Jump to content
Laryal

Mods Please deleat since no one is staying on topic thank you.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It only started with abortions/ killing babies, now this. Next it will be anybody that is slightly an inconvenience or drain to"society". So what the government thinks as elderly or possibly handicap! This sicknes me down to the core. Why would anyone do this to others link below on what Oregon is trying to pass.  I guess this hits me hard cause i do have Cerebral Palsy an i guess next it will be those of us who have disability that are already born. 😱

 

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/oregon-bill-starving-dementia-patients-advances?fbclid=IwAR0B0B8eLFPfaBll8Q4aHN4sMUyHEEwKlC0Z06zWSB6H91QQPpJFLGdiCcs#.XJRItvdvs9B.facebook

 

http://toresays.com/2019/03/23/oregon-bill-passed-to-legalize-starving-mentally-ill-patients-so-they-die-faster/

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

I come from the land of legal euthanasia, which I totally stand for, and I can't even deal with the fact that this is allowed in the U.S. So morally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Those are sensationalist websites meant to make people angry. Have you actually read the bill? It's linked in the second website and also right here. If you scroll down to page 7, you'll see that it actually allows people to make decisions about their healthcare before they develop dementia/Alzheimer's/etc and are incapable of making decisions. That includes choosing a person who will make medical decisions for you when you no longer can, and also choosing to accept or deny being tube fed ever. It gives people the autonomy to make their own decisions for their own body (although I can't expect someone who is anti-abortion to have any understanding or acceptance of bodily autonomy.) So if someone does not want to languish on life support long after their mind has faded, they can't be forced to. It does not mean that health care providers or anyone other than their designated medical decision-maker can decide to "starve them to death." And obviously you would not choose a decision maker you did not trust to have your best interests in mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Adding on to what GhostMouse said, abortion is not "killing babies". An undeveloped fetus is not a "baby", and it is and should be 100% a woman's right to deny ANYONE the use of her body, for ANY reason. Including a fetus. It's called bodily autonomy and is generally considered a human right, and it's the same reason you can't take the organs from a corpse without the owner of it having given previous consent, even if said organs would save the lives of 20 people. It's truly atrocious that there's people out there (mostly old white men and women with internalized misogyny) truly willing to afford a pregnant woman less rights over her own body than a corpse has, while screaming about the rights of a half formed, non sentient cluster of cells.

Share this post


Link to post

Well  like i said in the obortion thread first comes unborn babies then the elderly an then those who are disabled an if you read it yes if they think on it way before they get ill they can have the right but if not it is up to the care giver to say let them die so they will starve them? Even if they do decide before hand starving is a very cruel way to go don't you think?.You two are heartless saying it is fine to kill humans your opinion. My opinion is killing no matter who it is  that is morally wrong.Now like i said before it starts with babies an ends up killing the elderly then those who are seen not fit to live. Guys this is what will bring humans their down fall.Well i guess the end times are coming the bible said it would be like the days before the flood. when men's hearts were only evil continually. Give you guys a thought here ok if an only if my saying is true an this does start happening i hope their is some people out their that will help those that will get their lives taken away cause they did not fit into human society.

.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, here's an example:

 

Your mother is in a horrible car accident that has left her in a coma. She has lost 75% of her brain matter due to severe trauma and the only thing working is her body's autonomous nervous system (breathing, heart beat, etc). She cannot come back from this. Do you put her on a feeding tube to keep her body alive for decades or do you decide to not put her on a feeding tube but supply a morphine drip until she passes? What if, before she died, she told you "Never put me on a feeding tube", would you obey her wishes? Is it heartless to let her body continue in a hospital bed forever? Is it heartless to disobey her dying wishes? I think it's more cruel to allow someone to suffer needlessly when they may want to just let it all go. It's their choice.

