Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (7729)	7/24/2009 9:39:05 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The section allows the individual to specify in advance (while still "compos mentis") what end of life treatment will be provided. A living will guides caregivers and family members in the event one becomes unable to communicate or of unsound mind. To deny that opportunity is cruel and inhumane. Not "allows", but "requires".

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (7729)	7/24/2009 9:51:13 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

that's like planned parenthood giving you counsel on how to go full term. everyone understands the purpose of the law. get them to choose death vs continued medication and save us a buck. half these people most likely have dementia.. where are their advocates for life. We need a law to tell people they can chose life or death?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (7729)	7/24/2009 2:08:04 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

not the slightest hint of assisted suicide or euthanasia nor is there any suggestion that the government will dictate end of life treatment. I wouldn't expect a bill to speak of assisted suicide or euthanasia. As to the government dictating end of life care, there is something called NICE in Britain which effectively does that: Message 25737881 It ought to be expected a more socialized health care system in America will get around it. The purpose of the advance care planning consultation is to get a citizen to pre-designate what can be denied him. Then the government doesn't have to. The section allows the individual to specify in advance (while still "compos mentis") what end of life treatment will be provided. A living will guides caregivers and family members in the event one becomes unable to communicate or of unsound mind. To deny that opportunity is cruel and inhumane. No one is calling for denying people the right to establish living wills or similar things. Is it the governments place to coerce people to do this? Will everyone who has an advance care consultation be compos mentis? Should they take their lawyer to the consultation with them? People may well think they're foregoing "extraordinary means" but the text of the bill mentions things like antibiotics and hydration therapy. Not extraordinary. If a document has been signed mistakenly saying no antibiotics, does that mean any infection could be a death sentence? Ditto with an accident if drips can't be used because their "advance care plan" declined them.