Death Counseling

About: specter calls for hearings on end-of-life care guide for veterans - political news - foxnews.com

Specter Calls for Hearings on End-of-Life Care Guide for Veterans

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs. 

And you wonder why people worry about death counseling in the health care bill.

Tags

  1. death squads

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-25 12:16:34 12449
The problem here is ...
source: fox news

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

... that statement is a twist of what actually happened.  There was no revival.  There was just a long and tedious bureaucratic attempt to get the guid corrected, most of which took place during the Bush administration, and continued into the current administration.  Read the fact sheet from the Obama administration here and the time-line here. The revisions to the guide have not yet been published because they are not yet completed.  This whole thing is a disingenuous attempt to plant erroneous worries in people minds.  
Wrong! What it is is a good exampleof what a bureaucracy will create given no feedback from the people.  It is a fair warning even if the timeline was nuanced by the Obama administration.

Mark de LA says
While the booklet has disappeared from most government sites, here is a PDF copy for your reading enjoyability. Page 38 is particularly interesting.
While most people should probably consider this information well before ending up in a coma, in the context of a health care bill intended to decrease costs it violates my aesthetic sensibilities.  The idea that it is also written by a government bureaucrat furthers it's offensiveness.


Seth says
MR 2009-08-26 00:28:13 12449
seth above: ...
Well yes, outside of where to specify things like "do not resuscitate", i really don't need a government pamphlet to figure out what to do at the end of my life.   But this has nothing to do with the health care reform bill.  Discussing it now, in this context, is like discussing who will take out the garbage when the house is burning down.  Focus, man ... this is a distraction.

...If you can't see the connection then pull your head out of the dark hole it is in. There was end of life counseling in the bill. Is it still there, I don't know. Will it get back in there - who knows? The whole fucking thing is a shell game considerably more believable than those who think that the Apollo program was filmed in Arizona. It is also a con game perpetrated by the criminals in Congress who attempted to rush the con through.


Sure, i can make the connection; but the question should be whether there is any causative connection in reality.  Ask yourself what kind of a mind set the drafters of such a bill would need to have, to actually put into it a cost cutting measure that sneakily counseled seniors to die. Like do they want to get a bill passed or not?  Would they have though that would have helped get the bill passed?  Come on now, that isn't even remotely credible, that is just classic paranoia.  If you seriously think there is a scintilla of truth there, then your hatred for government has started to warp your mind.  Really!

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-26 05:18:44 12449
-snip-

Sure, i can make the connection; but the question should be whether there is any causative connection in reality.  Ask yourself what kind of a mind set the drafters of such a bill would need to have, to actually put into it a cost cutting measure that sneakily counseled seniors to die. Like do they want to get a bill passed or not?  Would they have though that would have helped get the bill passed?  Come on now, that isn't even remotely credible, that is just classic paranoia.  If you seriously think there is a scintilla of truth there, then your hatred for government has started to warp your mind.  Really!
     My spin detector finds the bolded statement a change of subject.  It was in the bill at one time before Palin & others raised questions; your spin notwithstanding. Questions have effect. Maybe you don't know that. NLP training would have taught you that just asking a question puts your target audience in the state of imagining that that thing is true or real. Just questioning why Obama is covering up his original long form birth certificate, is he really born in the United States & if not is he really the president is a powerful set of questions.  Likewise, asking a person in diminished capacity whether his life is worth living creates the possibility in his mind that it may not be!  How many other intentional or unintentional things will be found in the bill or the bureaucratic procedures derived from the bill if it is signed?  It is the right of the people in a free society to question these things. There is nothing unpatriotic about it - your side's shitty statements notwithstanding. 
     There is nothing cost-cutting in this bill for the population as a whole.  Even common sense says that adding 40 million people to the coverage & many more existing ailments is going to raise costs, not lower them.  It does not address the fundamentals - 12267 et al.  The money has to come from some place (China, Arabs, rich people....inflation.(printing money).higher taxes. etc.). Congress & the president always say they can save money by greater efficiency & cutting out waste.  But, have you ever seen that happen in government?  Government insurance will be 3 times more inefficient than private sector insurance, won't it.  Nobody has yet responded to my 10613 TO DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE.  BTW, using the obamameme word distraction does nothing for your argument. BTW2, I don't hate government, I hate bad, BIG government!

