News Stories

[MeoTwister5]

Well that's an editorial more than a news item so...

More so, from what I gather this law does not technically legalize euthanasia for the terminally ill and the near-death, but rather gives doctors the right (and the appropriate compensation) to allow for end-stage palliative and preparatory treatment for patients who are on their absolute last legs and last gasps rather than letting doctors sit on the sidelines to let patients simply go forth and die.

So it's not a "death panel" or whatever people want to call it. It's end stage palliative care for the dying, allowing doctors the right to counsel the patient and their family on palliative care to ease the suffering of the patients to at least give them some humane experience as they move on towards death, rather than say dying like a dog in complete pain and suffering. Also, this will (in theory) increase patient rights and awareness towards their control over the way and the process in which they die, rather than simply waiting for death to take them.

The problem with this bill of course is that it is subject to abuse. This is a mix bag of medical ethics and legalities, wherein are doctors in their counseling state that assumes they are in a knowledgeable position to advise the correct procedures for the dying patient. This makes it fairly easy for doctors, scrupulous or not, to "push" their patients and their families towards making the end-of-life choices even in situations where it is not warranted or completely irresponsible. There still does exist the possibility that doctors may use this to accelerate patients towards death when it doesn't have to be like that. Doctors are in positions of power, and when abused, the law "can" actually give a legal backing for doctors to indirectly cause euthanasia under the guise of end-of-life palliative care.

As it stands the bill looks good in increasing patient rights and awareness to improve patient and doctor capacities for end stage care, but it needs a whole lot of study to make sure it doesn't become abused. It is not, however, a legalization of euthanasia that a lot of people fear it to be.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Well that's an editorial more than a news item so...

More so, from what I gather this law does not technically legalize euthanasia for the terminally ill and the near-death, but rather gives doctors the right (and the appropriate compensation) to allow for end-stage palliative and preparatory treatment for patients who are on their absolute last legs and last gasps rather than letting doctors sit on the sidelines to let patients simply go forth and die.

So it's not a "death panel" or whatever people want to call it. It's end stage palliative care for the dying, allowing doctors the right to counsel the patient and their family on palliative care to ease the suffering of the patients to at least give them some humane experience as they move on towards death, rather than say dying like a dog in complete pain and suffering. Also, this will (in theory) increase patient rights and awareness towards their control over the way and the process in which they die, rather than simply waiting for death to take them.

The problem with this bill of course is that it is subject to abuse. This is a mix bag of medical ethics and legalities, wherein are doctors in their counseling state that assumes they are in a knowledgeable position to advise the correct procedures for the dying patient. This makes it fairly easy for doctors, scrupulous or not, to "push" their patients and their families towards making the end-of-life choices even in situations where it is not warranted or completely irresponsible. There still does exist the possibility that doctors may use this to accelerate patients towards death when it doesn't have to be like that. Doctors are in positions of power, and when abused, the law "can" actually give a legal backing for doctors to indirectly cause euthanasia under the guise of end-of-life palliative care.

As it stands the bill looks good in increasing patient rights and awareness to improve patient and doctor capacities for end stage care, but it needs a whole lot of study to make sure it doesn't become abused. It is not, however, a legalization of euthanasia that a lot of people fear it to be.

I don't know whether this provision would give doctors more opportunity to abuse their patients. At least no more opportunity than they already have. In my mind, doctors are always placed in a position of trust, that's why you go there in the first place. I don't think the provision amplifies the risk.

[MeoTwister5]

But it PAYS them to offer palliation therapy. That alone magnifies the potential abuses this can cause, and without proper legal controls, it can do more harm than good.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

But it PAYS them to offer palliation therapy. That alone magnifies the potential abuses this can cause, and without proper legal controls, it can do more harm than good.

It pays them because they couldn't be fucked doing it otherwise...

[ZephyrLeanne]

Whatever it is, it's a morality issue, and I would rather government didn't legislate areas of morality that doesn't affect anyone but self.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

Whatever it is, it's a morality issue, and I would rather government didn't legislate areas of morality that doesn't affect anyone but self.

It is not in fact a morality issue. It's paying a doctor to discuss a patient's options in the face of a life threatening illness or things like being on a ventilator the rest of their life. It's the kind of thing that should be planned out in advance of facing said situations when you don't have the stress of said situation and can have access to a physician to make an informed decision. It isn't mandating said visits, nor is it requiring any such decisions to be enforced. If someone doesn't want to, they don't have to use the option, and if they do, then change their mind when they actually get sick, that would be fine too.

[ganbaru]

Russia accuses West of meddling in tycoon Khodorkovsky's trial
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6BN1DH20101228

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It is not in fact a morality issue. It's paying a doctor to discuss a patient's options in the face of a life threatening illness or things like being on a ventilator the rest of their life. It's the kind of thing that should be planned out in advance of facing said situations when you don't have the stress of said situation and can have access to a physician to make an informed decision. It isn't mandating said visits, nor is it requiring any such decisions to be enforced. If someone doesn't want to, they don't have to use the option, and if they do, then change their mind when they actually get sick, that would be fine too.

Right, I don't get the impression many of the posters have been personally involved in end-of-life care or decision-making. There are a LOT of things that kill you no matter what the doctor does. Until fairly recently, the doctor was mandated to torture the crap out of you in futile efforts to keep you alive: quality of life equal zero/negative. In fact, doctors could be prosecuted for not "doing everything and anything" all the way to the inevitable end leaving patients in horrific pain the last few days of life.

Palliative care recognizes they can't fix everything and the goal is to keep you comfortable and functional for what time is left. Pain management is an essential component of palliative care.