 

This is what the bill addresses. They aren't starving old people in wheel chairs who are begging for food. This is something you have made up in your head to make the world seem scary.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Let me reply to your question  I would do everything in my power to help her live again there has been cases where people have been on life support for years an they woke up an lived full lives till they passed on of old age. Now to answer your question a sec time a family member had twins one was sick he fought for his life till he saw his brother .Remind you these were new born babies ok. After they held hands like they done in the womb the sick twin did pass on.Now let me ask you how could this twin know that his brother was safe cause he had a heart.Now they did not take him off life support but waited. hope he would  take a turn for the better.  Now would you do the same if your one of your family members was in a car wreak would you keep them alive hoping they would live?

 

Also from the link i gave SB494 passed out of the Senate Rules Committee with certain amendments. Colm Willis testified in front of the committee that the bill, even as amended, still gives healthcare providers the legal right to withhold food and water from these patients and against their will in some instances.

 

So gave this quot from the first link now  to me this says they  will starve an not give water how inhumane can we be in the USA?

 

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

There is no coming back. 75% of her brain is gone. It can't be rebuilt. Do you keep her on life support until her body dies?

 

Have you read SB494? Because it absolutely does not give the right of the provider to refuse tube feeding against their wishes. There is a form the patient fills out ahead of time, similar to a will. It is a legal documentation of your desires if you are in a situation where you are either dying, incapacitated or in a state of health that you decide you don't want to be in. No one is making these decisions for you.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to even say in the rest of your post.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Did you actually read an even watched the video or even looked at the comments. They are not talking about people who are in wreaks or anything they  said an i quot again some of the first link Gayle Atteberry, director of Oregon Right to Life, remarked, "This bill, written in a deceiving manner, has as its goal to save money at the expense of starving and dehydrating dementia and mentally ill patients to death."

Life-ending decisions include the decision to administer food and water to patients. Speaking of mentally incompetent patients, who can still eat naturally, Willis noted, "A person may be incompetent to make a complex medical decision for themselves but still may be competent to decide whether or not they want to eat."

During the Senate hearing, Willis attested that the current default law in Oregon doesn't allow healthcare providers to make end-of-life decisions for patients unless they are explicitly authorized to do so ahead of time by the patient. After the patient slips into a state of dementia, the healthcare provider if not authorized still can't decide to withhold food or water from such patients.

"The effect of this bill would change the default rule," Willis testified, "which is that except for in certain end-of-life situations, your healthcare representative cannot make life-ending decisions for you unless you say they can, to a new rule which would be that your healthcare representative can make life-ending decisions for you in most cases unless you clearly and unambiguously say they cannot, which may be difficult to do."

Considering the vulnerability for such patients, who lapse into a state of dementia, Willis protested, "One of the purposes of our law should be to protect vulnerable people who are at risk of harm from others." He affirmed that SB494, as it passed to the Senate floor, also makes "other changes that would eliminate this explicit limit on the authority of the healthcare representative."

Focusing on the insurance companies, Atteberry commented, "Oregon law currently has strong safeguards to protect patients who are no longer able to make decisions for themselves. "Nursing homes and other organizations dedicated to protecting vulnerable patients work hard to make sure patients receive the food and water they need. SB494, pushed hard by the insurance lobby, would take patient care a step backwards and decimate patient rights."

During the Senate committee hearings, Willis affirmed that Oregon's current law ensures "that an incapable person's life is not ended without his or her explicit consent." Atteberry deplored the efforts pushing the current version of SB 494, "There is a clear effort to move state policy away from protecting the rights of patients with dementia and mental illness and toward empowering surrogates to make life-ending decisions."

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

if a family member of mine was in a car wreck and ended up in a persistent vegetative state, it depends on how long they are in it. after six months in it, chances become increasingly low that consciousness will be regained, and it's worth noting many who wake up from a pvs will have some degree of disability (pvs is a result of severe brain damage) and may not ever be able to take care of themselves independently again. after a year in a pvs it is time to let go.

 

in true brain death, it is much simpler: it will be time to let go right away, however much it hurts.

 

pvs info taken from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state#Signs_and_symptoms

 

can you provide a news link or any link that is not from a sensationalist or religious site? i am not interested in having religion or the views associated with it foisted upon me.

