sarah Palin's comments regarding 'death panels', but here it is staring us in the face, especially given that we have already seen examples of the second step of the three being carried out.

3. Is health care a right? Well, if your money is forcibly taken from you for the ostensible purpose of being spent on your health care, I can see an argument that you have the right for that money to be spent on your health care, not on postage for the letter telling you to go **** up a rope. As a matter of principle, I would say that health care is not a right; However, it is a right to not have one's money confiscated, especially followed up by denial of the service for which your money was taken.

 

[RustyHornet]

I did a research paper on this subject in 8th grade. Read lots of stories about people suffering and no longer wanting to live like that. I support this decision. Who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do with themselves? This is their decision to make, it's their life.

 

[Twangbanger]

I have personally known two (2) people off the top of my head that chose to die.

One was a 92 year old woman, very kind and decent, who was blind, suffering from shingles, on dialysis and just wasn't up to "enduring" the constant struggle of fighting to live (ie. dialysis.) We talked about it many times on the van and when I brought up her family members who loved her and cared about her, she responded that her daughters were in their 60's - 70's the grandkids were grown and the great grandkids never came around to see her.

She ended her life by refusing to continue dialysis treatment. It took about three (3) weeks or a little longer for her to pass away. Not pleasant.

The other was a 37 year old man who had a large brain tumor. He had fought cancer for years and when I met him he had discovered that it had metastasized through several other parts of his body. I brought him back from radiation after they had first put his head in a vice so tight (to target correctly) that he said the pain almost made him pass out. He struggled for awhile and was a great guy with a good personality and demeanor.

He ended his life by refusing any further treatment for cancer, either chemo or radiation. It took several monthes for him to pass away. It was an ugly way to go.

Unless we can walk in someone else's shoes directly and take all of their pain, misery and suffering on ourselves, which we cannot do, then we need to STFU and let them decide how to meet their maker! It is between them and their destiny and nobody else needs to get their damned noses involved.

I've known a few more but these two (2) stick out. Both were great people, not family, not friends, just clients I had the privilege to drive. They weren't dumb, weak, or lazy. They were fighters who had born their own crosses as far as they could. Who the F are we to say, "Oh, you can't throw in the towel. That isn't right. Endure more pain and agony because "I" don't believe you should quit."

Each of us has a limit, a breaking point. Mental, physical, spiritual. All of our limits are different. We should help one another as best as we can, but that doesn't mean pushing people beyond where they can go.

Death isn't the enemy. Death isn't good or evil, it just is. What IS good or evil is how WE help others to face death. Many times this is giving love, compassion and encouragement. Helping our fellow human beings to carry a weight they cannot carry alone. But sometimes there is a weight only one person can carry, that no one can carry for them. Encouragement to go farther is one thing, not allowing them to throw in their own towel is another.

Doug

Good post, and based on first-hand experience.

Rep inbound.

In before,"...well, they still have the option to blow their brains out the good 'ol American way, I don't want the government getting involved...blah, blah, blah..."

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Hold on, is health care a right now? I thought INGOtarians didn't believe in health care as a right. Free market, etc.

I did not realize that the Oregon Health Plan was the free market or that ObamaCare was the free market either. The point of the post with the Oregon Health Plan was that the State of Oregon decided her $4,000.00 a month treatment was too expensive so they gave her the $50.00 death pill. This is the future of medicine.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In before,"...well, they still have the option to blow their brains out the good 'ol American way, I don't want the government getting involved...blah, blah, blah..."

I sincerely doubt there'd be anyone that would be supportive of someone blowing their brains out...of course a pill or a bullet, does it really matter? Dead is dead.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I did not realize that the Oregon Health Plan was the free market or that ObamaCare was the free market either. The point of the post with the Oregon Health Plan was that the State of Oregon decided her $4,000.00 a month treatment was too expensive so they gave her the $50.00 death pill. This is the future of medicine.

That's what you're spinning it into. That's not what actually happened, even per the article.

1) The treatment was not covered by insurance because it was not shown to be effective. She can still get the treatment if she can pay for it.
2) She's not going to die because her insurance is not going to cover this. She's going to die regardless. The difference between people who take the medication and those who don't is measured in months of life span.
3) These EXACT same decisions are routinely made by both private and public insurance groups in states WITHOUT a right to die law. You're trying to conflate the two, but it's two separate issues. The first issue is how much do we spend to marginally extend a life, the second is do we allow people control over their own life at the end?
4) She is not mandated or even encouraged to use assisted suicide. She has the OPTION of doing so.

It must be real tough for the "health care isn't a right" crowd to justify loss of life due to neglect but all of a sudden be concerned with the wellbeing of these people if they have the option of ending their own life in a manner of their choosing. Die due to lack of affordable healthcare? Free market, individual rights, it's theft to take my money for your health care. Assisted suicide for the same person? Gov't is in the business of death, you don't have a right to your own life, it's all about saving money death panels.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I sincerely doubt there'd be anyone that would be supportive of someone blowing their brains out...of course a pill or a bullet, does it really matter? Dead is dead.

You ever watch someone shoot themselves? You ever watch someone die in a hospice setting?

 

[IndyDave1776]

It must be real tough for the "health care isn't a right" crowd to justify loss of life due to neglect but all of a sudden be concerned with the wellbeing of these people if they have the option of ending their own life in a manner of their choosing. Die due to lack of affordable healthcare? Free market, individual rights, it's theft to take my money for your health care. Assisted suicide for the same person? Gov't is in the business of death, you don't have a right to your own life, it's all about saving money death panels.

