View Full Version : Drug Shortages, another Canary Keels over....Pay attention....
My wife worked in a hospital pharmacy for many years. One of the things that finally persuaded her that my claims of "shit ain't right" in this country were correct was the persistent shortage of simple, yet life saving, drugs. She often had to break down larger quantities of things like Saline etc... because the quantity they ordered was unavailable, doctors were routinely having to issue substitute drug prescriptions because the drug they had originally prescribed could not be had.....
Many people just don't understand that there are many deaths in this country every year because the medications needed are NOT AVAILABLE. Notice I did not say, "patients can't afford them" or "Insurance won't approve them" etc....THE MEDICATIONS DON'T EXIST in the system- they are not being produced. It has become such an issue that there is actually an organization that tracks the availability of meds.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/faced-drug-shortfall-doctors-scramble-121921081.html
For those who think "Everything is peachy" with the world....This should be a wake up call, one more sign.....
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-15-19, 15:17
First, the bun issues at Popeyes and now this....
First, the bun issues at Popeyes and now this....
Chick-fil-A is still better for the record
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SomeOtherGuy
10-15-19, 15:43
Muh crony capitalism isn't working! And socialism never worked either! What's a guy to do?
Seriously though, this is messed up. I'm not even sure how to describe our medical "system" - it's more convoluted than something from Warhammer 40K.
Chick-fil-A is still better for the record
Yeah, right. :no:
Muh crony capitalism isn't working! And socialism never worked either! What's a guy to do?
Seriously though, this is messed up. I'm not even sure how to describe our medical "system" - it's more convoluted than something from Warhammer 40K.
Maybe give real capitalism a try?
Maybe give real capitalism a try?
Yes! Karl Denniger is the best pundit I’ve read on what is wrong with our medical industry and how to fix it. Right now it is a collection of govt protected (not by law but by ignoring laws) monopolies that do not follow laws every other industry must abide by. Get govt out of medicine/pharm and enforce existing commercial laws and it will become much more abundant and affordable.
I'm sure the ever expanding substance recovery population is probably putting large demands on certain inventories.
And while I love Chic Fil A sandwiches, it doesn't even come close to Popeyes Chicken and biscuits (when employees are actually making it correctly and it's fresh).
Yeah, right. :no:
Blasphemy
Seppuku yourself right now
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191015/05dfb053daeef422dc2080e7b3b1f291.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
morbidbattlecry
10-15-19, 17:51
It's because the healthcare industry isn't designed to make people better. It's designed to make people richer.
I'm sure the ever expanding substance recovery population is probably putting large demands on certain inventories.
And while I love Chic Fil A sandwiches, it doesn't even come close to Popeyes Chicken and biscuits (when employees are actually making it correctly and it's fresh).
Makes me wonder. Chik Fil A is really good AND seems to be very consistent based on 3 or 4 different restaurants in widely different areas over several years time. We are about to get one locally so I am hoping.
Only experienced 2 Popeyes, one 15 years ago, the other back in April. Our local Popeyes was awesome, but I doubt it stayed open 5 years along with claims of bring less than sanitary. The one I stopped in on the way to KCR n April sucked. Dried out chicken and I am pretty sure lacking in food safety too.
The only Popeyes I ate at was dogshit. Never again.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191015/7ceb5b00c5e43b8e6bd20281d3ff9723.jpg
I pray the Jesus Chicken smites all thee nonbelievers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many people just don't understand that there are many deaths in this country every year because the medications needed are NOT AVAILABLE. Notice I did not say, "patients can't afford them" or "Insurance won't approve them" etc....THE MEDICATIONS DON'T EXIST in the system- they are not being produced. It has become such an issue that there is actually an organization that tracks the availability of meds......
Not just drugs....shortage of surgical devices are likewise commonplace. Everything from surgical staplers to suture to bioprosthetic mesh to something as simple (and cheap) as methylene blue dye.
If you think there are shortages now wait until the ComDems are in power and abolish private health insurance and legislate mandatory price caps on medicine and procedures.
Simple drugs aren’t available for multiple reasons. One reason is that many generics don’t yield sufficient profit to make the juice worth the squeeze for the manufacturer. Another more recent phenomenon is due to supply chain issues with the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico a few years ago. Many pharma companies manufacture in PR due to tax incentives. We are still seeing downstream effects from that hurricane in shortages of certain common meds.
My only trip to the hospital with my daughter they were magically out of numbing cream. She needed 3 staples they claimed, it would be bam, bam bam and done. They jammed the staple gun after the first one... Nothing was quick about the process. She was not a happy camper getting those 3 staples to the scalp. I just thought it was our dumb luck, guess that's the norm after reading this...
I'm very thankful we don't depend on medicine to live, that was the worst part of the 1 Second After books.
And Chick-Fil-A for the win! Jesus chicken is better than anything else.
Makes me wonder. Chik Fil A is really good AND seems to be very consistent based on 3 or 4 different restaurants in widely different areas over several years time. We are about to get one locally so I am hoping.
Only experienced 2 Popeyes, one 15 years ago, the other back in April. Our local Popeyes was awesome, but I doubt it stayed open 5 years along with claims of bring less than sanitary. The one I stopped in on the way to KCR n April sucked. Dried out chicken and I am pretty sure lacking in food safety too.
When it comes to consistency, Chic Fil A is hands down the absolute winner. They don't tolerate McEmployees or a crap attitude. More to the point, eating AT Chic Fil A is actually a pleasurable dining experience, more so than some actual restaurant chains such as Outback where experience is hit or miss from terrible to pretty good, which is unacceptable given how much those steaks cost these days.
Every time a Chic Fil A employee comes by my table and offers to refill my beverage or clear my mess for me, I'm always, always caught off guard and damn that is refreshing.
Popeyes works ONLY when all the planets line up and local patronage DEMANDS high grade, fried chicken, management highers quality employees who can hold the standard and keep the damn place clean and everyone else involved gives a damn at least enough to make it work.
Had a friend who lived next to the best one I'd ever been to, cashier, servers and managers were polite to EVERYONE. Like you are in South Carolina polite. Food was spectacular and everything was clean.
That said, when Popeyes is bad....it's every bit as bad as a KFC sharing space with a Taco Bell. So easy to screw up a good thing. I only wish Chic Fil A had actual fried chicken with a bit of spice and biscuits, that would be glorious.
I love Chik fil a spicy deluxe sandwich.
I also love Popeyes as stated above when it is done right. The quality does vary wildly. We had two of them on base that were great. The dozen others I have been to are hit and miss. One thing for sure, it cannot be cold or have sat for awhile. It's gotta be right out of the fryer.
Oh yeah... no shortage of drugs coming from Mexico, Turkey or China!
I love Chik fil a spicy deluxe sandwich.
I also love Popeyes as stated above when it is done right. The quality does vary wildly. We had two of them on base that were great. The dozen others I have been to are hit and miss. One thing for sure, it cannot be cold or have sat for awhile. It's gotta be right out of the fryer.
Oh yeah... no shortage of drugs coming from Mexico, Turkey or China!
Those aren't the drugs we need.
Popeyes works ONLY when all the planets line up and local patronage DEMANDS high grade, fried chicken, management highers quality employees who can hold the standard and keep the damn place clean and everyone else involved gives a damn at least enough to make it work.
I like Chik-Fil-A for Chicken Sandwiches and Popeyes for everything else.
There are 5 Popeye's in Wichita, I've ate at all of them a couple of times, never had reason to complain about the Chicken or Red Beans and Rice, french fries maybe, a couple times. With Popeye's, if you go in, you can pretty much see the whole process.
Something that high school jobs in restaurants, and the week of mess duty in boot camp taught me was that if you are worried about what goes on in the kitchen, you ought not be eating out at anyplace but a diner where you can eagle eye the cook.
The stories I could tell you.......
Simple drugs aren’t available for multiple reasons. One reason is that many generics don’t yield sufficient profit to make the juice worth the squeeze for the manufacturer. Another more recent phenomenon is due to supply chain issues with the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico a few years ago. Many pharma companies manufacture in PR due to tax incentives. We are still seeing downstream effects from that hurricane in shortages of certain common meds.
This is what I’m being told from within the system myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like Chik-Fil-A for Chicken Sandwiches and Popeyes for everything else.
There are 5 Popeye's in Wichita, I've ate at all of them a couple of times, never had reason to complain about the Chicken or Red Beans and Rice, french fries maybe, a couple times. With Popeye's, if you go in, you can pretty much see the whole process.
Something that high school jobs in restaurants, and the week of mess duty in boot camp taught me was that if you are worried about what goes on in the kitchen, you ought not be eating out at anyplace but a diner where you can eagle eye the cook.
The stories I could tell you.......
At the dessicated chicken Popeyes one of the people waiting on me dropped the utensils/napkins intended for me in the floor and I am reasonably sure, based on arm motion, they slid it on a shelf under the counter instead if in to a trash can.
Worked at a steak house when I was 16 so that is very true. On a busy night it had about half the dishwashing capacity it needed so the conveyer system wash cycle got overrode more often than not.
Those aren't the drugs we need.
Maybe it would help...the legit capitalism thing. Just have truth in advertising/labeling laws enforced so there is competition.
Maybe it would help...the legit capitalism thing. Just have truth in advertising/labeling laws enforced so there is competition.
Uhh, what do you guys mean by legit capitalism? The one where the basic supply/demand/price graphs come true? Yeah that would be best for the consumer.
One of the problems with our current system is that everything is run to maximize profit for the shareholder.
Uhh, what do you guys mean by legit capitalism? The one where the basic supply/demand/price graphs come true? Yeah that would be best for the consumer.
