JivinJ’s Life Links 7-30-08
by JivinJ
to deal with numerous illegal abortionists:
Dr. Kato, who at first said he did not do abortions and referred The Herald to other “doctors,” later admitted to offering the service, saying it would cost R600 for someone who was 5 months pregnant.
He promised the procedure was safe and quick.
“They call it safe abortion. You won’t feel any pain and you won’t see any blood.”…
OR doesn’t cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5% chance it will help the patients live for 5 more years – but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication.
“It’s chilling when you think about it,” said Dr. William Toffler, a professor of family medicine at OR Health & Science University. “It absolutely conveys to the patient that continued living isn’t worthwhile.”
Q: If embryonic stem cells do turn out to be best, will it be because they are the best at differentiating – that is, turning into other kinds of cells?
A: Exactly right. That’s the theoretical reason they should be best, and there are stats that back that up. An embryonic stem cell is at a state that it can make a whole organism. You can make a whole mouse out of an embryonic stem cell. There are 220 cells in the human body, and embryonic stem cells can make each and every one of them.
The issue I’ve always worried about is do you want to make every cell in the body. That could increase the risk of cancer. What I like about our approach is that it is targeted. We’re trying to heal the heart.
[Suicide “choice” photo courtesy of MSNBC; photo of leukemia cells courtesy of CherryLaurel.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
OR seems to be trying to get rid of the elderly population. I don’t know how many of you figured this out yet but getting old is expensive. And what happened to respecting your elders? These people aren’t in the winter of their life they are in the fall, a time to reap the benefits of their years of life experience.
OR obviously considers them inconvenient and unaffordable, the other end of the “choice” spectrum.
“OR doesn’t cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5% chance it will help the patients live for 5 more years”
Yikes.
Wouldn’t medicare/medicaid be able to override that, at the federal level??
Oregon’s position just mortifies me.
It reminds me of “The Giver” by Lois Lowry. Chilling.
“We’ll pay for you to die, but you’re not worth it if you want to live.” What a slap in the face!
Amanda, I may be wrong about this, but I’m pretty sure that unless you get Medicaid through SSI benefits from the Social Security office, medicaid is a stictly state by state institution.
Hey, the people of OR voted for this. Don’t know what the problem is. People get old, get in the way, cramp styles, cost money. They’re better off dead if unwanted, isn’t that “choice” preaches?
Yeah – I guess being in Mass I’ve never had to figure that out. We have terminal patients in our office on a daily basis, a large percentage of them have already tapped their insurance benefits, but Medicaid/Medicare kicks in as a secondary – I always assumed it was federal, because the state version comes up as “mass health” or “managed care” instead of Medicaid/Medicare.
I took an entire course on health care administration my last year of college. Pretty much everything was coherant…except the medicaid/medicare bit.
Jill just because people have choice doesn’t mean we support them making bad choices.
You have a choice, stay at home sitting in front of the tv all day or going out and doing something productive. You have a choice, I support making the right one.
On that note I’m up and out!
“People get old, get in the way, cramp styles, cost money. They’re better off dead if unwanted..”
——————————————-
I may be dating myself by this, but I seem to remember a futuristic Sci-Fi TV series in the 70’s called “Logan’s Run”…where the ‘advanced’ society only allows people to live until they’re 30 yrs old and then kill them off to make room for the next generation…
OR might be targetting the old and the dying now..but what’s to stop them from continuing with the disabled, the uneducated, the misfits or any other characteristic that is deemed “imprefect” by society….
Slippery slope, anyone??
What RSD!? I only have ten more years?
I second slippery slope.
You mean you aren’t going to Carousel guys?
testing out something
“What RSD!? I only have ten more years?
Posted by: Jess at July 30, 2008 1:26 PM”
————————————
Yeah, Jess…you can join Logan and his group find ‘sanctuary’ when you reach 30…
I am shocked that the people of Oregon support this policy. Aren’t there any Federal Statutes that protect us from this type of thing?
I like the Oregon statute. Washington is getting a similar one this Fall by initative.
Hal,
Tell me your kidding…please?
You think it’s okay to let her die rather than pay to give her a little more time??? Really???
Hal,
Tell me your kidding…please?
You think it’s okay to let her die rather than pay to give her a little more time??? Really???
