|
Euthanasia, government informants, socialism; don't blame me. I didn't vote for
Obama.
August 13, 2009
Paul McCartney "Angry" 1986 (click to listen)
Euthanasia (from the Greek
ευθανασία meaning "good death":
ευ-, eu- (well or good) +
θάνατος, thanatos (death))
refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner. Many different
forms of euthanasia can be distinguished, including animal euthanasia and human
euthanasia, and within the latter, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.
Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been the focus of great
controversy in recent years.
As of 2009, some forms of active
euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland,
Thailand and the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington.
Classification of euthanasia
Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent
(involuntary euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an
individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so.
Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia
entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, chemotherapy
in cancer, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to
relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double
effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common
practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of
life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of
lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means. An
individual may use a euthanasia machine to perform euthanasia on himself /
herself.
from Wikipedia
----------
"Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient,
but as our second president famously said, "facts are stubborn things."
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet,
breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s
health insurance reform positions.
In
this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the
White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that
makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when
the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.
There is a lot of disinformation about health
insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of
life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain
emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of
them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or
see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it
to
flag@whitehouse.gov."
The
White House - Blog Post August 4, 2009
----------
"The America I know and love
is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand
in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a
subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they
are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Sarah Palin Friday August 7, 2009
----------
"We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to
be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president." But I don't
want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the
mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can
clean up the mess.
"I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."
President Obama
Friday August 7, 2009
----------
"Let the facts be heard," they wrote. These disruptions are occurring because
opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves.
Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how
we failed at this task for decades."
Nancy Pelosi - USA Today August 10, 2009
----------
"The
young grass-roots army that swept Obama into office has yet to mobilize now that
the fight is about something complicated rather than a charismatic hope-monger.
No, they can’t?
Instead of a multicultural tableau of beaming young idealists on screen, we see
ugly scenes of mostly older and white malcontents, disrupting forums where
others have come to actually learn something. Instead of hope, we get swastikas,
death threats and T-shirts proclaiming 'Proud Member of the Mob.'"
Maureen Dowd - The New York Times August 11, 2009
----------
My
mother died on May 20. It was a sad, confusing process watching her spend the
final weeks of her life in a local hospital. Had it not been for the activities
for the 93rd "Indianapolis 500," at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, to divert
my attentions from Mom, the process would have been much more painful and
stressful.
Mom
was admitted on April 22 for bed sores. A doctor came to see her every three
weeks. A few days before the doctor's visit, one of the care givers attending to
Mom told me she had sores and that I should have the doctor look at them. The
doctor examined my mother and told me to admit her to a hospital that day, which
I did.
The
first ten days were very rough. Within three days, I received a late night call
to come to the hospital as Mom's blood pressure dropped very low and the nurse
was fearful she might not live through the night. I rushed to the hospital about
fifteen minutes away. Fortunately her blood pressure stabilized and the nurse
told me I could go home, since my mother was probably okay for the night.
After a week, Mom was moved to a section of the hospital where she could
rehabilitate. I wasn't completely sure what her condition was other than she was
healing from the bed sores and had another urinary tract infection; an ailment
which my mother had suffered frequently the past four or five years.
I
visited her the night she was relocated and one of the nurses spent time
questioning Mom's wishes (and mine) in
regard to how extensive her treatment should be to maintain life. The nurse
discussed measures to be taken in case she quit breathing.
I
indicated that I wanted Mom to be resuscitated in the event this occurred. The
nurse responded that with her frail condition, if she were given CPR, it likely
would "break every bone in her body." So I backed away from that request. With
that, I was given several forms to sign regarding these issues. Therefore I was
placed in a position of making quick decisions regarding my mother's life for
the first time.
A
few days later, on a Sunday, I was summoned to the hospital again and asked to
talk to a doctor regarding end of life - quality of life issues for Mom. I then
spent an hour on the telephone talking to the doctor about those matters. The
word hospice entered the dialogue about Mom for the first time.
The
following day, I was asked to come to the hospital to meet with two case
workers. There was more discussion of Mom's quality of life and they suggested I
place Mom in hospice and cease treating her ailments and let her die "gracefully
and comfortably."
I
asked for a sheet of paper and a pencil and drew a line down the center of the
sheet. On one side, I wrote hospice on one side and on the other I wrote
treatment.
I
asked one of the case workers how long Mom would live without treatment and was
told that it would probably be about two weeks. I then asked how long she would
live with preventive medication and was told somewhere in the neighborhood of
two months. I wrote both responses on the corresponding side of the sheet of
paper. So I looked at both of them and said that what we were talking about was
a difference of six weeks of life.