One of the problems with our current system is that everything is run to maximize profit for the shareholder.
And that any corporation with enough resources leverages government regulation to disrupt or minimize any new sources of competition.
Uhh, what do you guys mean by legit capitalism? The one where the basic supply/demand/price graphs come true? Yeah that would be best for the consumer.
One of the problems with our current system is that everything is run to maximize profit for the shareholder.
By legit capitalism, I am meaning just plain, no adjective capitalism vs. crony capitalism which is not really capitalism at all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism#targetText=Crony%20capitalism%20is%20an%20economic,class%20and%20the%20political%20class.
Finally remembered the other terms, market entrepreneur vs. a political entrepreneur.
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons
Uhh, what do you guys mean by legit capitalism? The one where the basic supply/demand/price graphs come true? Yeah that would be best for the consumer.
One of the problems with our current system is that everything is run to maximize profit for the shareholder.
If I were king for a month, I'd have legit red light districts including drug clinics where you could affordably buy and use any drug you want, however when you check in, you may not leave while still under the influence of any drugs. If you never leave, that is fine too.
I would have legalized prostitution in controlled and safe settings, where the girls are subject to regular checkups and customers must also prove they are disease and drug free. 10% state tax would apply.
I would also have suicide booths where if after meeting with a state qualified psychologist and you still want to check out the necessary drugs for a fast and humane death would be provided.
And of course I'd have carnival super slides into wood chippers for all the pedophiles, serial killers and the like. Free stadium seating for spectators of course.
Attorneys would also be subject to prosecution if they knowingly suppress or withhold evidence that proves their client is guilty or the defendant is innocent.
It would be a different world and of course Popeyes and Chic Fil A would partner to form a new fast food chain called Jesus...Chicken.
And of course I'd have carnival super slides into wood chippers for all the pedophiles, serial killers and the like. Free stadium seating for spectators of course.
Sounds good.
And that any corporation with enough resources leverages government regulation to disrupt or minimize any new sources of competition.
That is what has happened in health care to the max. Big business loves big govt, and vice versa. And they both hate/like to drain the blood from lots of small businesses and individuals.
If I were king for a month, I'd have legit red light districts including drug clinics where you could affordably buy and use any drug you want, however when you check in, you may not leave while still under the influence of any drugs. If you never leave, that is fine too.
I would have legalized prostitution in controlled and safe settings, where the girls are subject to regular checkups and customers must also prove they are disease and drug free. 10% state tax would apply.
I would also have suicide booths where if after meeting with a state qualified psychologist and you still want to check out the necessary drugs for a fast and humane death would be provided.
And of course I'd have carnival super slides into wood chippers for all the pedophiles, serial killers and the like. Free stadium seating for spectators of course.
Attorneys would also be subject to prosecution if they knowingly suppress or withhold evidence that proves their client is guilty or the defendant is innocent.
It would be a different world and of course Popeyes and Chic Fil A would partner to form a new fast food chain called Jesus...Chicken.
I can get behind this idea. You could call it LandOfTheFreeVille or something.
If I were king for a month, I'd have legit red light districts including drug clinics where you could affordably buy and use any drug you want, however when you check in, you may not leave while still under the influence of any drugs. If you never leave, that is fine too.
I would have legalized prostitution in controlled and safe settings, where the girls are subject to regular checkups and customers must also prove they are disease and drug free. 10% state tax would apply.
And then you went over the top :rolleyes:
Attorneys would also be subject to prosecution if they knowingly suppress or withhold evidence that proves their client is guilty or the defendant is innocent.
I'm hoping if you rethought that you'd change it to prosecutor knowingly suppress(es) or withhold(s) evidence that proves the defendant is innocent.
It is incumbent upon the State to be above reproach.
My wife is a pharmacist for CVS. She confirmed that some specific doses aren’t available so they just sub in a different quantity. Example: nobody can get Predisone 20mg, so they just fill 10mg tablets.
I can ask her some questions if you all have any.
That is what has happened in health care to the max. Big business loves big govt, and vice versa. And they both hate/like to drain the blood from lots of small businesses and individuals.
And business is very much a conservative sacred cow.
https://archive.org/stream/SolzhenitsynTheVoiceOfFreedom/SVF2_djvu.txt
"But just as we feel ourselves your allies here, there
also exists another alliance — at first glance a strange
one, a surprising one— but if you think about it, in
fact, one which is well-grounded and easy to under-
4
stand: this is the alliance between our Communist
leaders and your capitalists.
This alliance is not new. The very famous Armand
Hammer, who is flourishing here today, laid the basis
for this when he made the first exploratory trip into
Russia, still in Lenin's time, in the very first years of
the Revolution. He was extremely successful in this
intelligence mission and since that time for all these
50 years, we observe continuous and steady support
by the businessmen of the West of the Soviet Commu-
nist leaders.
Their clumsy and awkward economy, which could
never overcome its own difTiculties by itself, is contin-
ually getting material and technological assistance.
The major construction projects in the initial five-
year plan were built exclusively with American tech-
nology and materials. Even Stalin recognized that two-
thirds of what was needed Vv-as obtained from the
West. And if today the Soviet Union has powerful
military and police forces — in a country which is by
contemporary standards poor- — they arc used to crush
our movement for freedom in the Soviet Union — and
we have western capital to thank for this also.
Let me remind you of a recent incident which some
of you may have seen in the newspapers, although
others might have missed it: Certain of your business-
men, on their own initiative, established an exhibition
of criminological technolosv in Moscow. This was the
most recent and elaborate technology, which here, in
your country, is used to catch criminals, to bug them,
to spy on them, to photograph them, to tail them, to
identify criminals, This was taken to Moscow to an
exhibition in order that the Soviet KGB agents could
study it, as if not understanding what sort of criminals,
who would be hunted by the KGB,
The Soviet government was extremely interested in
this technology, and decided to purchase it. And your
businessmen were quite willing to sell it. Only when a
few sober voices here raised an uproar against it was
this deal blocked. Only for this reason it didn't take
place. But you have to realize how clever the KGB
is. This technology didn't have to stay twx^ or three
weeks in a Soviet building under Soviet guard. Two
or three nights were enough for the KGB there to look
through it and copy it. And if today, persons are being
hunted down by the best and most advanced tech-
nology, for this, I can also thank your western capi-
talists. "
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-17-19, 08:52
Uhh, what do you guys mean by legit capitalism? The one where the basic supply/demand/price graphs come true? Yeah that would be best for the consumer.
One of the problems with our current system is that everything is run to maximize profit for the shareholder.
Uhm, that is capitalism.
That is what has happened in health care to the max. Big business loves big govt, and vice versa. And they both hate/like to drain the blood from lots of small businesses and individuals.
Don’t confuse capitalism with free markets. It’s like when people conflate individual rights and democracy. Democracy and capitalism can end up being complete crap shows. Rights and markets are the freedom and the engine of good outcomes.
Capitalism, at its core, just means that those with resources decide how those resources are used. People often read in free markets into that and that is the best form of capitalism but you can definitely have non-free markets and capitalism.
As to business being “conservative” the 1990s saw the Democrats and their progressive wing realize that being poor and complaining about the rich was not as good as co-opting business and government, especially together, to make their money and to form the government and businesses into what they want in a social context.
The left-wing of the country has perfected the concept of regulatory capture.
As to business being “conservative” .
If that was in reference to my business is a conservative sacred cow, mine is in reference to a tendency of conservatives to defend actions of any given business mogul short of making a run for political office on the Democratic ticket.
Don’t confuse capitalism with free markets. It’s like when people conflate individual rights and democracy. Democracy and capitalism can end up being complete crap shows. Rights and markets are the freedom and the engine of good outcomes.
Capitalism, at its core, just means that those with resources decide how those resources are used. People often read in free markets into that and that is the best form of capitalism but you can definitely have non-free markets and capitalism.
As to business being “conservative” the 1990s saw the Democrats and their progressive wing realize that being poor and complaining about the rich was not as good as co-opting business and government, especially together, to make their money and to form the government and businesses into what they want in a social context.
The left-wing of the country has perfected the concept of regulatory capture.
Well put.
My wife is a pharmacist for CVS. She confirmed that some specific doses aren’t available so they just sub in a different quantity. Example: nobody can get Predisone 20mg, so they just fill 10mg tablets.
I can ask her some questions if you all have any.
Where my wife worked in a hospital setting it was Saline. The most common fricken medical supply imaginable. They were constantly having to scrounge around to find it and it always came in huge bulk quantities they would have to break down for IV's and other uses. There were others too but Saline caused the most trouble it seemed because it was used in so many things....On some of the other stuff I know they would do "drug swaps" with other hospitals, trading things they had in quantity to other facilities who had what they needed for their patients.
That is not the sign of a properly functioning, First World, healthcare system- and it's not going to get better.
Where my wife worked in a hospital setting it was Saline. The most common fricken medical supply imaginable. They were constantly having to scrounge around to find it and it always came in huge bulk quantities they would have to break down for IV's and other uses. There were others too but Saline caused the most trouble it seemed because it was used in so many things....On some of the other stuff I know they would do "drug swaps" with other hospitals, trading things they had in quantity to other facilities who had what they needed for their patients.
That is not the sign of a properly functioning, First World, healthcare system- and it's not going to get better.
Yes, some certain politicians thought it would be a good idea for Puerto Rico to have the business of packaging most quantities 0.9% Normal Saline solutions less than 1L. Many other drugs are diluted in hospital pharmacies into 0.9% NS.