Posted by: mk at July 30, 2008 7:11 PM
…………………………….
I’m sure that whoever ‘her’ is and whatever you think will ‘buy her more time’ can easily be paid for by you.
What life-prolonging procedures are being refused by Oregon’s welfare systen for the extremely terminally ill? I really want to know. Can you tell me?
Sally said: What life-prolonging procedures are being refused by Oregon’s welfare systen for the extremely terminally ill? I really want to know. Can you tell me?
Did you read the linked story??
RSD: I may be dating myself by this, but I seem to remember a futuristic Sci-Fi TV series in the 70’s called “Logan’s Run”…where the ‘advanced’ society only allows people to live until they’re 30 yrs old and then kill them off to make room for the next generation…
HA! I remember that one too, RSD. Tell you what – if anything it is sheer population pressure itself that will make anything such a reality.
Witness commodity prices, etc., and then project a few decades in the future when the world’s population is forecasted to be roughly 30+% higher. You think things are “bad” now……?
Oregon doesn’t cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5% chance it will help the patients live for 5 more years
Where do we draw the line?
There is a line, a line where beyond it, we are using vast resources to care for the few when those same resources could save/improve the lives of the many.
Doug:11:38:
Where do we draw the line?
There is a line, a line where beyond it, we are using vast resources to care for the few when those same resources could save/improve the lives of the many.
It’s hard to believe you agree with this policy. Do you? “The many” what? People whose lives are deemed more valuable?
Is this invisible line like the one that divides the viable fetuses from the non-viable ones? It’s convenient that you aren’t living in Oregon. The current residents aren’t so lucky.
Doug, they forecasted doom and gloom years ago because of population growth. We’ve exceeded their estimates, and we haven’t tapped out our resources yet. I’m just not buying it.
Also, “There is a line, a line where beyond it, we are using vast resources to care for the few when those same resources could save/improve the lives of the many.”
This reminds me SOOOO much of Star Trek and Mr. Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Spock was “logical.” It’s just too bad he didn’t use the heart that he had. The human ladies woulda loved him more than Kirk! :D
You know, I just went and re-read my comment and I hope it won’t be misconstrued that I was insulting you, Doug, because that sure wasn’t my intent.
It was a very lame attempt at humor on my part, and I really shouldn’t go off on Star Trek tangents!
I do apologize if it came across that way.
MK, I was referring to the right to physican assisted suicide. I have no opinion yet (don’t know enough) on funding care for people who want to live. I’m generally in favor for health care for all. I’m also uncomfortable with the huge amounts spent at the end of life on people who may not even want it.
Kel: 1:41: AM:Doug, they forecasted doom and gloom years ago because of population growth. We’ve exceeded their estimates, and we haven’t tapped out our resources yet. I’m just not buying it.
Also, “There is a line, a line where beyond it, we are using vast resources to care for the few when those same resources could save/improve the lives of the many.”
This reminds me SOOOO much of Star Trek and Mr. Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Spock was “logical.” It’s just too bad he didn’t use the heart that he had. The human ladies woulda loved him more than Kirk! :D
I’m not a Star Trek fan, but it was an interesting analogy to me! It sounds a lot like communist ideology to me. You’d better believe the creators of this Oregon law will not be lacking for proper health care any time in their lives!
Hal: July 30: 5:31 PM I like the Oregon statute. Washington is getting a similar one this Fall by initiative.
Hal:July 31:5:23 PM MK, I was referring to the right to physican assisted suicide. I have no opinion yet (don’t know enough) on funding care for people who want to live. I’m generally in favor for health care for all. I’m also uncomfortable with the huge amounts spent at the end of life on people who may not even want it.
I think it should be the patient’s choice or their family’s and not a stranger’s. Let’s err on the side of life.
It’s hard to believe you agree with this policy. Do you? “The many” what? People whose lives are deemed more valuable?
Janet, I know nothing of it except what’s been mentioned here. The many people versus one person – there is a limit to what the state can do in supporting people. I am not saying the 5% is any magic number, but there has to be a line somewhere. If the doctors are all saying, for example, “You’re gonna be dead in a couple months,” should the state pay for life-prolonging treatment?
……
Is this invisible line like the one that divides the viable fetuses from the non-viable ones?
It’s not “invisible.” I think you know what viable means.