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-25 17:06:44 12449
MR 2009-08-25 14:18:04 12449
seth 2009-08-25 12:16:34 12449
The problem here is ...
source: fox news

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

... that statement is a twist of what actually happened.  There was no revival.  There was just a long and tedious bureaucratic attempt to get the guid corrected, most of which took place during the Bush administration, and continued into the current administration.  Read the fact sheet from the Obama administration here and the time-line here. The revisions to the guide have not yet been published because they are not yet completed.  This whole thing is a disingenuous attempt to plant erroneous worries in people minds.  
Wrong! What it is is a good exampleof what a bureaucracy will create given no feedback from the people.  It is a fair warning even if the timeline was nuanced by the Obama administration.
Wrong!  What it is, is a example of this Jim Towey person, who started the whole thing in the WSJ with an op ed, wanting to promote himself and/or sell his competing book at the expense of the Obama administration.  Sure, i agree, it doesn't make bureaucracy look good, but it also has nothing to do with the health care bill.
As an example of what a bureaucracy comes up with for end of life counseling it is superb. I hope everyone buys his book & memorizes it. Perhaps if at the end of life you happen to be in a hospital I wonder what effect it might have on you if they ask you questions like considering your condition X is your life worth living? I really hope you don't end up that way.


Seth says
MR 2009-08-25 18:03:42 12449
seth 2009-08-25 17:06:44 12449
MR 2009-08-25 14:18:04 12449
seth 2009-08-25 12:16:34 12449
The problem here is ...
source: fox news

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

... that statement is a twist of what actually happened.  There was no revival.  There was just a long and tedious bureaucratic attempt to get the guid corrected, most of which took place during the Bush administration, and continued into the current administration.  Read the fact sheet from the Obama administration here and the time-line here. The revisions to the guide have not yet been published because they are not yet completed.  This whole thing is a disingenuous attempt to plant erroneous worries in people minds.  
Wrong! What it is is a good exampleof what a bureaucracy will create given no feedback from the people.  It is a fair warning even if the timeline was nuanced by the Obama administration.
Wrong!  What it is, is a example of this Jim Towey person, who started the whole thing in the WSJ with an op ed, wanting to promote himself and/or sell his competing book at the expense of the Obama administration.  Sure, i agree, it doesn't make bureaucracy look good, but it also has nothing to do with the health care bill.
As an example of what a bureaucracy comes up with for end of life counseling it is superb. I hope everyone buys his book & memorizes it. Perhaps if at the end of life you happen to be in a hospital I wonder what effect it might have on you if they ask you questions like considering your condition X is your life worth living? I really hope you don't end up that way.

Well yes, outside of where to specify things like "do not resuscitate", i really don't need a government pamphlet to figure out what to do at the end of my life.   But this has nothing to do with the health care reform bill.  Discussing it now, in this context, is like discussing who will take out the garbage when the house is burning down.  Focus, man ... this is a distraction.

Mark de LA says
seth above: ...
Well yes, outside of where to specify things like "do not resuscitate", i really don't need a government pamphlet to figure out what to do at the end of my life.   But this has nothing to do with the health care reform bill.  Discussing it now, in this context, is like discussing who will take out the garbage when the house is burning down.  Focus, man ... this is a distraction.

...If you can't see the connection then pull your head out of the dark hole it is in. There was end of life counseling in the bill. Is it still there, I don't know. Will it get back in there - who knows? The whole fucking thing is a shell game considerably more believable than those who think that the Apollo program was filmed in Arizona. It is also a con game perpetrated by the criminals in Congress who attempted to rush the con through.