I can see the element of inconsistency, perhaps even hypocrisy, in arguing freedom up to the point someone makes a choice with which we may disagree. The problems I have with the situation we have is that our money is taken involuntarily and placed in the hands of people who may or may not use it for our health which leaves us in the situation in which we may not receive help and no longer have our own money which we could spend until we ran out of it according to our own choices. Saying that a person can pay themselves for a treatment not covered seems to be a weak argument since we have already taken their health care money away from them.

It seems to me that most of our health care problems were created by the combination of the existence of insurance and the intervention of government. First, by removing the cost from impacting the end user, insurance creates artificial inflation by virtue of providing no incentive for frugality, which was a problem that ran unabated for decades. When the party ends, we are left with inflated costs and no more sugar daddy picking up the bill, compounded with government regulations which discourage competition and providing maximized value per dollar spent, further compounded by the federal government mandating that we buy insurance which costs significantly more than the previously less than affordable levels and provides significantly less in return. Now we add the final insult of making a number of treatments available only as an out of pocket expense to be paid for by the pocket that the combination of government and the insurance industry has already picked clean under the force of law.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You ever watch someone shoot themselves? You ever watch someone die in a hospice setting?

No and Yes. Following the logic of the pro-death crowd, why should any of us care how people choose to end their lives? How does it affect me, one iota how some guy or gal across town or across the street decides to murder themselves?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I can see the element of inconsistency, perhaps even hypocrisy, in arguing freedom up to the point someone makes a choice with which we may disagree. The problems I have with the situation we have is that our money is taken involuntarily and placed in the hands of people who may or may not use it for our health which leaves us in the situation in which we may not receive help and no longer have our own money which we could spend until we ran out of it according to our own choices. Saying that a person can pay themselves for a treatment not covered seems to be a weak argument since we have already taken their health care money away from them.

It seems to me that most of our health care problems were created by the combination of the existence of insurance and the intervention of government. First, by removing the cost from impacting the end user, insurance creates artificial inflation by virtue of providing no incentive for frugality, which was a problem that ran unabated for decades. When the party ends, we are left with inflated costs and no more sugar daddy picking up the bill, compounded with government regulations which discourage competition and providing maximized value per dollar spent, further compounded by the federal government mandating that we buy insurance which costs significantly more than the previously less than affordable levels and provides significantly less in return. Now we add the final insult of making a number of treatments available only as an out of pocket expense to be paid for by the pocket that the combination of government and the insurance industry has already picked clean under the force of law.

I don't think it's realistic to argue that had this woman not paid into her state medicare she'd have the money to pay for it on her own. I had pneumonia as a toddler and I without "someone else" footing the bill, I wouldn't be here to write this.

Anyway, it's a separate issue as far as health care. I'm sure I don't have all the answers, or even know the root of all the issues. I'm sure insurance and intervention plays a role. I'm equally sure the cost of medical training, lawsuits and malpractice insurance, and things I don't even know exist play a role as well. None of that gives us a right to outright forbid someone else from deciding how they wish to punch out. I'm all for intervention and giving people the best chance to live that they can, but when there are no good options and the person is of sound mind and understands the consequences of all available choices, I don't see what gives me the right to make the decision to continue to suffer for them.

 

[Libertarian01]

Regarding the 64 year olde woman with cancer I want to make a point that is ALMOST ALWAYS overlooked.

The capitalist, proprofit Insurance Company who took NO oath to help anyone and did take on the ethical responsibility to protect the assets of investors didn't pay for a medication that may or may not have worked.

So they are EVIL!

HOWEVER, the medical industry filled with doctors, nurses and others WHO DID TAKES OATHS to help the sick, injured and dying did not GIVE her the treatment she needed even though she couldn't afford to pay.

So they are ignored.

In other words, if the insurance company doesn't pay they are evil but if the medical industry doesn't give away they are still saints? Help me figure this one out folks.

People always slam the insurance industry for not taking losses and paying for something, but they ignore the medical industry for demanding to get paid for their services.

Methinks the word HYPOCRISY floats around this issue way too much.

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

Regarding the 64 year olde woman with cancer I want to make a point that is ALMOST ALWAYS overlooked.

The capitalist, proprofit Insurance Company who took NO oath to help anyone and did take on the ethical responsibility to protect the assets of investors didn't pay for a medication that may or may not have worked.

So they are EVIL!

HOWEVER, the medical industry filled with doctors, nurses and others WHO DID TAKES OATHS to help the sick, injured and dying did not GIVE her the treatment she needed even though she couldn't afford to pay.

So they are ignored.

In other words, if the insurance company doesn't pay they are evil but if the medical industry doesn't give away they are still saints? Help me figure this one out folks.

People always slam the insurance industry for not taking losses and paying for something, but they ignore the medical industry for demanding to get paid for their services.

Methinks the word HYPOCRISY floats around this issue way too much.

Regards,

Doug

Perhaps so. I have only two real arguments with the insurance industry: First, by decades of their carelessness, they managed to at minimum allow and apparently cause astronomical inflation in medical costs by artificially boosting demand, which served to short-circuit the free market and did much to create the problems we experience in the present. Second, through legislation which I highly doubt passed without influence from the industry, we are now required to buy their product at a significantly greater cost and much smaller return than was available immediately prior to the legislation in question being enacted. I would have no problem in a free-market agreement to see an insurance company do exactly what it agreed to do and nothing more. Then again, we have not had a free-market health insurance system in my memory and since the passage of the so-called Affordable Care Act, make no pretense whatsoever of a free-market system. If anything, outlawing insurance completely would do more to correct the problem than what was done, but someone(s) certainly paid greatly to get the results they wanted in tandem with the leftists getting more of the control for which they lust.

 

[beararms1776]

With the assistance of their physicians? Who in the **** would ever want that job anyway. That is really uhh, freaky to say the least.