When the hurricane hit, the only places packaging it in smaller volumes were out of commission. Which is fine in the surface, but pharmacies had to take over that role. That wasn’t planned for and we ended up in a national shortage of 1L bags as well as a result. Many hospitals order their supplies a year or more out based on historical demand and it is delivered JIT. Hospital pharmacies were then left double-concentrating drugs that could be, as well as substituting LR for drugs that could be so that 0.9% NS could be conserved. It is important to note, 0.9% NS is the only solution which blood products can be administered with.
This national shortage lasted around four months before alternative sources were secured. Let this be a lesson to politicians that altering markets is a bad idea, especially when “putting all your eggs in one basket”.
That said, drug shortages, as mentioned above are not a new phenomenon. It isn’t typically the drug itself in shortage, but in the dosage often prescribed.
The pharmaceutical industry is fairly complicated and requires many inputs; any interruption in many of the inputs or forecasting errors can result in supply issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm hoping if you rethought that you'd change it to prosecutor knowingly suppress(es) or withhold(s) evidence that proves the defendant is innocent.
It is incumbent upon the State to be above reproach.
I don't think it's over the top. Right to end ones life should be the most important right.
What if you did something horrible, that you just can't live with because it could never be undone and wasn't done intentionally. Should that person really have to carry that burden until their natural death? What if you have some horrible disease and there is no cure and only 6 months of painful suffering until death ahead of them? Should they really have to go through that natural process, should their family have to actually watch them suffer through it? If they want out, we should give them some dignity and respect their decision.
As for the lawyers, yeah both sides really. If you know your client is guilty because you have the evidence, it should have to be presented. Now obviously the defense attorney will try and negotiate a fair outcome for his client, but I don't want child molesters and serial killers being set free because evidence existed but the defense attorney ignored it. But mostly I'm concerned with prosecutors who ignore or suppress evidence to get a conviction.
I think both lawyers should actually work together to discover the truth and arrive at a consensus.
I don't think it's over the top. Right to end ones life should be the most important right.
What if you did something horrible, that you just can't live with because it could never be undone and wasn't done intentionally. Should that person really have to carry that burden until their natural death? What if you have some horrible disease and there is no cure and only 6 months of painful suffering until death ahead of them? Should they really have to go through that natural process, should their family have to actually watch them suffer through it? If they want out, we should give them some dignity and respect their decision.
As for the lawyers, yeah both sides really. If you know your client is guilty because you have the evidence, it should have to be presented. Now obviously the defense attorney will try and negotiate a fair outcome for his client, but I don't want child molesters and serial killers being set free because evidence existed but the defense attorney ignored it. But mostly I'm concerned with prosecutors who ignore or suppress evidence to get a conviction.
I think both lawyers should actually work together to discover the truth and arrive at a consensus.
Sometimes the punishment must fit the crime. Mental burden is a helluva punishment.
Basically, however, you’re saying “innocent until proven guilty” should be thrown out the window for “consensus”? I think the entire system of government will collapse over such an ideal that defense attorneys perform a role which they are not hired to do. “Consensus” can be reached in complete ignorance of the truth. I don’t want lawyers discovering or determining truth. Let’s leave that to juries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sometimes the punishment must fit the crime. Mental burden is a helluva punishment.
Basically, however, you’re saying “innocent until proven guilty” should be thrown out the window for “consensus”? I think the entire system of government will collapse over such an ideal that defense attorneys perform a role which they are not hired to do. “Consensus” can be reached in complete ignorance of the truth. I don’t want lawyers discovering or determining truth. Let’s leave that to juries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What if it wasn't a deliberate crime or even a crime? What if some act of unintentional negligence led to the death of your entire family?
As for "innocent until proven guilty" that would still stand. However if the defense attorney discovered evidence that his client is in fact guilty, should he be able to suppress it?
What if it wasn't a deliberate crime or even a crime? What if some act of unintentional negligence led to the death of your entire family?
As for "innocent until proven guilty" that would still stand. However if the defense attorney discovered evidence that his client is in fact guilty, should he be able to suppress it?
I didn’t say that it had to be deliberate, did I?
You’re arguing against client-attorney privilege. If your defense attorney is against you, or even if he or she doesn’t believe you, the “consensus” could be presented in such a way that truth is irrelevant. Nope, I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that you’re outwitting the founders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What if it wasn't a deliberate crime or even a crime? What if some act of unintentional negligence led to the death of your entire family?
As for "innocent until proven guilty" that would still stand. However if the defense attorney discovered evidence that his client is in fact guilty, should he be able to suppress it?
The system is adversarial for a reason, and for the most part it’s already heavily stacked against the accused with respect to monies, resources, logistics, etc.
Probably other issues with the right against self-incrimination and attorney client privilege.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uhm, that is capitalism.
Uhm, that was my point. :)
I don't think it's over the top. Right to end ones life should be the most important right.
What if you did something horrible, that you just can't live with because it could never be undone and wasn't done intentionally. Should that person really have to carry that burden until their natural death? What if you have some horrible disease and there is no cure and only 6 months of painful suffering until death ahead of them? Should they really have to go through that natural process, should their family have to actually watch them suffer through it? If they want out, we should give them some dignity and respect their decision.
The problem with most suicides is that very often the causal factor is transitory in nature, but the suicidal person doesn't see that. So if you sanction such things folks who are dealing with hard times are more apt to take that way out than weather the storm so to speak.
I have several friends who have lost children or spouses. These are close enough friends that I have walked with them through the grieving. Shortly after the event, they all wished they could die. But they came out of that darkness into the light.
Another was to the point that she was taking the toaster into the bathroom when she took baths, it was plugged in, waiting for her to pull it into the water. She got help for her depression and is going strong now.
Point being if you make it too easy, people who normally wouldn't will.
I have these same feelings about today's acceptance of gays. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the camp that it's okay to be gay, I just don't think it is normal. If a person knows anything about psychology, they understand that homoerotic thoughts are not abnormal during development. In today's world, I'm concerned that the kid in the locker room who can't take his eye's off Joey's schlong, because it's bigger than his, thinks to himself 'OMG, I'm gay, but that normal' and next thing you know he has a mouthful of Joey.
If we are encouraged to give in at the least hardship/temptation, more people will succumb to the easy way.
Regarding folks with terminal illnesses, that is why palliative care doctors are found in most hospitals.
Family involvement in what amounts to euthanasia has reportedly become a problem in several countries.
As for the lawyers, yeah both sides really. If you know your client is guilty because you have the evidence, it should have to be presented. Now obviously the defense attorney will try and negotiate a fair outcome for his client, but I don't want child molesters and serial killers being set free because evidence existed but the defense attorney ignored it. But mostly I'm concerned with prosecutors who ignore or suppress evidence to get a conviction.
I think both lawyers should actually work together to discover the truth and arrive at a consensus.
Agreed with you bolded. Disagree with the underlined.
At trial it is the job of both attorneys to vigorously present their cases within the bounds of legal and ethical considerations. The jury and/or the judge are the determiners of fact, the attorneys present evidence to help in that quest.
My understanding is that an attorney cannot knowingly allow his client to perjure themselves.
Likewise my understanding is that if an attorney knows his client is guilty because the client has confessed to him, that the attorney cannot argue that his client is not guilty, rather they have to argue the case from the perspective that the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
ABAS Rules:
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
I didn’t say that it had to be deliberate, did I?
You’re arguing against client-attorney privilege. If your defense attorney is against you, or even if he or she doesn’t believe you, the “consensus” could be presented in such a way that truth is irrelevant. Nope, I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that you’re outwitting the founders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, two topics.
First what if it wasn't even a crime. What if a person simply made some kind of horrible mistake that they simply couldn't live with. I think the right to end ones own existence on their own terms is probably the biggest right anyone could have.
Second topic, I do understand the can of worms but I also see a flaw in our current legal system. And those who defend guys who rape and murder kids just shouldn't be allowed to ignore evidence that their client is guilty. I know no matter what system you have in place, the worst offenders will learn to game it but I also know defense attorneys are paid based upon how many times they successfully defend their clients and actual guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant and by the same token prosecutors get promoted and bonuses based upon convictions, even if they happen to convict somebody that is innocent from time to time.
I just think we need some greater level of oversight where both attorneys have a commitment to actual justice and the truth of events.
The problem with most suicides is that very often the causal factor is transitory in nature, but the suicidal person doesn't see that. So if you sanction such things folks who are dealing with hard times are more apt to take that way out than weather the storm so to speak.
I have several friends who have lost children or spouses. These are close enough friends that I have walked with them through the grieving. Shortly after the event, they all wished they could die. But they came out of that darkness into the light.
Another was to the point that she was taking the toaster into the bathroom when she took baths, it was plugged in, waiting for her to pull it into the water. She got help for her depression and is going strong now.
Point being if you make it too easy, people who normally wouldn't will.
I have these same feelings about today's acceptance of gays. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the camp that it's okay to be gay, I just don't think it is normal. If a person knows anything about psychology, they understand that homoerotic thoughts are not abnormal during development. In today's world, I'm concerned that the kid in the locker room who can't take his eye's off Joey's schlong, because it's bigger than his, thinks to himself 'OMG, I'm gay, but that normal' and next thing you know he has a mouthful of Joey.
If we are encouraged to give in at the least hardship/temptation, more people will succumb to the easy way.
Regarding folks with terminal illnesses, that is why palliative care doctors are found in most hospitals.
Family involvement in what amounts to euthanasia has reportedly become a problem in several countries.
Well for starters if "acceptance" is all that is necessary for Johnny to end up with a mouthful of Joey, then Joey actually is gay, or at least bi or at the very least is trying to break into the porn business and doing "gay for pay" stuff.