Seth says
I have no problem with questions weeding out unintentional consequences in the bill.  What i do have is a problem with people twisting facts to imply lies.

That said it might be interesting to find out what the real intentions of these end of life consultations actually are.  That might take some digging as most articles that pop up are these partisans trying to scare people.  I suspect that these came originally from doctors and social workers in the trenches having to talk to elderly patients who had been diagnosed with terminal illnesses ... and having to make up their own ethics on the fly and figure out what to tell their patients.  Certainly they had seen many terminally ill patients being resuscitated only to live as near vegetables draining the resources and emotions of their families.  It is a ticklish place the doctors are in ... what do they tell people ... when and how do they bring up the DNR order.  They probably turned to the government for some guidance.  What would you do if you were a doctor for an elderly patient?  Wouldn't you ask them if they wanted to be resuscitated?  Would it even be ethical not to ask for the patient's wishes when you know that there is a chance of a medical travesty?  Do you want extraordinary measures taken to resuscitate you even if it probably will mean you will be living like a near vegetable?  Do you want it to bankrupt your family?  Under what conditions should we pull your plug? 

It might be interesting to think about the real problems of talking to sick elderly patients, separating those in your mind from health care reform.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-26 10:02:19 12449
I have no problem with questions weeding out unintentional consequences in the bill.  What i do have is a problem with people twisting facts to imply lies.

That said it might be interesting to find out what the real intentions of these end of life consultations actually are.  That might take some digging as most articles that pop up are these partisans trying to scare people.  I suspect that these came originally from doctors and social workers in the trenches having to talk to elderly patients who had been diagnosed with terminal illnesses ... and having to make up their own ethics on the fly and figure out what to tell their patients.  Certainly they had seen many terminally ill patients being resuscitated only to live as near vegetables draining the resources and emotions of their families.  It is a ticklish place the doctors are in ... what do they tell people ... when and how do they bring up the DNR order.  They probably turned to the government for some guidance.  What would you do if you were a doctor for an elderly patient?  Wouldn't you ask them if they wanted to be resuscitated?  Would it even be ethical not to ask for the patient's wishes when you know that there is a chance of a medical travesty?  Do you want extraordinary measures taken to resuscitate you even if it probably will mean you will be living like a near vegetable?  Do you want it to bankrupt your family?  Under what conditions should we pull your plug? 

It might be interesting to think about the real problems of talking to sick elderly patients, separating those in your mind from health care reform.
When your mother entered the hospital for the final time she & I and her doctor discussed DNR instructions. That is not a problem.  It was not some bureaucrat filling in a form prepared by another bureaucrat talking to a suffering patient.  Obama constantly scares & makes a crisis out of everything he wants done quickly without much public debate - hence your arguments about scaring & partisanshit fall on deaf ears. I suspect that my argument will be moot because all of this will probably be covered under the cover of psychological counseling or some other euphemism.  That's why I want things strictly prohibited rather than presumably left out by not mentioning explicitly.  Is psychology & psychiatry covered in the bill? Who knows? What about dentistry?
 

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-26 10:02:19 12449
I have no problem with questions weeding out unintentional consequences in the bill.  What i do have is a problem with people twisting facts to imply lies.

Again.... calling people liars & implying that I'm lying.  Fair warning #2, if you want your comments read here stop it... elswise I know where the delete button is.

Mark de LA says


Seth says
MR 2009-08-26 10:19:57 12449
seth 2009-08-26 10:02:19 12449
I have no problem with questions weeding out unintentional consequences in the bill.  What i do have is a problem with people twisting facts to imply lies.