 

also i am entirely in favor of right to die legislation for competent adults facing terminal illness. people need the right to make medical decisions for themselves while they are competent to do so. my mom doesn't want a long, drawn out death when her time comes, either.

 

i'm a realist. hope is great, but i can't ignore facts and reality.

Share this post


Link to post

My mother is 99. She is well cared for in a home. She is not even dementing.  She WANTS to die. She desperately wants to die. As things stand, she is unable to. She hasn't left the home in almost two years, and hardly ever leaves her room. If there were a way for me to help her to, I would do - but as things stand in the UK, I would go to jail. I have it on file with lawyers, doctors and the like that if I am ever in any kind of vegetative state I am NOT to receive treatment. I HOPE it holds up.

 

My niece lived for 22 years in a PVS. She had no life. She could just breathe, and swallow unaided. That is Not OK.

 

Quote

Let me reply to your question  I would do everything in my power to help her live again

 

Her life was not life. There was no chance of her "recovery". There was very little left of her brain at all, from about the age of 4.

 

People should have the absolute right to die at a time of their choosing, ideally in a system like that in the Netherlands and Switzerland and they should ABSOLUTELY have the right not to be forced to live on when they don't wish to..

 

That "news site" is not a genuine news site, it is one of the alarmist ones cited by Infinis and others. And Oregon Right to Life is another such. As GhostMouse says - you need to read the bill properly instead of reacting with a knee-jerk to sensationalist websites and broadcasts.

 

I thank my lucky stars you will never have any say over my end-of-life care.

Share this post


Link to post

SB 494 is meant to make the existing form less confusing and easier to use. It isn't even introducing anything new. Here's a real source, an AARP petition in favor of the bill.

Fuzzbucket, I'm so sorry your family has gone through that with your niece, and that your mother is going through that now. That is such a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

You may enjoy this, mouse - you will get it:  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess  :lol:

Love this comic strip especially - but then again, I used to be an avid chess player in my early adult life. :)

 

Here in Germany, people can appoint a health care representative (we only need to appoint one, not several) and/or create advance directives for their care. The latter is legally binding, the only exception is if you had no way to know about it.

 

Example: You get into a situation where you find someone whose heartbeat and breathing has just stopped. You do CPR, even though the person you perform it on has an advance directive stating that they don't want to get CPR at all. You had no way of knowing that, though, so you can't be held liable.

 


On the other hand, if you're a nurse and perform CPR on a patient you're working with, you're supposed to know if this patient had an advance directive and act in accord with it.

 

Terms these advance directives usually cover (and which would also be within the rights of a health care representative to decide on) are the following:

  • tube feeding
  • CPR - especially under which circumstances it is to be done, and under which it isn't.
  • life support - when or when not to do it (always, never, only if there's a decent chance of recovery, only for a limited time unless there are signs of recovery, which kinds of life support)
  • use of drugs, especially pain medication ("always administer enough pain medication to make the pain bearable, even if this would shorten my life" is a very common directive)
  • There's also room for special treatments - like "no blood transfusion", excluding certain kinds of procedures or treatment ("no chemo")
  • There's also the option to customize your directives for certain situations (end of life/impending death, PVS, cognition, awareness...)

Never, ever is anyone allowed to withhold food or drink from any patient.

 

What is an issue, though, is that many people have neither health care representatives nor advance directives. Because in such a case, the first assumption for people in health care professions has to be that the patient wants to live, no matter what. Only once there's time to do so, meaning outside an emergency situation, they'll try to gather the people closest to their patient (usually, but not always next of kin) to find out what their patient would have wanted - which is called their presumed will, which will then be adhered to. However, if this mean things like turning off life support, this only happens if the people closest to the patient agree on the fact that this is what they would have wanted. One veto will be enough to continue life support.

 

Personally, I think this is as good as it can get as long as legal euthanasia is not a thing. Then again, the BeNeLux states aren't far from here...

Edited by olympe

Share this post


Link to post

I think I will get my DNR tattooed onto me somewhere, now that you mention that.

 

My directive includes "do not artificially feed me". Not "do not hydrate", as I think that might get nasty.