As for ending life. I understand where people might otherwise choose not to if situations changed. But people might also not get married, might not get divorced, might not have children, might not have abortions and all kinds of other major decisions where they get to decide.
I think if there is one thing that is absolutely off limits to everyone one else, that is control over your own very existence. Now certainly freedom is messy and families might feel terrible if their 26 year old becomes disenchanted with life and comes to believe there is "no point" and decides to just check out now. But I have a bigger problem with the state telling grown adults "no you can't." Granted, most people if they are determined can solve that problem, but should they have to. I can't think of a single reason where the state has the right to determine "right of existence." This is especially true where the state has the right to impose the death penalty but people who simply want to go aren't legally allowed to do so.
I understand certain issues, specifically that no doctor should have to participate in such an event because it violates the basic rule of "do no harm" and that is why it would be up to the individual with only the means and instruction provided to the individual. But if somebody is dying of something horrible, they shouldn't have to tough out their final days if they don't want to. I wouldn't want that for my loved ones. I also wouldn't want to discover they had to do it by themselves and were alone when it happened. I'd also hate to be the one that discovered them hanging, with part of their head blown off or in a tub full of blood.
Ok, two topics.
First what if it wasn't even a crime. What if a person simply made some kind of horrible mistake that they simply couldn't live with. I think the right to end ones own existence on their own terms is probably the biggest right anyone could have.
Second topic, I do understand the can of worms but I also see a flaw in our current legal system. And those who defend guys who rape and murder kids just shouldn't be allowed to ignore evidence that their client is guilty. I know no matter what system you have in place, the worst offenders will learn to game it but I also know defense attorneys are paid based upon how many times they successfully defend their clients and actual guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant and by the same token prosecutors get promoted and bonuses based upon convictions, even if they happen to convict somebody that is innocent from time to time.
I just think we need some greater level of oversight where both attorneys have a commitment to actual justice and the truth of events.
You’re playing with feelings more than logic.
Suicide is a terminal end to a temporary problem. Obviously we cannot punish one that commits suicide. However, the decision to do so demonstrates a temporary, or even permanent, mental incompetency. What if that person is a child? What if that person cannot manage their normal affairs due to other mental deficit? Would you also afford said rights to those?
As for attorneys, you’re wanting to frame the game where we end “innocent until proven guilty” and instead replace it with consensus. You’re simply wrong. If you’re concerned about those attorneys knowingly defending the guilty, social pressure is a thing. Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to be a little social justice warrior and convince those attorneys that they should stop. Nothing compels them to take the case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re playing with feelings more than logic.
Suicide is a terminal end to a temporary problem. Obviously we cannot punish one that commits suicide. However, the decision to do so demonstrates a temporary, or even permanent, mental incompetency. What if that person is a child? What if that person cannot manage their normal affairs due to other mental deficit? Would you also afford said rights to those?
As for attorneys, you’re wanting to frame the game where we end “innocent until proven guilty” and instead replace it with consensus. You’re simply wrong. If you’re concerned about those attorneys knowingly defending the guilty, social pressure is a thing. Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to be a little social justice warrior and convince those attorneys that they should stop. Nothing compels them to take the case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually I'm using very little emotion. If there is anything we have a right to, it is to determine our own existence. And it isn't always a "temporary condition."
If you are going to die, in pain and it's going to be a long process. That isn't temporary and nobody should be forced to endure it.
If you tried and failed to rescue your family from a burning building and you have nothing left that isn't a temporary situation and it isn't going away. And if you just would rather not live out your final years playing "should of / could of" you shouldn't have to.
As for the legal stuff, I am NOT suggesting an end of "innocent until proven guilty", all I'm saying is if the DEFENSE attorney discovers evidence then his client really isn't innocent any more and he shouldn't be able to just ignore it. Obviously I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that would get done in a practical way. And I'm probably being too philosophical on this one, I just hate seeing guys get away with horrible things and it's later discovered significant evidence was successfully suppressed by the defense attorney.
Actually I'm using very little emotion. If there is anything we have a right to, it is to determine our own existence. And it isn't always a "temporary condition."
If you are going to die, in pain and it's going to be a long process. That isn't temporary and nobody should be forced to endure it.
If you tried and failed to rescue your family from a burning building and you have nothing left that isn't a temporary situation and it isn't going away. And if you just would rather not live out your final years playing "should of / could of" you shouldn't have to.
As for the legal stuff, I am NOT suggesting an end of "innocent until proven guilty", all I'm saying is if the DEFENSE attorney discovers evidence then his client really isn't innocent any more and he shouldn't be able to just ignore it. Obviously I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that would get done in a practical way. And I'm probably being too philosophical on this one, I just hate seeing guys get away with horrible things and it's later discovered significant evidence was successfully suppressed by the defense attorney.
We have palliative care which, legally, controls pain of the terminal.
Who punished those that successfully commits suicide?
The defense attorney takes on a case. He can refuse himself at any time. But undermining attorney-client privilege is a non-starter. If prosecution fails to get a conviction, it is on their incompetence. Evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The norm in this country is more the opposite of your concern; innocent people are forced to plea due to corrupt prosecutorial practices and law enforcement overreach. You can only have the justice you can afford.
I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seppuku should be legal. If I had hardcore Cancer then I wanna go out doing either Seppuku or riding a bomb down on the bad guy of the week.
Make a Wish should honor these requests
We have palliative care which, legally, controls pain of the terminal.
Who punished those that successfully commits suicide?
Controls pain, isn't the same as ending pain. And people shouldn't have to attempt suicide under terrible conditions. I went into detail with several examples why.
The defense attorney takes on a case. He can refuse himself at any time. But undermining attorney-client privilege is a non-starter. If prosecution fails to get a conviction, it is on their incompetence. Evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The norm in this country is more the opposite of your concern; innocent people are forced to plea due to corrupt prosecutorial practices and law enforcement overreach. You can only have the justice you can afford.
I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And that is fine. I'm not heavily invested in this particular debate. I'm just seeing that there isn't a perfect system and thinking out loud how we might make it better. And you are absolutely correct about prosecutorial over reach where innocent and mostly innocent people "take a plea" out of fear of being railroaded. We only need to recall the example of Nifong suppressing DNA evidence in the Duke LaCrosse case which was brought to light by a third party and eventually exonerated the defendants. What if nobody ever came forward?
SomeOtherGuy
10-18-19, 20:51
I wanna go out doing either Seppuku or riding a bomb down on the bad guy of the week.
Make a Wish should honor these requests
One thousand four hundred megatons worth. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Controls pain, isn't the same as ending pain. And people shouldn't have to attempt suicide under terrible conditions. I went into detail with several examples why.
And that is fine. I'm not heavily invested in this particular debate. I'm just seeing that there isn't a perfect system and thinking out loud how we might make it better. And you are absolutely correct about prosecutorial over reach where innocent and mostly innocent people "take a plea" out of fear of being railroaded. We only need to recall the example of Nifong suppressing DNA evidence in the Duke LaCrosse case which was brought to light by a third party and eventually exonerated the defendants. What if nobody ever came forward?
I get you’re for people ending their life. But there are two options, physician assisted, or doing it themselves.
Physician-assisted suicide is still murder and immoral. If somebody truly wants to die, they can commit suicide “under horrible conditions”. It’s not like any suicide is not “under horrible conditions”.
Thanks for the discussion but this is a dead-end philosophical disagreement which I don’t believe there is common ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I get you’re for people ending their life. But there are two options, physician assisted, or doing it themselves.
Physician-assisted suicide is still murder and immoral. If somebody truly wants to die, they can commit suicide “under horrible conditions”. It’s not like any suicide is not “under horrible conditions”.
Thanks for the discussion but this is a dead-end philosophical disagreement which I don’t believe there is common ground.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't want anyone to end their life, I just think people should have control over that aspect of their own existence. The final say if you will.
I've already discussed doctor assisted and noted my objections to that method and I've already discussed going lone ranger and why that is also wrong. You can easily check my previous comments if interested.
What should exist is a place where the means and the know how are provided and you don't have to "try your luck." No doctors need be involved except for an on site staff doctor in the event somebody changes their mind or something else goes wrong.
I also strongly disagree about self check out always being under horrible conditions. In some rare circumstances it can be the most welcome option, but the method could certainly be improved in many cases. If it was ever me, mix me a cocktail and let me put in my favorite movie and drift off into oblivion. I've watched good people die hard, drawn out deaths. Very few deserve that fate.
I’ve seen my fair share of death. I’ve never felt as much relief seeing people die that, for lack of better phrasing, needed to.
And the reality is, anybody that has the desire can, unless they are a quad or some kind of rare circumstance.
It’s quite an ethical dilemma for parties involved in those circumstances. If they were a quad, the person giving them said elixir is essentially, helping them.
Said elixir, if it contains medications, requires prescriptions and/or pharmacists.
But the same person, assuming they can ambulance, can make their own cocktail out of household items.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 1% will obtain medicine for their desperately ill children from foreign sources and boutique providers.
The rest of us will watch ours die from curable diseases.
Welcome to capitalist America.
The 1% will obtain medicine for their desperately ill children from foreign sources and boutique providers.
The rest of us will watch ours die from curable diseases.
Welcome to capitalist America.
Huh? The reason we have the best and most accessible healthcare in the world is because of capitalism. Go to Canada and wait 6 months to get an MRI.
Huh? The reason we have the best and most accessible healthcare in the world is because of capitalism. Go to Canada and wait 6 months to get an MRI.
