Comments on: Washington Post Worry-Mongers About Euthanasia

By: Postlet #3: Tapper Takes Exception « Daily Dose

Postlet #3: Tapper Takes Exception « Daily Dose — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:55:58 +0000

[...] not every member of the media is as awesome as me: In the past few days, the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, then Eugene Robinson, and now The Daily Beast’s Lee Siegel have all given Palin’s death panels [...]

By: charles lane washington post | sodini video

charles lane washington post | sodini video — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:45:57 +0000

[...] that it "addresses …Henry Mark Holzer – http://henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com/|||Washington Post Worry-Mongers About EuthanasiaWashington Post columnist Charles Lane has written a piece that is dressed up as the antidote to [...]

By: gocatholic

gocatholic — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:37:49 +0000

For the record, I’m a former board member of Ky Right to Life and my focus was on end-of-life issues. I am disabled, have two disabled brothers who were once on respirators, and have – like most people -dealt with other family tragedies in which extraordinary measures were withdrawn. Every pro-lifer I know understands that there is nothing wrong with “pulling the plug” on equipment that merely prolongs suffering in the case of an inevitable death. This happened in my own family. Our position is that it is never okay to kill someone by starvation, regardless of the situation. But truly, our biggest concern with all of this is that bureucrats, not families and doctors, are dictating these things on some level in this legislation.

By: gocatholic

gocatholic — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:18:01 +0000

Regarding your last comment “these visits ensure they have a chance to make that known”. Are you suggesting that non-voluntary and/or involuntary euthanasia is a problem in this country? Because on that you and I would agree. Reference: Terri Schiavo…..whose death was dictated by a court of law siding with an unfaithful spouse who had changed his own mind about what her wishes were years after her accident and in opposition to her blood relatives who disputed it.

By: gocatholic

gocatholic — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:14:17 +0000

The gov’t dictates the information that the doctor must give to the patients. This was noted in the article you are critiquing in your post. Further, the particular information is not spelled out in the current legilslation, also noted in the article you are critiquing.

By: Tommy Christopher

Tommy Christopher — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:07:40 +0000

You missed my point. The pressure isn’t from the government, but from the medical establishment. That fact remains whether we cover everyone or not, whether we pay for those visits or not.

The fact also remains that, for people who don’t want to die, these visits ensure they have a chance to make that known.

By: wmiar

wmiar — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:51:55 +0000

Mr Christopher, I’ve only gotten as far as this paragraph and find that it misses the point:

You wrote ” The cultural pressure to “die with dignity” is such that anyone who isn’t ready to pull the plug is viewed as an infantile moron. Still, most Americans who want to be kept on life support are more than capable of telling their doctors to go f%$# themselves.”

It is the danger to those Americans who are not “most Americans” that the writer is referring to. It’s not okay to put undue pressure on even one single person. Not one.

I have a right to health care. I also have a right to own a gun, but it doesn’t mean the gov’t has to buy it for me. If this legislation harms even ONE SINGLE PERSON it is unConstitutional. If even ONE person is denied care or pressured to die because of a bureaucrat, the legislation is unConstitutional just as it is unConstitutional to impede a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun due to the bleeding heart view that it’s necessary to (ironically) protect people from crime.

You call this “wackaloon”. We call it preserving EVERY person’s Constitutional right (not just “most Americans”) not to be pressured to die or to be rationed from care.

I think liberals have a problem with the Constitution. I really do.

By: Newt Gingrich Next Republican to Play “Death Panel!” Here’s What You’ve Won « Daily Dose

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:37:11 +0000

[...] Newt, you are not being asked to trust the government. You’re just being asked to read the bill. If you have trouble with it, let me know and I’ll explain it to you. [...]

By: Tommy Christopher

Tommy Christopher — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:16:57 +0000

Thanks for that. See, both Obama and Lane are referring to bad medicine, not bad policy. Point proven.

By: tobysasha

tobysasha — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 06:27:07 +0000

“Are we incentivizing doctors to put random casts on people by paying for them?”

I don’t know, you tell me-

“So if they’re looking — and you come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, you know what, I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out. Now that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies, maybe they have something else that would make a difference.” -Obama