 

My godmother turned her face to the wall, as they say, in hospital, and refused all nutrition. She'd had enough.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

You all missed the point i was saying that the Oregon's bill allows the caregiver to starve an keep water from patients is starving a good way to allow our old people to die is my  argument really..An what i mean is for those who want to eat but the get no food or water is that right?  https://www.foxnews.com/us/nevada-seeks-to-become-eighth-state-to-allow-physician-assisted-suicide

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

@Laryal ...no, ONLY the ones who do not want to live will get no nutrition. That's pretty clear. No one should be forced to live if they truly don't want to and have no chance of getting better.

 

Also, science does not care if you think that abortion is 'killing'. It's literally not. Most abortions are early gestation abortions, done far before the fetus even develops the capability to feel pain at around 26 weeks. It cannot think, it cannot feel and it most certainly is not a human. I've seen fetuses at 11 weeks, which is somewhat later than the average gestation for an abortion, and it looked like something that would come out when you blow your nose. The woman absolutely has the right to deny ANYONE the use of HER body, and that includes a non sentient fetus.

 

Late term abortions are only done when the woman's life is at risk OR when the fetus has an abnormality that would make life outside the womb difficult or impossible. Pregnancy is incredibly difficult, if someone is still pregnant after 24-26 weeks, it's because they WANT a child, and things can happen after that which make it kinder to abort. Women aren't your incubators. A professionally done early gestation abortion is much, much safer than the full pregnancy and childbirth. In the US alone, 17 out of 100 pregnancies end with maternal death. Pregnancy is something a woman should ONLY have to go through when SHE wants to. And children aren't consequences, they should always be loved and wanted, lest they end up with their backs beaten black and blue, shoved under a stream of icy water and dragged into dark rooms with spiders and scorpions as was the case with me and my sisters.

 

I know the thread isn't about abortion, but I can't stay quiet when I see all this internalized misogyny online, in 2019. It's not the middle ages anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Your link is broken (it gives me a 404 error) but I believe this is the same article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-oregon-pushing-to-give-patients-with-degenerative-diseases-the-right-to-die/2018/03/11/3b6a2362-230e-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.4ccaba3a2bbc

 

Quote

 Oregon's bill allows the caregiver to starve an keep water from the patients


Yes, but crucially, this is only with the patient's consent. This is with a signed advanced directive. The issue, the thing that is happening without consent, is keeping suffering people alive when they want to die. Doctors, nursing homes, families are not going to start killing off the elderly for fun. No one wants to see their patients or loved ones die. This bill gives people a choice (which again, I know must be a scary and complicated concept for the anti-choice crowd).

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Princess Kiara said:

@Laryal ...no, ONLY the ones who do not want to live will get no nutrition. That's pretty clear. No one should be forced to live if they truly don't want to and have no chance of getting better.

 

Also, science does not care if you think that abortion is 'killing'. It's literally not. Most abortions are early gestation abortions, done far before the fetus even develops the capability to feel pain at around 26 weeks. It cannot think, it cannot feel and it most certainly is not a human. I've seen fetuses at 11 weeks, which is somewhat later than the average gestation for an abortion, and it looked like something that would come out when you blow your nose. The woman absolutely has the right to deny ANYONE the use of HER body, and that includes a non sentient fetus.

 

Late term abortions are only done when the woman's life is at risk OR when the fetus has an abnormality that would make life outside the womb difficult or impossible. Pregnancy is incredibly difficult, if someone is still pregnant after 24-26 weeks, it's because they WANT a child, and things can happen after that which make it kinder to abort. Women aren't your incubators. A professionally done early gestation abortion is much, much safer than the full pregnancy and childbirth. In the US alone, 17 out of 100 pregnancies end with maternal death. Pregnancy is something a woman should ONLY have to go through when SHE wants to. And children aren't consequences, they should always be loved and wanted, lest they end up with their backs beaten black and blue, shoved under a stream of icy water and dragged into dark rooms with spiders and scorpions as was the case with me and my sisters.