Stand in an American pharmacy and see a mother with a sick kid. She's holding two prescriptions. She can only afford one. She's trying to decide which one to pick.
See a parent with a child who has an ongoing or chronic Illness. In america, your insurance is tied to your job. That parent gets laid off on a friday. On Saturday, the family is medically indigent. What do they do for their kid's treatment?
Now tell me about access.
Crony capitalist America. If windshield wipers were like Rx drugs, and you had to go to ASE certified shops to get replacements to avoid fines and prison, you would be paying hundreds of dollars a pop.
Not only have I been in the medical field in some component for almost 30 years, I've also had cancer, my sister had breast cancer, my aunt had lung cancer, my cousin, her daughter, died from leukemia, my uncle had prostate cancer, another uncle had colon cancer. and I currently have three or four others who either have it now or have died from it. All that is to say, I am not sure anyone can move me on my perceptions and tell me I don't have a dog in the fight.
So that said, there are fates worse than death, and dying from terminal and painful disease is one of them. If someone wants a way out of that, not only am I not going to judge them, I might do what I can to help them.
The laws that govern medical providers in our country are about as fouled up as they can get. We can keep someone alive in an ICU who should die, but we are not allowed to assist in a dignified death for people who do not need to be living. Physicians work under "do no harm," and they keep people alive everyday through standards involving harm. sometimes helping someone go out peacefully, painlessly, and with dignity is doing no harm.
Crony capitalist America. If windshield wipers were like Rx drugs, and you had to go to ASE certified shops to get replacements to avoid fines and prison, you would be paying hundreds of dollars a pop.Meanwhile, the retail (brick and mortar) price for winshield wipers has doubled in the last 10 years, they no longer sell refills, only complete blades.
Some of what you're describing is the Dynamics of retail market and for-profit corporations.
My pharmacy provides several generic prescriptions for free. Stuff like Lisinopril, an extremely common high blood pressure medicine.
Meanwhile, the retail (brick and mortar) price for winshield wipers has doubled in the last 10 years, they no longer sell refills, only complete blades.
Some of what you're describing is the Dynamics of retail market and for-profit corporations.
My pharmacy provides several generic prescriptions for free. Stuff like Lisinopril, an extremely common high blood pressure medicine.
Yes costs go up, I still wouldn't count on the meds being free any more than a free George Bush cell phone is free.
The reason we have the range of medications is capitalism. The estimated cost to develop and bring a new medication to market is $1-$1.5 billion. Companies will not develop these drugs if there was no profit incentive. How many medical and medicinal breakthroughs are coming out of Cuba and Venezuela? Granted, crony capitalism has had a negative impact and (somehow) needs to be rectified but we still have the best healthcare in the world. Once the government steps in and takes control innovation will stop.
I suppose if we didn’t have capitalism all these sick people would be dead because there would be no meds and no MRIs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Crony capitalism instantly points to the high likelihood innovation has already been retarded by picking winners and losers based on patronage instead of exceptional ideas.
Not just drugs....shortage of surgical devices are likewise commonplace. Everything from surgical staplers to suture to bioprosthetic mesh to something as simple (and cheap) as methylene blue dye.
My crews are having a hard time getting typical narcotics for their patients and are reduced to using glass vials during transports on aircraft. The waste from broken vials vs the typical containers for simple things like fentynal are getting hard to find iirc. We are making due, but normal isn't right now unfortunately.
Not only have I been in the medical field in some component for almost 30 years, I've also had cancer, my sister had breast cancer, my aunt had lung cancer, my cousin, her daughter, died from leukemia, my uncle had prostate cancer, another uncle had colon cancer. and I currently have three or four others who either have it now or have died from it. All that is to say, I am not sure anyone can move me on my perceptions and tell me I don't have a dog in the fight.
So that said, there are fates worse than death, and dying from terminal and painful disease is one of them. If someone wants a way out of that, not only am I not going to judge them, I might do what I can to help them.
The laws that govern medical providers in our country are about as fouled up as they can get. We can keep someone alive in an ICU who should die, but we are not allowed to assist in a dignified death for people who do not need to be living. Physicians work under "do no harm," and they keep people alive everyday through standards involving harm. sometimes helping someone go out peacefully, painlessly, and with dignity is doing no harm.
I think part of the solution is to have somebody other than medical doctors provide assistance. Of course if medical doctors can perform abortions I don't really see the same conflict with assisted suicide.
I’ve seen my fair share of death. I’ve never felt as much relief seeing people die that, for lack of better phrasing, needed to.
And the reality is, anybody that has the desire can, unless they are a quad or some kind of rare circumstance.
It’s quite an ethical dilemma for parties involved in those circumstances. If they were a quad, the person giving them said elixir is essentially, helping them.
Said elixir, if it contains medications, requires prescriptions and/or pharmacists.
But the same person, assuming they can ambulance, can make their own cocktail out of household items.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you credit too many people with too much know how. Not only is gargling drano probably a really hard way to check out, the probability of screwing it up and surviving for a time with now greater pain seems pretty high.
This is why qualified assistance is so important, to provide the most humane and pain free method possible.
My crews are having a hard time getting typical narcotics for their patients and are reduced to using glass vials during transports on aircraft. The waste from broken vials vs the typical containers for simple things like fentynal are getting hard to find iirc. We are making due, but normal isn't right now unfortunately.
Weird. We just switched from glass to pre-mix plastic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you credit too many people with too much know how. Not only is gargling drano probably a really hard way to check out, the probability of screwing it up and surviving for a time with now greater pain seems pretty high.
This is why qualified assistance is so important, to provide the most humane and pain free method possible.
If you’re so incompetent t you can’t do it, you’re not mentally capable of making such a decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Weird. We just switched from glass to pre-mix plastic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We normally have the plastic vials, but supply can't find any, so had to order a few hundred units of glass because that was all that was available at the time.
My crews are having a hard time getting typical narcotics for their patients and are reduced to using glass vials during transports on aircraft. The waste from broken vials vs the typical containers for simple things like fentynal are getting hard to find iirc. We are making due, but normal isn't right now unfortunately.
We’ve had this problem for epi and fentanyl also. Seems like those are frequently in shortage, but we’re good right now. Completely out of Bicarb lately.
We’ve had this problem for epi and fentanyl also. Seems like those are frequently in shortage, but we’re good right now. Completely out of Bicarb lately.
Bicarb? Ouch. Kind of an important one.
We’ve been having trouble with enough blood products lately.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you’re so incompetent t you can’t do it, you’re not mentally capable of making such a decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I suspect most mentally capable people have never researched painless suicide. I know I wouldn't know the best way to do it.
Considering most firearms related deaths are suicides, that’s the biggest clue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Considering most firearms related deaths are suicides, that’s the biggest clue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I know that is NOT the most painless and humane way to go. Be right above hanging as probably the least desirable method. Seen a lot of people screw it up and live too. Also that isn't how I'd want any loved ones to find me and nobody should have to clean up that kind of mess.
You seem to be trying very, very hard to not see what I'm trying to say. If you LOVED somebody and they needed to end their pain, are you really gonna hand them a Glock?
I’m pretty certain there isn’t any pain and it’s near instant when a bullet severs critical brain areas. If there was pain, they would lack the ability to perceive it.
One of my best friends in the whole world shot him self and my father found him. This isn’t a foreign concept to me.
What’s worse than finding them or facilitating their death. Which is exactly what you are requesting become a thing. Sure, somebody may be ok with it now, but life experience has a tendency to change beliefs of people. Look at all the abortion nurses that seek psychiatric care because they have difficulty with what they facilitated as a younger person. Asking anybody to do so is immoral. That burden should be placed only on the individual.
In fact, I’ve struggled with removing Life Support from somebody that was temporarily dependent on it that was still viable and could have recovered. It’s some crazy shit to deal with and you seem to want to normalize such a burden. I don’t think you thoroughly considered this.
No, if I had a loved one that was terminally ill, I would refer them to hospice. It works.
If they aren’t terminally ill, psych care.
I didn’t say anything about handing anybody a Glock. But if they truly want to die and can’t figure out where the bullet is supposed to go...
I actually know somebody that tried to kill herself via a .38 revolver. She missed and earned herself the nickname “the marksman”. She said she wanted to leave her head intact enough so she would look good at the funeral and thought she could still “hit her brain if the angle was right.” She has since received psych care and lives happily.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In fact, I’ve struggled with removing Life Support from somebody that was temporarily dependent on it that was still viable and could have recovered. It’s some crazy shit to deal with and you seem to want to normalize such a burden. I don’t think you thoroughly considered this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you are very, very wrong. Been down this road more than a few times. And after watching hospice "work", I sure wish there was a better alternative. I'm not trying to normalize anything, suffering is normal, I just wish the option of a humane and pain free as possible death was normal.
But this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'm gonna leave it alone.
So you are very, very wrong. Been down this road more than a few times. And after watching hospice "work", I sure wish there was a better alternative. I'm not trying to normalize anything, suffering is normal, I just wish the option of a humane and pain free as possible death was normal.
But this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'm gonna leave it alone.
Sometimes there is no perfect solution but human suffering is a thing. You can’t ask others to take on that burden, even though they are willing right now. Those demons have a way to come back and haunt them later in life.
The burden should be on the individual. Not others’.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sometimes there is no perfect solution but human suffering is a thing. You can’t ask others to take on that burden, even though they are willing right now. Those demons have a way to come back and haunt them later in life.
The burden should be on the individual. Not others’.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here again we disagree.
There are people I'm responsible for. Hell I have better options when making sure my dog is taken care of when the good days are over and only bad days ahead of him. It's my responsibility to make sure that it's done right.
