home
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
----------
November 5, 2008
My mother died on May 20. It was a sad, confusing process watching her
spend the final weeks of 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 the president 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 Barrack 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. Barrack 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 Barrack, 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 Barrack 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 to 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 Barrack 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 Barrack 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.
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!
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.
|