Yes, there's some danger anytime you create policy because some nimrod may game the system... but the alternative is worse. Having some guidelines means not having to re-invent the wheel each time.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Right, I don't get the impression many of the posters have been personally involved in end-of-life care or decision-making. There are a LOT of things that kill you no matter what the doctor does. Until fairly recently, the doctor was mandated to torture the crap out of you in futile efforts to keep you alive: quality of life equal zero/negative. In fact, doctors could be prosecuted for not "doing everything and anything" all the way to the inevitable end leaving patients in horrific pain the last few days of life.

Palliative care recognizes they can't fix everything and the goal is to keep you comfortable and functional for what time is left. Pain management is an essential component of palliative care.

Yes, there's some danger anytime you create policy because some nimrod may game the system... but the alternative is worse. Having some guidelines means not having to re-invent the wheel each time.

That is what I mean. There are so many laws regarding death and the medical duty of responsibility. The State should take its hands off and let the patient make an independent and informed decision.

[cors8]

Hmm... should I have the government pay for me to talk with a doctor to plan for my end-of-life decisions in private or should I just let the media, the public, politicians, religious figures, and judges debate what to do with my life like Terry Schiavo?

Tough decision really.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

That is what I mean. There are so many laws regarding death and the medical duty of responsibility. The State should take its hands off and let the patient make an independent and informed decision.

The State doesn't do anything except pay for the consultations. The idea of the consultations is for the patient to make an independent, informed decision. Without end-of-life counseling, the patient isn't in any position to make an informed decision.

That's because doctors wouldn't provide that counseling, that should normally be given, to their patients. In order for them to provide that basic service, the state decided to pay them for it.

That's all there is to this.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

That's because doctors wouldn't provide that counseling, that should normally be given, to their patients. In order for them to provide that basic service, the state decided to pay them for it.

That's all there is to this.

If doctors did that here, their license to practice would be suspended immediately. The fact that they don't do so there comes to me as a shock.

[Xellos-_^]

In outtakes from the documentary "Crude," lead plaintiffs' attorney Steven Donziger discusses different ways to put political pressure on the Ecuadoran judges hearing the case, arguing that they respond to fear rather than the law. When someone suggests that any judge who ruled against the plaintiffs would be killed by angry Ecuadorans, Donziger says he might not be killed, but "he thinks he will be ... which is just as good."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz19TkdgGbG

chevron is no saint but exactly feel sorry for the other side either.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

If doctors did that here, their license to practice would be suspended immediately. The fact that they don't do so there comes to me as a shock.

Well, I was surprised initially. I had this idea that US healthcare was good. I was wrong because I was using the wrong measuring tool. A good healthcare system isn't just great, it's also got to be accessible. I read up a lot more on the subject ever since: U.S.A healthcare is ranked 37th by the WHO. (World Health Organisation)

I think a lot of people just don't ever get to see how good healthcare can really be in the US. It doesn't stop them from bragging about it in the same breath.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Well, I was surprised initially. I had this idea that US healthcare was good. I was wrong because I was using the wrong measuring tool. A good healthcare system isn't just great, it's also got to be accessible. I read up a lot more on the subject ever since: U.S.A healthcare is ranked 37th by the WHO. (World Health Organisation)

I think a lot of people just don't ever get to see how good healthcare can really be in the US. It doesn't stop them from bragging about it in the same breath.

bingo, give the man a cigar. The US has "the best health accessible to the very wealthy" and it scales down from there. The lower end has little if any access to *preventative* healthcare (which would mitigate the awful stuff that lands in ER)... for that matter most of the middle class is losing access to preventative care. A couple of years ago, my family had a damn good HMO whose mantra is up-front preventative care to control long term costs. The employer dropped it even though it didn't cost them anymore than other packages to offer - the employee covered the difference. They replaced it with a piece of shit package with a huge disincentive for getting preventative care (huge initial cost per patient). We had to find an entire new set of doctors as well. We lost the "team" of doctors we had who shared medical records. Basically, we had two sociopaths between the patient and doctors - the employer corporation and the insurance industry. Neither have the patient in mind, they're out to extract maximum profit.

How is that better FOR THE PATIENT than a non-profit singlepay system? Or an group co-operative bargaining unit (guild, union, AARP, whatever)? Its only better for the few at the top who profit at the expense of everyone else.

[ZephyrLeanne]

And that is what the Tea Paerty advocates. They're all influenced by the Koch people, Heritage Foundation, Norquist, and a wily Aussie by the name of Murdoch, who has a Saudi business partner with a 8% stake in Fox. Note that? SAUDI business partner. Ignore what O'RLY, Beck or Hannity says, they have 8% of their salary paid out indirectly by a Saudi. They are well known for booking a whole floor at a NY hospital just for one fella. If that is not exclusive medical access, then pray tell, what is?

I still think Sweden is way ahead of its time. Every time I eat their canned herring, I know. Ther medical facilities beat the US anyday. Sure, it's quite a little more expensive (both ways, I'm a foreigner), but Swedish hospitals do the necessary, and not what rakes in the dough.

[ganbaru]

Rains, flooding prompt evacuations in Australia
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1851639/

[MrTerrorist]

The notorious message board 4Chan has been taken offline by an overwhelming web attack.

Now who has the numbers to do that?

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

The notorious message board 4Chan has been taken offline by an overwhelming web attack.

Now who has the numbers to do that?

Baidu.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

Baidu.

it is ragnarok, the start of the end of the world when the anonymous of the world will fight each to the death.