When my father was going, I wish I had a similar option where he could say the things that were important and then get a sedative and then have his pain ended there was no reason for him to have to endure that final week trying to just breathe without it hurting. And guess what, when you are in the ICU even if you have the cocktail know how, you can't just walk in and say "Here...drink this."
You should be able to do that, but right now it's considered murder.
So your choices when you find out you are sick and provided a timeline are:
1. Preempt the entire thing and go out in the most pain free method you can provide yourself even if this ends up short changing you weeks or months of tolerable days that you could otherwise spend with family, taking care of final arrangements or simply just living the last days you are able to enjoy.
2. End up in the ICU and / or hospice where you have little or no control over your destiny and being forced to endure every last painful day until you finally die. If you are lucky, you can spend most of that time in a altered state on morphine but honestly that isn't really living either.
It's not what I wanted for my father, it's now what I want when my time comes and it's not what I'd want for anyone I care about.
As for burdens, the burden I carry is I wasn't able to do better for my father. If I could have spared him those last few days, my burden would be much lighter. And when it comes to those I love, who aren't able to do things for themselves anymore, I'd gladly accept that burden. In the last hour, it's the final act of proving you love them by sparing them pointless pain and suffering.
Real hell is watching someone suffer when there is nothing you can do about it to make it better and it's a crime to end their suffering.
Here again we disagree.
There are people I'm responsible for. Hell I have better options when making sure my dog is taken care of when the good days are over and only bad days ahead of him. It's my responsibility to make sure that it's done right.
When my father was going, I wish I had a similar option where he could say the things that were important and then get a sedative and then have his pain ended there was no reason for him to have to endure that final week trying to just breathe without it hurting. And guess what, when you are in the ICU even if you have the cocktail know how, you can't just walk in and say "Here...drink this."
You should be able to do that, but right now it's considered murder.
So your choices when you find out you are sick and provided a timeline are:
1. Preempt the entire thing and go out in the most pain free method you can provide yourself even if this ends up short changing you weeks or months of tolerable days that you could otherwise spend with family, taking care of final arrangements or simply just living the last days you are able to enjoy.
2. End up in the ICU and / or hospice where you have little or no control over your destiny and being forced to endure every last painful day until you finally die. If you are lucky, you can spend most of that time in a altered state on morphine but honestly that isn't really living either.
It's not what I wanted for my father, it's now what I want when my time comes and it's not what I'd want for anyone I care about.
As for burdens, the burden I carry is I wasn't able to do better for my father. If I could have spared him those last few days, my burden would be much lighter. And when it comes to those I love, who aren't able to do things for themselves anymore, I'd gladly accept that burden. In the last hour, it's the final act of proving you love them by sparing them pointless pain and suffering.
Real hell is watching someone suffer when there is nothing you can do about it to make it better and it's a crime to end their suffering.
Dude, I get it and I see it every day. Suffering, dying, it’s all part of living. Dogs aren’t human beings. Dogs are property.
You’re suggestion “giving him a cocktail and going to sleep” IS murder is correct. And your suggestion is to shift that act, that death into the conscious of another human being, which is not only selfish as f*ck, it’s unethical and creates a whole litany of psychological problems for those responsible for designing, producing, and dispensing said cocktail.
Look, I’m sorry your dad suffered. I truly am. I’ve seen the same thing too many times to count. I completely get it. But you’re coming off as the idealist who wants to “do something” even if it’s wrong. You’re like the “Everytown” groups who want all guns banned unless there are zero murders with guns, despite unintended consequences. I get it, you’re emotional. It sucks. It hurts. But suffering is part of life and what you’re asking for is others to violate their oaths and their ethics, and you’re certain this is the only way, consequences for others be damned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here again we disagree.
There are people I'm responsible for. Hell I have better options when making sure my dog is taken care of when the good days are over and only bad days ahead of him. It's my responsibility to make sure that it's done right.
When my father was going, I wish I had a similar option where he could say the things that were important and then get a sedative and then have his pain ended there was no reason for him to have to endure that final week trying to just breathe without it hurting. And guess what, when you are in the ICU even if you have the cocktail know how, you can't just walk in and say "Here...drink this."
You should be able to do that, but right now it's considered murder.
So your choices when you find out you are sick and provided a timeline are:
1. Preempt the entire thing and go out in the most pain free method you can provide yourself even if this ends up short changing you weeks or months of tolerable days that you could otherwise spend with family, taking care of final arrangements or simply just living the last days you are able to enjoy.
2. End up in the ICU and / or hospice where you have little or no control over your destiny and being forced to endure every last painful day until you finally die. If you are lucky, you can spend most of that time in a altered state on morphine but honestly that isn't really living either.
It's not what I wanted for my father, it's now what I want when my time comes and it's not what I'd want for anyone I care about.
As for burdens, the burden I carry is I wasn't able to do better for my father. If I could have spared him those last few days, my burden would be much lighter. And when it comes to those I love, who aren't able to do things for themselves anymore, I'd gladly accept that burden. In the last hour, it's the final act of proving you love them by sparing them pointless pain and suffering.
Real hell is watching someone suffer when there is nothing you can do about it to make it better and it's a crime to end their suffering.
Dude, I get it and I see it every day. Suffering, dying, it’s all part of living. People suffer every day without killing themselves. Suffering is natural.
Being responsible for somebody, means you should have the power to determine if their psychological or physiological condition is terminal and that you can order somebody else to kill them for you? That’s awfully bold.
Dogs aren’t human beings. Dogs are property.
Your suggestion “giving him a cocktail and going to sleep” IS murder is correct. And your suggestion is to shift that act, that death into the conscious of another human being, which is not only selfish as f*ck, it’s unethical and creates a whole litany of psychological problems for those responsible for designing, producing, and dispensing said cocktail.
Look, I’m sorry your dad suffered. I truly am. I’ve seen the same thing too many times to count. I completely get it. But you’re coming off as the idealist who wants to “do something” even if it’s wrong. You’re like the “Everytown” groups who want all guns banned unless there are zero murders with guns, despite unintended consequences. I get it, you’re emotional. It sucks. It hurts. But suffering is part of life and what you’re asking for is others to violate their oaths and their ethics, and you’re certain this is the only way, consequences for others be damned.
Finally, if your suggestion were legal, guess what? There would still be suffering. Human bodies react differently to the same substances. Because of malabsorption or differences in receptors, the same lethal cocktail that puts one person quietly to death may make the next person go into status epilepitcus. How much peace would it bring to watch your loved one seize, foam at the mouth, and choke to death on their own secretions?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Live in America:
Swaths of folks are pro-abortion
People still balk at dignified self termination.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If somebody really wants to die badly enough, they can just call the Times saying they have information that could lead to the arrest of the Clintons. Problem solved, problem staying solved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SomeOtherGuy
10-22-19, 15:01
the same lethal cocktail that puts one person quietly to death may make the next person go into status epilepitcus. How much peace would it bring to watch your loved one seize, foam at the mouth, and choke to death on their own secretions?
If somebody really wants to die badly enough, they can just call the Times saying they have information that could lead to the arrest of the Clintons. Problem solved, problem staying solved.
Funny funny, but likely a crueler death than "status epilepitcus."
It's easy enough to see the problems with euthanasia, but our hospice system is not reliably good and many people suffer in US hospice too. My extended family currently has a very elderly person (over 90) who was given two weeks to live, more than a year ago, due to multiple untreatable conditions. Still in hospice, still alive, not conscious for more than a few minutes a day and not doing well in those few minutes. I hope her unconscious dreams are better, or nothing. How long will that go on? Is that humane? It's not exactly a fine and peaceful way to go.
Nope hospice certainly isn’t perfect. But it’s not murder either. Oftentimes hospice, and subsequent quality, is only as good as those running that particular agency. I’ve seen some pretty bad hospice agencies.
With all the complaining about an admittedly imperfect system, has anybody actually done anything to improve things? Or is this just venting? What can be done short of legalizing murder?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude, I get it and I see it every day. Suffering, dying, it’s all part of living.
Jesus....I'm glad I don't have your job. Where do you work...Botswanna?
You’re suggestion “giving him a cocktail and going to sleep” IS murder is correct. And your suggestion is to shift that act, that death into the conscious of another human being, which is not only selfish as f*ck, it’s unethical and creates a whole litany of psychological problems for those responsible for designing, producing, and dispensing said cocktail.
It won't happen that anyone will ever be required to give another person that cocktail. And you're assuming that those who would be willing to do so see it as murder and not the greater kindness, and that they will suffer some kind of psychological devastation. That's not universally the case.
Jesus....I'm glad I don't have your job. Where do you work...Botswanna?
It won't happen that anyone will ever be required to give another person that cocktail. And you're assuming that those who would be willing to do so see it as murder and not the greater kindness, and that they will suffer some kind of psychological devastation. That's not universally the case.
The thing is, right now they may not but there is a surprising number of people who work such jobs early in life that have a significant change of heart later in life after they mature. As I said earlier, it isn’t uncommon for abortion nurses to later need counseling for assisting with abortions. Additionally, mothers of aborted children often express deep regrets later in life and seek help to deal with their despair.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thing is, right now they may not but there is a surprising number of people who work such jobs early in life that have a significant change of heart later in life after they mature. As I said earlier, it isn’t uncommon for abortion nurses to later need counseling for assisting with abortions. Additionally, mothers of aborted children often express deep regrets later in life and seek help to deal with their despair.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok and? So what? Stop trying to tell people how to live their lives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok and? So what?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How can you have empathy for one group yet not the other?
