Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is that a blanket statement? What he was saying is that for that particular patient, the evidence shows that further tests may not improve care. And he wants the patient and family to be fully informed of the evidence as it pertains to the particular case. Decision-making is going to be patient-specific.
Example: a patient dying of pancreatic cancer (adenocarcinoma) that has spread everywhere. Patient and family want a pancreatic transplant, believing this will cure him. There's no evidence you can find anywhere that this will save the patient's life. No doubt the pancreatic transplantation is going to be futile.
Another example: patient has liver cancer, yet the lesion is solitary, small, and has not spread anywhere. For this particular patient, surgery to remove the cancer is curable, so treatment is not futile.
Medical care is patient-specific. But of course the Obama detractors here will want to distort what he said, using fear-mongering tactics to deceive people into believing that "Obama will now decide who lives and who dies".
The doctors today do inform the families. Do you have any personal experience with this ? I do and had a family member diagnosed with cancer. The doctor completely informed us and we were given all the odds, statistics, studies, alternatives.
As another poster stated..you can have all the information and yet insist that care continue to be given regardless.
Some people have no problem dealing with "pulling the plug" on their family members while others do with the futile hope that they will recover.
How do you solve that dilema though ? I don't know.
jojajn, no I think Terri Shiavo's husband should have been allowed to request pulling the plug.
If her family wanted to prolong her agony they should have been made personally responsible for the cost. From what I recall there was an end-of-life paper she signed but something legal was done along the way to rescind that ?
Maybe there's multiple solutions here. I just know I don't want the government playing God based on studies and statistics to keep costs down.
I agree. Leave it to the doctors who are knowledgeable and honest.
I can tell you, from personal experience, I have seen extremely expensive and absolutely futile care given to patients who were dying in spite of all that solely because of the family's wishes.
No it isn't your money. Your money that you paid into SS has long ago been consumed by your predecessors. The money you receive now comes from current workers who are paying into the system. Your lifestyle is being subsidized by current workers. So cut the hypocrisy already....you are in fact a willing beneficiary of socialism.
Yes for those who have actually worked until they reach retirement, it is their money since it was taken out of work earnings. Regardless where it comes from, current workers, whatever, a working person "paid" into it. What gets me is when I see someone far from retirement age and collecting disability and most times it's working the system. I have worked all my life and when retirement time comes I will be collecting MY money unless the govt. squanders it away elsewhere.
What you quoted is not mine,...so YOU please be more careful, and edit your posts when YOU screw up.
First of all, the above is NOT my post...I said no such thing other then it wasn't my post......somebody playing around here thinking they're funny. Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did someone just mention Ted Kennedy as an example and talk about all the "good" he is doing for America...that drunk killed a woman and got away with it....Embarassing......wonder if I could get away with such tomfoolery????!!!!!!
I opted out of Social Security decades ago. I have not paid into the "system" for approaching 40 years.
I can never get Social Security - nor Medicare.
Well then I'll assume you were a government worker with their own pension plan. How does one opt out since soc. security money is mandatory to be taken out of paychecks?
Last edited by Alaskapat528; 06-27-2009 at 02:56 PM..
Reason: add
Well then I'll assume you were a government worker with their own pension plan. How does one opt out since soc. security money is mandatory to be taken out of paychecks?
First of all, the above is NOT my post...I said no such thing other then it wasn't my post......somebody playing around here thinking they're funny. Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is happening is that an "/quote" got missing and all subsequent posts quoting this quote carried it further. Each "quote" has to match up with an end quote "/quote" . Take a look and you'll see at the top of this the two unmatched quotes from alaskapat528 and cdne.
Just stop quoting this quote and all will be well. It's html markup error.
First is a society that thinks it has a right to kill babies that are almost full-term.
Then there comes a society that thinks it's okay to ration healthcare treatment based on how many years you are expected to live. (universal healthcare)
Then comes a society now lead by a President who wants family members to make the decision to withhold care because of cost.
And nobody bats an eyelash. What's next, are we going to kill disabled people/babies because they cost too much?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