That said it might be interesting to find out what the real intentions of these end of life consultations actually are.  That might take some digging as most articles that pop up are these partisans trying to scare people.  I suspect that these came originally from doctors and social workers in the trenches having to talk to elderly patients who had been diagnosed with terminal illnesses ... and having to make up their own ethics on the fly and figure out what to tell their patients.  Certainly they had seen many terminally ill patients being resuscitated only to live as near vegetables draining the resources and emotions of their families.  It is a ticklish place the doctors are in ... what do they tell people ... when and how do they bring up the DNR order.  They probably turned to the government for some guidance.  What would you do if you were a doctor for an elderly patient?  Wouldn't you ask them if they wanted to be resuscitated?  Would it even be ethical not to ask for the patient's wishes when you know that there is a chance of a medical travesty?  Do you want extraordinary measures taken to resuscitate you even if it probably will mean you will be living like a near vegetable?  Do you want it to bankrupt your family?  Under what conditions should we pull your plug? 

It might be interesting to think about the real problems of talking to sick elderly patients, separating those in your mind from health care reform.
When your mother entered the hospital for the final time she & I and her doctor discussed DNR instructions. That is not a problem.  It was not some bureaucrat filling in a form prepared by another bureaucrat talking to a suffering patient.  Obama constantly scares & makes a crisis out of everything he wants done quickly without much public debate - hence your arguments about scaring & partisanshit fall on deaf ears. I suspect that my argument will be moot because all of this will probably be covered under the cover of psychological counseling or some other euphemism.  That's why I want things strictly prohibited rather than presumably left out by not mentioning explicitly.  Is psychology & psychiatry covered in the bill? Who knows? What about dentistry?
 
So did the doctor initiate the question about DNR?  Was he paid for that consultation by her insurance? 

Anyway i suspect that you and I probably agree with most Americans that this does not need to be a heavey handed bureacratic procedure setup by the government.  It is well that they are probably going to take it out of the bill.  Now will those who keep twisting this shut up so that we can concentrate on how to reform health care?

I don't know about psychiatry in the bill; but dentistry is almost never covered in basic health care. I  know for a fact that is not covered under Medicare.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-26 10:44:52 12449
MR 2009-08-26 10:23:05 12449
seth 2009-08-26 10:02:19 12449
I have no problem with questions weeding out unintentional consequences in the bill.  What i do have is a problem with people twisting facts to imply lies.

Again.... calling people liars & implying that I'm lying.  Fair warning #2, if you want your comments read here stop it... elswise I know where the delete button is.
Facts are facts.  The article by fox news twisted the truth when they said ...
source: foxnews
The guide, called "Your Life, Your Choices," was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.
... Like I said in my first comment.  There was no revival and i justified that with facts above.

Deleting the truth does not make it go away.

Your facts are not facts , though - they're your spin. Anyway, calling people liars is not allowed on my blog. Do it elsewhere. It's only more the samo-samo RWG:


Mark de LA says
Why do you keep up your mindless prattle about the end of life counseling in the bill or not in the bill. You are the one keeping it alive by way of the RWG.  You are the one giving it being. Do your WH talking points keep puting this item on the top of the list to make sure they root out any vestige of the wrong doing they might also be contemplating under other covers?


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-08-26 11:00:26 12449
source: MR
Anyway, calling people liars is not allowed on my blog.
Oh really?  Does that apply to you too?  Do we have here, a glimmer of rules of conduct?  Are we allowed to state, as i did, that somebody twisted the facts?
Go read 4413 ... only a few couplets suffice to get your point:
The RWG

Bang I loud the gong
 When you see me as Wrong
I'm Ready to Scourge
 Whatever the Urge
Say I "Fuck You!"
 I'm not wrong like You
You are a sow
 I am Righter than thou
Of thee I pee
 You're not right like me!
Not ready - give in!
 I got me more spin!
Got you more spew
 What's wrong with you?


Mark de LA says
I should prolly add the following couplet as a coda:
No blogs would there be
were it not for me & thee!
For right & wrong is the game
Not right & not wrong the same.
- M

louis vuitton online says
Well said, such a person should be a good sentence, or the future will be more rampant.

See Also

  1. Thought Mamoud's Speech to the UN - Bamboozled! with 0 viewings related by tag "death squads".