Is it ethical to trade the suffering of one for the suffering of young, naive people?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude, I get it and I see it every day. Suffering, dying, it’s all part of living. Dogs aren’t human beings. Dogs are property.
You’re suggestion “giving him a cocktail and going to sleep” IS murder is correct. And your suggestion is to shift that act, that death into the conscious of another human being, which is not only selfish as f*ck, it’s unethical and creates a whole litany of psychological problems for those responsible for designing, producing, and dispensing said cocktail.
Look, I’m sorry your dad suffered. I truly am. I’ve seen the same thing too many times to count. I completely get it. But you’re coming off as the idealist who wants to “do something” even if it’s wrong. You’re like the “Everytown” groups who want all guns banned unless there are zero murders with guns, despite unintended consequences. I get it, you’re emotional. It sucks. It hurts. But suffering is part of life and what you’re asking for is others to violate their oaths and their ethics, and you’re certain this is the only way, consequences for others be damned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So we aren't gonna agree on a lot of things.
Dogs aren't property, it is life and life that I've accepted responsibility for so I need to make sure I do everything that is my responsibility.
Also you seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I specifically stated no doctor should be required to assist as it violates their basic oath. I'm stating the know how and method should be provided to me, I'll take responsibility for someone like my father. I'll take responsibility for my loved ones.
The ONLY thing I'm saying is that such a thing shouldn't be considered a crime. That is not emotion, that is me stating people should have the right to end their life when quality of life is gone. There is no reason to make them run out the clock and suffer.
And if such a thing were no longer a crime, then it would be legal under the right conditions for me to obtain all the things that are necessary to achieve a humane and as pain free as possible drug cocktail just like any other legal script.
I understand that you disagree with this premise, although I don't know why anyone would think terminal patients should have to suffer until the end.
Seriously, I could say “so what” to those wanting to die or those suffering. Insensitive as hell.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How can you have empathy for one group yet not the other?
Is it ethical to trade the suffering of one for the suffering of young, naive people?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The difference is it’s not your place or my place to make the choice for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Finally, if your suggestion were legal, guess what? There would still be suffering. Human bodies react differently to the same substances. Because of malabsorption or differences in receptors, the same lethal cocktail that puts one person quietly to death may make the next person go into status epilepitcus. How much peace would it bring to watch your loved one seize, foam at the mouth, and choke to death on their own secretions?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now you are being absurd.
First of all any person with any medical understanding would understand dosage and suitability of substance. Second, anyone who knows anything would administer a sedative / anesthesia first, which is why we don't operate on people who are awake.
And finally, everything you described is pretty much what you see with "natural death" of lots of people in hospice as they succumb to illness and / or starvation. Watching people try to breath but their radiation scarred lungs won't work anymore really isn't much worse than everything you described.
So we aren't gonna agree on a lot of things.
Dogs aren't property, it is life and life that I've accepted responsibility for so I need to make sure I do everything that is my responsibility.
Also you seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I specifically stated no doctor should be required to assist as it violates their basic oath. I'm stating the know how and method should be provided to me, I'll take responsibility for someone like my father. I'll take responsibility for my loved ones.
The ONLY thing I'm saying is that such a thing shouldn't be considered a crime. That is not emotion, that is me stating people should have the right to end their life when quality of life is gone. There is no reason to make them run out the clock and suffer.
And if such a thing were no longer a crime, then it would be legal under the right conditions for me to obtain all the things that are necessary to achieve a humane and as pain free as possible drug cocktail just like any other legal script.
I understand that you disagree with this premise, although I don't know why anyone would think terminal patients should have to suffer until the end.
I’m not saying anyone “should have to”. But suffering is a reality.
If you’re doing it, you’re the one ending their life in your example. Not them.
And again, it’s not as easy as “here is a plan go do it” as I explained above. There are unintended consequences. What are you going to do when it doesn’t working as you hoped?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not saying anyone “should have to”. But suffering is a reality.
If you’re doing it, you’re the one ending their life in your example. Not them.
And again, it’s not as easy as “here is a plan go do it” as I explained above. There are unintended consequences. What are you going to do when it doesn’t working as you hoped?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The decriminalization of drugs and de-regulation of otherwise restrictive firearms laws would also unfortunately result in the unintended deaths of some innocent persons as well by default but that doesn’t mean they are the wrong courses of action to take.
Your emotion is clouding your objectivity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The decriminalization of drugs and de-regulation of otherwise restrictive firearms laws would also unfortunately result in the unintended deaths of some innocent persons as well by default but that doesn’t mean they are the wrong courses of action to take.
Your emotion is clouding your objectivity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not at all, I’ve put an extreme amount of thought into this both in a professional capacity and from an ethical perspective.
Active participation in ending another’s life is immoral, even if you farm it out to third parties who are simply providing “plans and formulas”. If it’s so important, then realize actions have consequences. Your actions should not have consequences to others. Remember, he’s not talking just about terminally ill, but also depressed people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The difference is it’s not your place or my place to make the choice for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not making a choice for anybody. But asking others to side is another problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now you are being absurd.
First of all any person with any medical understanding would understand dosage and suitability of substance. Second, anyone who knows anything would administer a sedative / anesthesia first, which is why we don't operate on people who are awake.
And finally, everything you described is pretty much what you see with "natural death" of lots of people in hospice as they succumb to illness and / or starvation. Watching people try to breath but their radiation scarred lungs won't work anymore really isn't much worse than everything you described.
If you had medical understanding, you’d understand that medications affect each individual differently. Your also understand that as one approaches the end of life, their body metabolizes substances differently as the kidney begin to fail. It’s not as black and white as you hope it is. If you’re really thinking about “getting it right” you’re going to need lab techs, pharmacists, and physicians to prescribe to you life-ending drugs for desired effects. Otherwise, you may as well read in the internet what to do with household chemicals. Which if death is the true desire, you’re not getting punished for doing yourself. You can’t convict a corpse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So we aren't gonna agree on a lot of things.
Dogs aren't property, it is life and life that I've accepted responsibility for so I need to make sure I do everything that is my responsibility.
Also you seem to be deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I specifically stated no doctor should be required to assist as it violates their basic oath. I'm stating the know how and method should be provided to me, I'll take responsibility for someone like my father. I'll take responsibility for my loved ones.
The ONLY thing I'm saying is that such a thing shouldn't be considered a crime. That is not emotion, that is me stating people should have the right to end their life when quality of life is gone. There is no reason to make them run out the clock and suffer.
And if such a thing were no longer a crime, then it would be legal under the right conditions for me to obtain all the things that are necessary to achieve a humane and as pain free as possible drug cocktail just like any other legal script.
I understand that you disagree with this premise, although I don't know why anyone would think terminal patients should have to suffer until the end.
Dogs are property. They do not have human rights. They do not have the god-given gift of humanity. Then being property doesn’t diminish your responsibility.
And you just said “script”. Therein lies the problem. A script is from a physician who is sworn to do no harm. You’re asking another to bear on their consciousness, the killing of another human being.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SomeOtherGuy
10-22-19, 21:08
Nope hospice certainly isn’t perfect. But it’s not murder either. Oftentimes hospice, and subsequent quality, is only as good as those running that particular agency. I’ve seen some pretty bad hospice agencies.
With all the complaining about an admittedly imperfect system, has anybody actually done anything to improve things? Or is this just venting? What can be done short of legalizing murder?
I'm not proposing legalized murder. I'm somewhat educated on the euthanasia regime in Holland and there are many moral problems with it. And the relative I mentioned wouldn't choose anything like that anyway. What I am saying is that "hospice is the answer" is pathetically, laughably inadequate, at least in the USA of 2019, even for someone in a major metro with good care, loving younger relatives monitoring their care, and no serious limit on money for co-pays and such. Maybe the answer is a radical overhaul and improvement of hospice care. I don't know. Not being a physician, what exactly am I supposed to do to fix this? I am crying out that a simplistic "hospice is the best we can do" isn't at all good.
I'm not proposing legalized murder. I'm somewhat educated on the euthanasia regime in Holland and there are many moral problems with it. And the relative I mentioned wouldn't choose anything like that anyway. What I am saying is that "hospice is the answer" is pathetically, laughably inadequate, at least in the USA of 2019, even for someone in a major metro with good care, loving younger relatives monitoring their care, and no serious limit on money for co-pays and such. Maybe the answer is a radical overhaul and improvement of hospice care. I don't know. Not being a physician, what exactly am I supposed to do to fix this? I am crying out that a simplistic "hospice is the best we can do" isn't at all good.
And I’m not saying it’s the best we can do or that it’s without problems.
What can you do? Get in touch with providers, politicians, etc. try to make things happen.
For instance, my state has a problem with next of kin laws. I’ve been working with two local elected officials trying to get legislation drafted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And at this point, I don’t see this conversation going anywhere beyond the dug-in positions. I shall bow out, flame away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thing I always notice, it is generally folks who have no children that are pro-choice fanatics a lot of times they are also lesbian.
Of course is incumbent upon their mother to have chosen to birth them.
Dogs are property. They do not have human rights. They do not have the god-given gift of humanity. Then being property doesn’t diminish your responsibility.
Ahhh, I think I found the problem in this debate. I thought we were having a rights debate when you were having a religious debate. Also dogs often have the "gift of humanity" more than a lot of humans.
And you just said “script”. Therein lies the problem. A script is from a physician who is sworn to do no harm. You’re asking another to bear on their consciousness, the killing of another human being.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And you said I was debating like a gun grabber. If I sell a gun to a person that uses it in lawful defense of their life and in the course of doing so kills the attacker, I'm not responsible for either of those actions...good or bad.
