I just have to question the rationality of all the furor over the elusive 'death panels. And in doing so I have pulled up 4 cases that I think even though quite different point up the governmental interest in NOT allowing voluntary or INvoluntary euthanasia in the U.S. Folks, despite the rumors, we simply are NOT there yet.

I have not Shepardized these cases. But I do read, and I don't know of anything that has changed. Here goes:

What do Roe v Wade, Gonzales v Carhart, et. al, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Washington v Glucksberg have in common?

Well to start with they are all interesting to read. Gonzales is not for the squeamish, but Gonzales quotes both Roe v Wade and Glucksberg, and it leads us to the statement of where the Supreme Court actually stands on the issue of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia as recently as 2006.

I will not quote them all. But for those not faint of heart, I encourage you to give them all a stab, as each of them in various ways addresses the voluntary or involuntary termination of a human life, born or unborn, viable or not, young, old, or infirm.

Now, as you all know, and some continue to remind me as if I couldn't remember on my own, I do not practice law, but as one who has studied the law, one can often dig deep into the well and pull something that is either comforting or disturbing. We have had too many disturbing things. The rhetoric has not changed with the administration....only those spouting it has changed. But it is all the same.....'we are doomed.' I would suggest that upon reading these cases, we are not doomed just yet.

All these cases go back to Roe v Wade of 1973. I have not quoted it but it is linked here for your reading pleasure.

ROE v. WADE

I have not quoted Planned Parenthood v casey. But I am linking it for you to read. This is the case that abandons the 'trimester' approach to abortion in favor of considering the 'viability' of the fetus.

Yes, I realize this is an abortion case. But viability is paramount in the issue of brain death. We saw this in the Terry Schiavo case, which I have not linked or quoted.

I have quoted Glucksberg and I have linked it for further reading.


Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997).

Washington v. Glucksberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gonzales is not a case for the faint of heart to read. It contains a graphic description of partial birth abortion. However, the significant thing about this 2006 case is that the Supreme Court quotes Glucksberg, reaffirming and confirming its discomfort with euthanasia either voluntary of INvoluntary.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART ET AL.

Friends, I simply do NOT see death panels here. As we already know, hospitals already have ethics committees leading families in their decision making. We have self determination acts, natural death acts, with Living Wills, DPOAs, and some of those acts are mentioned in these cases, I believe.

OK, have at it.

Sunshine

__________________

I think it depends on how one defines the 'death panels'. There is the fear mongering screamers and there are those who have looked at the views of Dr Emanuel et al and found them to be somewhat suspicious.

I don't refer to 'death panels' because I personally don't view that as helpful to a rational debate. I have, however, linked to various articles published by Drs Emanuel, Bleumental etc about what their healthcare system would look like. Simply put, they state as fact that any public healthcare system would need to be 'rationed'. That rationing would, in their own words, require that we prioritize 'fully participatory human beings'.

You can whine on about abortion (which despite every insistence that it is not included - it damned well is and Obama et al know it) but simply put, I do not agree with any group - no matter how well respected they are, being charged with deciding who is and who is not a 'fully participatory human being'. It ain't rocket science.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Well those people exist and function in that role already. They are there under the radar, and just because you can't point to them and say, "Aha" doesn't mean they aren't already functioning. And sadly, they work for those who have a far more ulterior motive than what you describe.

My daughter married into a family who is close friends with Dr. Kevorkian. She has met him, actually, as he was paroled the year she married. What I have found interesting is that he is no longer even controversial. And now here comes all this shit.

I think Americans surely have started or will be hitting the bottle and tranqs more heavily recently with the ambivalence that would no doubt come with having resolved in their own minds, the persona of Dr. Kevorkian and now to be hit with this death panel shit. It's crap. Those decisions are made every day as we speak.

__________________

Part of the problem is laypeople reading terms of art in legislation and misunderstanding them.

For example, the term "end of life order" means one thing to someone in medicine, and something completely different to someone who is reading it as a layperson.

Matt

Exactly. Same with legal terms.

__________________

I'm sure that someone with the somewhat unbelievable background as yourself will bear with we mere mortals who find phrases like 'fully participatory human beings' slightly disconcerting. I'm sure that your vast intellect enables you to dissect this phrase to something completely comfortable.

However, when those who input into the bill speak of babies as 'less human' and not 'fully formed individuals' then I think we are reasonable to question it.

But then, you are one who insists that abortion will not be covered in the bill. Whereas most of us absolutely know that to be false.

You'll just have to bear with us if we dare to question and not blindly accept your word for it.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

As far as I'm concerned, "death panels" already exist in hospitals. There are people who are more likely to die, treating them first will put others at their expense. There are those who have a higher chance of survival, but are in critical need of care. And there are some who need medical attention, but are not in any immediate danger. Hospitals already have these life over death decisions.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

There are indeed.

The 'death panel' in the wider sense is to do with rationing healthcare. In any public option - should there be a public option - then that option will have to be rationed. Dispite what anyone says to the contrary, they cannot cover the whole country without a bottomless pit of money. There is no bottomless pit of money, therefore healthcare in this system would have to be rationed. Not just with regard to 'critical care' but across the board.

According to Obama's Czars, or "special advisers", this care should prioritize certain members of society over others. For example, children under the age of two may be considered 'less human', the mentally or physically disabled, older people - all could be considered less important than 'fully functioning human beings'. Personally, I find that unacceptable.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

They won't need death panels, which would never fly in this country, because they'll have rationed care.

Choices get made every day.
There aren't enough donated organs to meet the demand for transplants, so they tell people they are on a list, but it's the healthiest people on the list who get the transplants, because they have the best chance of survival. Organs are rationed.
It's not the person at the top of the list who gets the next heart, there is a panel that decides who gets the next heart.
Mickey Mantle got a liver pretty fast, and not because he was in great shape, it's just that the surgeons wanted to give Mickey Mantle the liver, so he went to the head of the list.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Thank you for stating the fucking obvious goober. You never fail to disappoint when it comes to missiong the point completely.

The points being:

1. Whether rationing exists currently is beside the point. The government has said that this 'rationing' won't happen. It will. They lied.

2. It is not acceptable for a government funded system to decide who is or is not a 'fully functioning human being'. That's what Sarah Palin was talking about.... her son, Trig, would not be considered a 'fully functioning human being'. I relate to that, I feel sorry for you if you don't.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

uh..why?? Because you say so???

I notice you do this a lot. You have this tendency to say the government does or even is GOING to lie about things and you have utterly NO evidence to back it up. You CANNOT have anything to back up this claim, frex, because it hasn't been made reality yet. You can't just say the government, or any entity for that matter, WILL lie about something just anytime you find it convenient.

For one thing, these aren't Republicans

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

It's not that simple, one side is looking for any type of terminology that could start panic and paranoia knowing full well what the true meaning is.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

I'm glad that you're such an avid reader of my posts. Now, if only you could understand them, you might actually learn something.

Where did I get the claim about rationing being required? Actually, I have already provided a seriously decent link to the admission that any government system would be rationed. The link was to the actual report from Dr Ezekiel Emanual. You do know who he is, do you not?

Obama lies.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

You are absolute right. Anyone who thinks there isn't going to be healthcare rationing is dillusional. Anyone who thinks that health insurance won't increase astronomically, especially with mandated preexisting coverage, is dillusional. Anyone who thinks taxes on the middle class won't increase astronomically is dillusional. Anyone who thinks that the federal government can run ANYTHING efficiently and cost effective with quality service is dillusional. And finally if anyone thinks that it won't wind up as a single payer system is dillusional.