On
countless mornings, over the three plus years I took care of her, I heard Mom
chant continuously that she wanted to live and did not want to die. It was often
annoying to hear that as I awoke because it happened so often. It was obvious to
me that my mother wanted to live as long as she possibly could. I told the case
workers about this and then refused to sign papers that would place her in
hospice.
It
was my sincere feeling that regardless of her quality of life, no matter how
poor, there was no way I was going to steal six of weeks of life from her. I was
not qualified to make that decision and neither was any doctor, nurse -- or any
other mortal. Otherwise, what would occur would not be much different than
murder -- and at the very least euthanasia.
Neither would President Obama's proposed
death panelists be qualified to make these decisions regardless of the smoke and
mirrors he is trying to use to masquerade his plans.
When
the case workers realized I was not going to choose hospice treatment, one of
them said that we should wait until the following day to see how Mom was doing
before we made any decisions. But I reminded her I was not going to change my
mind.
That
night, after I left the hospital to see Mom, on my drive home, I received a call
from a Catholic priest, working at the hospital, who wanted to discuss my
feelings. I told him I was not going to change my decision and I reminded him
that only God was going to decide when my mother's life was going to end -- if I
had anything to say about it.
What frightens me most is that under the
Obama health plan -- I may not have anything to say about it but a total
stranger or a lieutenant working for President Obama's top medical advisor Dr.
Ezekiel Emanuel will.
This
was on Monday May 4. The following day, I received a call from one of the case
workers I had met with the previous afternoon. She said Mom was doing better,
eating and more cognizant of what was going on. When I went to see her that
evening, she recognized me for the first time since she had entered the hospital
on April 22.
With
her improvement, hospice was never mentioned again and with the help of the
hospital, a plan was formulated where Mom would leave the hospital on Friday May
22, spend twenty days in a nearby nursing home and then come home. But she died
on Wednesday May 20.
This
was my first experience with a discussion of end of life issues. Although I was
shocked at the lack of emotion, from the medical people I met with, I understand
this is how the process works. But I did not like it and I don't approve of the
approach.
I
turned sixty three this summer. The next time I have end of life discussions, it
will probably concern me. But if President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
have their way, this kind of discussion will likely have a different dynamic.
Rather than me having these conversations with doctors and nurses, my fate will
be decided by some federal government flunky who will base my worth to society
as the determination whether I receive the health care I need -- and the fact I
have paid several thousands of dollars into Medicare during the forty two years
of my adult working career won't mean a damn thing.
In
my earlier posting
to this website, I expressed admiration for Barack Obama while at the
same time worrying about the president's approach to solving the problems facing
our nation in 2009. Six weeks later, I'm terribly frightened about the abyss he
is leading us into. Barack Obama is fast becomming George Orwell's novel
1984 come true.
Despite the fact he had large role in Bill Clinton's political success, Dick
Morris is an astute observer of American public affairs. Read this article by
Morris and his wife Eileen McGann which appeared in The New York Post, on July
23.
|
"President Obama’s rhetoric last night summoned the
memory of '1984,' George Orwell’s novel of a nightmarish future — where the
slogan of the rulers is 'War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is
strength.'
The president assures us that he will cut health-care
spending . . . by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.
He says that 'health-care decisions will not be made
by government' . . . while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors
what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.
Obama told the media, 'I will free doctors to make
good health-care decisions' . . . by telling the physicians what to do.
When the president says he guarantees the 'same
coverage' to people who like their current health-insurance policies, he means
that their current HMOs, insurers and doctors will be the ones to implement the
protocols and instructions the government hands down to them — not that we’ll
have our current freedom of decision-making.
When he blandly assures us that we will 'stop paying
for things that don’t make us healthier,' he really means that his Federal
Health Board will overrule your doctor and stop him from using his own best
judgment in your treatment.
The president will 'get the politics out of health
care' by putting it under government control.
Obama says that he will not 'add to the deficit' to
fund health care. But the bill reported out by Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Ways and
Means Committee leaves $550 billion unfunded.
The president says that he’ll identify savings that
will reduce the need for more taxes — even though the Congressional Budget
Office refuses to say that his 'savings' will actually work and warns that the
bill will really be added to the deficit.
He repeatedly tells us that he’ll cut health-care
spending. What he means is that he will cut doctors’ incomes and will turn down
patients — particularly the elderly — when they seek medical care that his
bureaucrats disapprove of.