But the real problem is from a religious standpoint, people aren't allowed to take their own lives so you aren't interested in easing their suffering if it means cheating your deity out of a natural death.
Ahhh, I think I found the problem in this debate. I thought we were having a rights debate when you were having a religious debate. Also dogs often have the "gift of humanity" more than a lot of humans.
And you said I was debating like a gun grabber. If I sell a gun to a person that uses it in lawful defense of their life and in the course of doing so kills the attacker, I'm not responsible for either of those actions...good or bad.
But the real problem is from a religious standpoint, people aren't allowed to take their own lives so you aren't interested in easing their suffering if it means cheating your deity out of a natural death.
I didn’t capitalize god, buddy, but nice try.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thing I always notice, it is generally folks who have no children that are pro-choice fanatics a lot of times they are also lesbian.
Of course is incumbent upon their mother to have chosen to birth them.
I've picked up on that too. Tend to suspect that here also:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?218512-WTF-Texas
Ahhh, I think I found the problem in this debate. I thought we were having a rights debate when you were having a religious debate. Also dogs often have the "gift of humanity" more than a lot of humans.
And you said I was debating like a gun grabber. If I sell a gun to a person that uses it in lawful defense of their life and in the course of doing so kills the attacker, I'm not responsible for either of those actions...good or bad.
But the real problem is from a religious standpoint, people aren't allowed to take their own lives so you aren't interested in easing their suffering if it means cheating your deity out of a natural death.
Ok, fine one more. If you had a person that said, “I intend to kill my self with this gun” as is said with the script you request, you then become responsible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not at all, I’ve put an extreme amount of thought into this both in a professional capacity and from an ethical perspective.
Active participation in ending another’s life is immoral, even if you farm it out to third parties who are simply providing “plans and formulas”. If it’s so important, then realize actions have consequences. Your actions should not have consequences to others. Remember, he’s not talking just about terminally ill, but also depressed people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What, exactly, do you do? And how long have you been doing it?
Medical technology has advanced to a point where we are forced to keep people alive when they should not be; not because we should, but because we can. How is that any more moral?
I am open to having a healthy debate. This is where we were 35, 40 years ago with hospice and palliative care, and it was these types of discussions that advanced the profession. If we as medical providers/professionals have an ethical obligation to mitigate pain and suffering, why do we enact policies and procedures to to prolong life at the same time, in the same people?
What, exactly, do you do? And how long have you been doing it?
Medical technology has advanced to a point where we are forced to keep people alive when they should not be; not because we should, but because we can. How is that any more moral?
I am open to having a healthy debate. This is where we were 35, 40 years ago with hospice and palliative care, and it was these types of discussions that advanced the profession. If we as medical providers/professionals have an ethical obligation to mitigate pain and suffering, why do we enact policies and procedures to to prolong life at the same time, in the same people?
Quick aside: my 86 yo grandmother had a stroke two years ago and fortunately she survived. She was placed in an assisted living facility as a temporary measure. Unfortunately dementia has progressed to the point now where she has nearly lost her entire identity and it is beyond depressing. Cognitive functioning continues to decline. She’s stable but she remains in the facility is just leaching money at this point maintaining her existence imo.
I was advocating for bringing her home and paying to have a live in nurse. Unfortunately I don’t have power of attorney and that discussion is between other family members. I doubt she’d make it more than 6 months at home but at least she’d be amongst familiar surroundings instead of camping out in the TV lounge sitting in a wheel chair all day.
Point is prolonging one’s existence isn’t necessarily the right course of action in every situation and I’m sorry but the current treatment modalities in some contexts as absolute horse shit and serve no purpose but to extort monies. There’s nothing moral and compassionate about it.
For someone with the requisite legal threshold of cognitive functioning and decision making abilities and capacities the choice to end their own lives in a dignified matter should be imo an available course of action to then. Only them however, and only if they are of sound mind to do so. Not their PoA, not the courts, their physician, or whoever else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What, exactly, do you do? And how long have you been doing it?
Medical technology has advanced to a point where we are forced to keep people alive when they should not be; not because we should, but because we can. How is that any more moral?
I am open to having a healthy debate. This is where we were 35, 40 years ago with hospice and palliative care, and it was these types of discussions that advanced the profession. If we as medical providers/professionals have an ethical obligation to mitigate pain and suffering, why do we enact policies and procedures to to prolong life at the same time, in the same people?
Yes, we do keep people alive when we shouldn’t. That isn’t the debate here.
Why do we do it? Often selfish family members who won’t let go and/or lack of advanced directives.
Teams of ethicists, lawyers, and interdisciplinary treatment teams struggle with this on a daily basis. Oftentimes, there is a legal way for a physician to cease Life Support in many states. Unfortunately, it isn’t well known or physicians don’t want to make said decisions.
I completely agree with you. However, this is not “keeping somebody alive”. We are talking about actively killing somebody or as AUG suggests, give them the tools and a blueprint to do it themselves or for a willing family member to do so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick aside: my 86 yo grandmother had a stroke two years ago and fortunately she survived. She was placed in an assisted living facility as a temporary measure. Unfortunately dementia has progressed to the point now where she has nearly lost her entire identity and it is beyond depressing. Cognitive functioning continues to decline. She’s stable but she remains in the facility is just leaching money at this point maintaining her existence imo.
I was advocating for bringing her home and paying to have a live in nurse. Unfortunately I don’t have power of attorney and that discussion is between other family members. I doubt she’d make it more than 6 months at home but at least she’d be amongst familiar surroundings instead of camping out in the TV lounge sitting in a wheel chair all day.
Point is prolonging one’s existence isn’t necessarily the right course of action in every situation and I’m sorry but the current treatment modalities in some contexts as absolute horse shit and serve no purpose but to extort monies. There’s nothing moral and compassionate about it.
For someone with the requisite legal threshold of cognitive functioning and decision making abilities and capacities the choice to end their own lives in a dignified matter should be imo an available course of action to then. Only them however, and only if they are of sound mind to do so. Not their PoA, not the courts, their physician, or whoever else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you think there is a grand conspiracy to keep people alive to make money? That is disgusting.
If sounds as if you need to have a long discussion with her POA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you think there is a grand conspiracy to keep people alive to make money? That is disgusting.
If sounds as if you need to have a long discussion with her POA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conspiracy? No. Simply the costs of doing business in some segments of enterprise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conspiracy? No. Simply the costs of doing business in some segments of enterprise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is her terminal organ failure which they are supporting her basic body functions to maintain her life?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you completely missed the point I was making.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you completely missed the point I was making.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do get the point you’re making. But you’re stretching it. Dementia patients typically aren’t being kept alive via life support. She wasn’t admitted to the assisted living with terminal, advanced dementia. To say they are maintaining her existence, as if it’s against her decision maker’s will is disingenuous if not outright intentionally deceptive.
This is why advanced directives are so important. When a loved one at age 85 has a case of raging pneumonia, maybe don’t have them intubated. Change their code status. When they come down with cancer, don’t start chemo. Because we CAN keep those people’s hearts beating well beyond when their quality of life is what they may have wanted. But people don’t do it for the money. What you may not see is there are often teams of palliative care, nurses, RTs and physicians hoping family makes a rational decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I never said anything about life support. It would also appear you’ve never spent anytime inside a nursing home.
Your world view seems heavily clouded on this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I never said anything about life support.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Therefore her existence is being maintained by her own body. They are providing her with food, water, shelter, and safety of at least in theory. You can’t blame the facility for doing exactly what the decision maker asked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Therefore her existence is being maintained by her own body. They are providing her with food, water, shelter, and safety of at least in theory. You can’t blame the facility for doing exactly what the decision maker asked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I absolutely can rail on the facility and more so the field at large for promoting/conditioning the notion that maintaining baseline existence of the human condition is an acceptable if not optimal existence. All the while fleecing Medicaid, Medicare, and personal funds in the process.
Obviously it goes well beyond that and is a societal issue at large as evidenced by the fact this thread exists in the first place and we have people (you) advocating an interventionist approach to prohibit people from having a say in their fate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn’t suggest anything about prohibiting people choose their fate. I suggest against getting healthcare providers to break their oath to assist one in an immoral act.
Moral of the story, if you don’t desire a service, don’t utilize it. It’s as if you expect the hospital to kill your relative that you don’t think should be alive or the assisted living facility to starve the person that hired them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re misconstruing two distinct and separate issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re misconstruing two distinct and separate issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that’s what you’re doing. You transitioned from euthanasia and ethical concerns of life support in an ICU setting, then to assisted living? I don’t quite understand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alright guys I really am out this time. I’m unsubbing this thread. We aren’t getting anywhere.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick aside: my 86 yo grandmother had a stroke two years ago and fortunately she survived. She was placed in an assisted living facility as a temporary measure. Unfortunately dementia has progressed to the point now where she has nearly lost her entire identity and it is beyond depressing. Cognitive functioning continues to decline. She’s stable but she remains in the facility is just leaching money at this point maintaining her existence imo.
Here is the difference, my 86 yoa mother had a stroke, three years ago. My sisters were present, it was Thanksgiving and they had driven in to spend the holiday. My mother had made it very clear with the requisite paperwork, and in speaking to each of us, including my stepfather, what she wanted done in such a case - nothing.
My sister's complied with her wishes and called me to drive over. Mom never regained consciousness and we all had time with her before she passed.
MY father-in-law is 94 and lives with us. He was equally explicit with my wife, and also backed it up with the requisite paperwork. Falls are one thing, strokes at age 86. or 94 are signs it should be over. JMO.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.