 

I know the thread isn't about abortion, but I can't stay quiet when I see all this internalized misogyny online, in 2019. It's not the middle ages anymore.

So your saying that starving some one to death is a good thing? Also that killing an unborn baby no matter what the life stage is is good? So i see this what your saying is killing is fine to those who want to do it it is your body what part of your body is being taken out? No matter how you look at it abortion staring is killing someone.Ok so your not killing the baby but allowing a anouther person to do so which is morally an inhumane really.Like i said before it starts with unborn an then the rest who society deems unfit to live.I can see his coming  an it is hard to watch really.

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing is "good" or "fine" here if someone feels the need to die or abort, obviously - this world is far from perfect. But sometimes, such things are the only viable options left in order to prevent worse.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, GhostMouse said:

Your link is broken (it gives me a 404 error) but I believe this is the same article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-oregon-pushing-to-give-patients-with-degenerative-diseases-the-right-to-die/2018/03/11/3b6a2362-230e-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.4ccaba3a2bbc

 


Yes, but crucially, this is only with the patient's consent. This is with a signed advanced directive. The issue, the thing that is happening without consent, is keeping suffering people alive when they want to die. Doctors, nursing homes, families are not going to start killing off the elderly for fun. No one wants to see their patients or loved ones die. This bill gives people a choice (which again, I know must be a scary and complicated concept for the anti-choice crowd).

Ok but what if they did not consent an an elderly person does want to eat an drink but the caregiver keeps that away from them Starving them to death that in itself is so wrong in so many levels. Like the man in the video said he watched his wife starve to death i could not handle that i would have taken a ball bat to the docs an who ever else was starving my loved ones. Know i know that giving the patients drugs to pass on  but starving?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Laryal said:

So your saying that starving some one to death is a good thing? Also that killing an unborn baby no matter what the life stage is is good? So i see this what your saying is killing is fine to those who want to do it it is your body what part of your body is being taken out? No matter how you look at it abortion staring is killing someone.Ok so your not killing the baby but allowing a anouther person to do so which is morally an inhumane really.Like i said before it starts with unborn an then the rest who society deems unfit to live.I can see his coming  an it is hard to watch really.

If the person WANTS to die and there's no chance they will get better, they're allowed to die with dignity.

Also, a fetus is not a baby. And yes, it's the woman's body, because guess what? The fetus is attached to HER uterus through its placenta. It's taking HER nutrients out of HER bloodstream, and altering HER body chemistry. If SHE doesn't want to host it, parasite-fasion, inside HER body, she has every right to expel it from her body. Of course, it cannot live outside of her body, but the mucus looking blob does not take precedence over a sentient, fully developed woman's rights. Especially when you consider that said blob can develop into a child, which then will likely suffer because it's unwanted. But pro birthers don't care about that, once the kid is born you don't give a hoot...

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Ok so dieing with dignity is a long way from starving someone to allow them to die an so your saying stll that killing unborn babies is ok? Asking you a question here do animals the four legged ones think ok i am having this or these babies i want someone to reach in an kill them? No they give birth to them an if the fetus dies it is because of nature not because anouther took it's life. So we are the only animals on earth that say hey i have sex i get preg i can get rid of this other human with no second thought. I can get preg all i want an if i do not want the baby off to the the docs who want to murder so i can live my life with out anouther human in my life. An if i decide to have a family i will ,  i do not care about all the other kids i  allowed to get killed in side of me my body my life. That is how i look at each woman who does abort my opinion. An like i said it is like a wave on the water it is small at first then grows first the unborn then the old people then those who society  thinks unfit to live is this right ?  The killing of any human is wrong be it the unborn old and up to those who are crippled or have illnesses that were born with it. People today have no respect of other an no morals at all it seems. Also there are places that help women to care for these babies. The first one was a guy who made life warriors an my mom like others helped him to help women in need to take care of themselves as well as the babies once  the babies came.Life warriors is gone now not because of not wanting to help but more an ore places came to help the women so see there is places that will help a woman thru her preg an after the baby is born so saying we do not care we do care if not then we all would say well who cares.

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.