There comes a point when it’s just not worth it to devote resources in some situations. That point will exist for us as individuals, as families, and here we have Oregon seeing it too.
“Tell you what – if anything it is sheer population pressure itself that will make anything such a reality.”
“Witness commodity prices, etc., and then project a few decades in the future when the world’s population is forecasted to be roughly 30+% higher. You think things are “bad” now……?”
Kel: Doug, they forecasted doom and gloom years ago because of population growth. We’ve exceeded their estimates, and we haven’t tapped out our resources yet. I’m just not buying it.
Who is “they”? Population pressure is having vast and dramatic effects already, regardless of past forecasts any which way. RSD’s point about “making room” for people applies – I think because if one is worried about human life being lesser-valued, then having more people, per se, is not the way to go.
…..
“There is a line, a line where beyond it, we are using vast resources to care for the few when those same resources could save/improve the lives of the many.”
This reminds me SOOOO much of Star Trek and Mr. Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Spock was “logical.” It’s just too bad he didn’t use the heart that he had. The human ladies woulda loved him more than Kirk! :D
I heard he was a real horndog once the cameras quit rolling.
Doug, If you believe that way, why don’t you hang a sign on your house that says “Take us first” so when these ridiculous laws come to your state, they’ll know where to find you. Even better, put a nice sticker on your drivers license saying the same. That will buy the rest of us who don’t agree, a bit more time.
Janet, I’m not being cared for by the state. If I was, there’d be limits on what the state could do for me, just like for anybody else. There would not be a good reason for the state to devote vast resources to me if I had very little or no chance of survival, as far as “life porlonging” treatments.
On my driver’s license I do have the “Organ Donor” designation.
“I heard he was a real horndog once the cameras quit rolling.”
LOL-was that on VH-1 Behind the Scenes or something? ;)
“Janet, I’m not being cared for by the state. If I was, there’d be limits on what the state could do for me, just like for anybody else. There would not be a good reason for the state to devote vast resources to me if I had very little or no chance of survival, as far as “life prolonging” treatments.”
This statement is really frightening. And I don’t think anyone said anything about “vast resources.” People just want a chance to LIVE. Is it right to deny them that? We’re talking about BORN PERSONS here now, Doug. You’re putting a price tag on life and you’ve said it’s fine for the state to determine who does and does not have quality of life or deserve treatment.
And as for the “they” in my previous comments regarding a population explosion, I was referring to whichever doomsday scientists decided that the world was going to cave in on itself even before I was born.
This statement is really frightening. And I don’t think anyone said anything about “vast resources.” People just want a chance to LIVE. Is it right to deny them that? We’re talking about BORN PERSONS here now, Doug. You’re putting a price tag on life and you’ve said it’s fine for the state to determine who does and does not have quality of life or deserve treatment.
Kel, the fact remains that many are not being treated now, likely as you and I both would say they deserve. Why take money away from them, to be devoted to those where death is a certainty or much more of a certainty?
……
And as for the “they” in my previous comments regarding a population explosion, I was referring to whichever doomsday scientists decided that the world was going to cave in on itself even before I was born.
Kel, the same for people raising Cain about “the state of the world” because the populace wasn’t mirroring their desires…. It’s human nature that some people are going to be there (where “they” and “you” don’t want them to be). Clear back to way before the ancient Egyptians, etc….
(Didn’t realize I’d already replied, but what the hey….)
This statement is really frightening. And I don’t think anyone said anything about “vast resources.” People just want a chance to LIVE. Is it right to deny them that? We’re talking about BORN PERSONS here now, Doug. You’re putting a price tag on life and you’ve said it’s fine for the state to determine who does and does not have quality of life or deserve treatment.
Kel, it’s not a matter of “denying people a chance to live.” In cases like what we are talking about, there is no guarantee that the person would live, in the first place – far from it, in fact.
There comes a point when it’s not worth it to spend the money. State resources are not unlimited – heck, most states are massively in debt already. Isn’t it better to devote resources to cases where there is a realistic chance of the person really being helped?
……
And as for the “they” in my previous comments regarding a population explosion, I was referring to whichever doomsday scientists decided that the world was going to cave in on itself even before I was born.
Okay – well, they were wrong, eh? There are always people who think “the sky is falling” for whatever reason (legal abortion included). Meanwhile, people are having massive and undeniable effects on the planet.