(Jennings: Let
me interject something. What Morris describes here is what's called passive
euthanasia which I will allude to later in this piece and which is a cornerstone
of the Obama proposals.)
And he ignores that cutting incomes in the medical
field will reduce the number of doctors and force further rationing of care.
The president opines that he will replace the most
'expensive care' with the 'best care' by empowering government officials who
have never met you to substitute their judgment for that of your doctor, who has
examined you thoroughly.
When Obama laments that '14,000 people lose their
insurance every day,' he is referring to the job losses that his own failed
efforts to end the recession have permitted.
He warns that health-care costs are gobbling up money
that employers should use to raise wages and worker pay — yet the plans he backs
would require employers to pay 8 percent of their payroll as a tax or provide
insurance to their workers.
The Obama plan highlights greater preventive care —
but, at the same time, cuts medical incomes and so will cut the number of
doctors who might provide it.
The stimulus package, in the Gospel According to
Barack, was 'designed' to work over the next two years. But at the time, he
demanded immediate passage to 'jump-start the economy' — something that clearly
did not happen.
Medicare and Medicaid are 'driving the deficit' even
as he increased the amount of red ink by at least $800 billion in six months
with little, if any, increase in the cost of either program.
He says he 'expects' banks to repay their TARP money.
In fact, they’re lining up around the block to do so — but the Treasury will
only permit a handful of them to do so.
In summary, Obama’s health program will promote 'lower cost and more choice' by increasing
spending by $1 trillion, telling patients what care they’re permitted to have,
and limiting their access to quality care.
Orwell’s heirs should sue for violation of copyright."
|
How
could the American voter have been so stupid? Obviously a large percentage of
the
69,456,897
voters who voted for the president last November would do otherwise today.
Reliable public opinion polls show this to be true.
The
Rasmussen Reports, widely considered to be the most reliable of the major polls,
show that only thirty percent strongly approve of the way Obama is performing as
president while 37 percent strongly disapprove. Forty five percent give Obama
good or excellent marks. That is nineteen percent lower than he received on
January 20, when he was inaugurated. Rasmussen also reports that 51 percent fear
the government controlling health insurance more than private insurers.
Further, the most recent numbers show that
53 percent oppose Obama's health plan while 42 percent are in favor.
Even more telling is that Rasmussen now reports that 52 percent of U.S.
voters disapprove of the way Barack Obama is performing his duties as president
while 47 percent approve. It's the first time Mr. Obama's numbers have dropped
below fifty percent.
I
wish the 2010 congressional elections were today as Republicans lead Democrats
42 to 38 percent in Rasmussen's Generic Congressional poll; not because I think
the GOP represents the solutions to all of our problems, but rather because they
would neutralize the president's power if they were to control Congress. It
worked with Bill Clinton after Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994
elections and since Obama is far more dangerous than "Slick Willie," it may be
our only hope.
Okay
-- where does euthanasia come into this discussion?
In
his town hall meeting, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on August 11, Mr. Obama
made the following comment:
|
"Well, the -- I've seen some of those signs.
(Laughter.) Let me just be specific about some things that I've been hearing
lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that's been circulating a
lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for
"death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've
decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. (Laughter.)
And there are various -- there are some variations on this theme.
It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed
Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting
up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the
members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could
handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. It
wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came
from."
|
Now let's go to an
interview the president had with David Leonhardt of
The New York Times, on April 29, 2009, to look at his comments on end of life issues:
|
"Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not
publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got
cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her
diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a
mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.
So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three
months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because
of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are
certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if
you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and
your quality of life will be terrible.
And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip
replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.
I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip
replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the
aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody
else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally
ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me
that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in
misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a
huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for
potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors,
scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult
democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the
country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And
that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you
guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some
guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the
various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."
|
Can you believe what you just read?
I am off work this week
and I attempted read House Bill 3200
-
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 on the Internet. All I could
find was a summary of the items in the bill. As I read more on the Internet, I
found numerous references to pages 425 through 430, which supposedly specify end
of life issues in HR 3200. When I can get access, I will post the content on
this website.
Given the president's
comments on the issue, notably the passages from his April 29 interview, with
The New York Times, posted above, it's clear where Mr. Obama stands on the
issues of end of life.
Here is where passive euthanasia
comes in. Obama said that end of life care accounts for eighty percent of the
nation's total health bill. In June, the president outlined $313 billion cuts in
Medicare and Medicaid coverage in order to reshape his health reforms.
Hello. Are you there? Put it
together for yourself. It doesn't take an expert or a genius to figure out where
Barack Obama is heading. Passive euthanasia occurs when treatment is withheld or
neglected and it is a cornerstone of his health reforms.
Let's go a bit deeper here. Dr.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel is President Obama's top medical advisor. The doctor is also
the brother of Rahm Emanuel, who serves as the president's White House chief of
staff.
Dr.
Emanuel wrote a report in 1996 for The Hastings Center which advocated public
forums to decide who in society should be guaranteed health care. The
determination would be based upon the patient's potential to participate in and
contribute to society. In other words, in Dr. Emanuel's opinion, young people in
their prime would be more deserving of health care than an aging person and in
the case of someone suffering from Alzheimer's disease, like my mother, they
would not be guaranteed health services at all.
Does
that sound like what Obama was suggesting in his interview with David Leonhardt
above? It's pretty obvious isn't it?
Old
folks, of which I am rapidly becomming one, we don't stand a chance with Barack
Obama! I mean it. Our very existence is in doubt if this man gets the health
care reforms he and the Democrats are seeking.
This
is no joke. It's evil. Who are these people who would deny the necessary health
care to an old person which they need to live? I cannot believe this is
happening in the United States of America!
I
love it that the senior citizens are turning out in force to protest this
idiocy. Nancy Pelosi? She calls the very segment of society which she, the
Democrats and the president propose to jeopardize "simply un-American" because
they express anger. I despise Nancy Pelosi!
By now, it's
obvious a majority of voters in this nation do not want the president's health
care proposals to be enacted, I honestly fear it could tear this country
completely apart. But God bless the old folks because they are out there
fighting this -- and very likely fighting for their lives.
Yet,
our Speaker of the House Pelosi and those who share her views want to
characterize this dissent as being organized by large insurers and special
interest groups, just as they tried to dismiss the thousands who turned out in
April for the tea party protests. How many times have the Democrats and the left
used the term plants to describe the people who have turned out at town hall
meetings to protest the Obama health care proposals?
I
don't think so. Rather, I believe these protesters are concerned citizens who
are terrified and angered by elected public officials who are trying to replace
our form of government with something completely alien to what the framers of
the Constitution intended when they created the United States of America.
If
you want to look at people being planted at a town hall meeting, go back to
President Obama's gathering in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on August 11. I watched
the entire sham and it was more like a meeting of the Obama fan club rather than
an honest debate of the issues.
Who
picked the people to attend the meeting -- David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel? I saw
large crowds of protesters outside the meeting, but obviously none of these
citizens were allowed inside.
Remember how
comedienne Janeane Garofolo characterized tax day protesters as racist because
they hated the idea of having "a black president" on Keith Olberman's program on
MSNBC last April? I watched Olberman the other night and he was
playing the race card again as he analyzed the town hall protests,
implying the underlying reason for all the dissent was resentment and fear that
Mr. Obama is of African American dissent.
Keith Olberman is sanctimonious and he is hard to take seriously, especially
since so few people watch his program. Still, I wish General Electric and NBC
would "pull the plug" on that worthless piece of crap posing as a journalist and
contemporary observer of the political scene.
Isn't it ironic that whenever the far left is backed into corner, they bring up
race as the reason for the dissent? Talk about a cop out. Race has nothing to do
with this, but rather the fact that the president and Democrats are trying to
force the rest of us to accept policies which are nothing less than outrageous
and evil. Race has nothing to do with
this. It's all about right and wrong!
It
all adds up now. No wonder Mr. Obama tried to so hard to rush his health reforms
through Congress before Americans had time to understand what was he was really
trying to enact.
But
then why should we be so surprised by the president's proposals? This is a man
who sponsored radical measures in support of late term abortion when he served
in the Illinois legislature.
I
will be curious to see if I am reported to Linda Douglass, at the White House
Health Reform Office for presenting my opinions here. If so, I will let you
know. Stay tuned.
Americans -- welcome to the new world in the age of Obama. How do you like it?
Wake up before it's too late -- or one day you may not be allowed to wake up
because Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel will decide you don't contribute enough to society
to receive the care that will enable you to wake up.
This
is a battle for right versus wrong. From a historic viewpoint, it's not unlike
the struggle for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s and the fight to abolish
slavery one hundred years before that. Thankfully right prevailed in those
earlier confrontations. God please help us again to make right triumph.
|