PDA

View Full Version : I think PULLING THE PLUG ON GRANNY... is a *GREAT idea.


phil scott
August 23rd 09, 09:18 PM
Comments? shall us old farts spread the word?

here is my take on the subject and I have some (not a lot) experience
in the area.

phil scott View profile


> “You must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans of national
> compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle
> to the grave.” [1945]



the 'compulsory' aspect of socialized medicine carries bad
connotations,
except that if it is compulsory it has to be affordable or such an
economy collapses.

Private insurance would be
fine if done on say the 'Foremost Insurance style'... (cheap, no
billion dollar ceo's) (im not a foremost shill)

and yes, costs are easily controllable.... pulling the plug on granny
aged 90 or whatever
with renal failure, comatose and on a ventilator (where most of our
medical dollar is wasted)
would get no compliants from any sensible person including granny, or
myself who is
aging but currently rational..


The notion of end of life counseling is **supurb** imo... it just
cannot be govt connected,
it should be a church service or secular service, with practitioners
of all stripes.. paid b
the state with no strings, even if some recommend living on a
ventilator as long as possible.


or some variant of that.... forcing life beyond its natural viability
stage is *insane.


Video: I hope you can move those notions, wording and tactic on.


Phil scott

Rod Speed[_1_]
August 23rd 09, 09:41 PM
phil scott wrote:

> Comments? shall us old farts spread the word?

Nothing to spread except FUD.

> here is my take on the subject and I have
> some (not a lot) experience in the area.

>> “You must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans
>> of national compulsory insurance for all classes for all
>> purposes from the cradle to the grave.” [1945]

> the 'compulsory' aspect of socialized medicine

Nothing compulsory about it. You're always free to
not use it when you have a medical problem and go
to Mexico or India etc etc etc.

Corse that might not be the smartest move when you are
having a heart attack, but that would get some selection
back into the system if it wasnt for the fact that that
normally happens after you have reproduced already.

> carries bad connotations, except that if it is compulsory
> it has to be affordable or such an economy collapses.

The economy cant collapse when every other modern first world
country gets its health care for as much as HALF the percentage
of GDP that the US ****es against the wall on health care. AND
many of those countrys do rather better on the stats that matter
like longevity and years in good health than the US does too.

> Private insurance would be fine if done on say the 'Foremost
> Insurance style'... (cheap, no billion dollar ceo's)

Wrong. You still need the hordes of paper shuffling monkeys.

That doubling of the percentage of GDP spend
on health care isnt going on ceo salarys.

> (im not a foremost shill)

> and yes, costs are easily controllable.... pulling the plug
> on granny aged 90 or whatever with renal failure, comatose
> and on a ventilator (where most of our medical dollar is
> wasted) would get no compliants from any sensible person
> including granny, or myself who is aging but currently rational..

You also need to pull the plug on anyone with a serious
medical problem at any age. Premature births and those
born with serious medical problems in spades, because
those cost MUCH more than granny, because they
will be around for a hell of a lot longer than granny.

> The notion of end of life counseling is **supurb** imo...

Bit hard to 'counsel' premature kids, they cant understand what you are saying.

> it just cannot be govt connected, it should be a church
> service or secular service, with practitioners of all stripes..
> paid b the state with no strings, even if some recommend
> living on a ventilator as long as possible.

Why the **** should the state be paying for that ?

> or some variant of that.... forcing life beyond its natural viability stage is *insane.

Try telling that to those whose kids are born premature.

> Video: I hope you can move those notions, wording and tactic on.

I'll move them where they belong, down the tubes.

RickMerrill
August 24th 09, 12:24 AM
2 MD comments..

From: Ellen
Subject: Health Care

Rick - I have been receiving your emails .... Please do the same now
and send this email on to others so they may be informed.

Please forward this to those who are concerned about the health care
reform bill and please read this.

I asked my son-in-law Dr Mark S., in Family Practice with
PriMed Physicians, and my daughter Dr. Melissa S., an Emergency
Room doctor, both currently practicing in Dayton, Ohio, to respond to
the email I received that had the audio of the Fred Thompson Show
featuring Patient Rights Advocate, Betsy McCaughey, attached. Just
because [Betsy McCaughey] has read all 1400 pages does not mean that she
is an expert. In fact, we are allowing [Betsy McCaughey] to interpret
for us the bill's meaning, and she is spreading lies and engendering
fear where there should be none.

Thank you.

~Ellen

-----Original Message-----
From: Markschloneger ...
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:31 AM
To: Ellen
Subject: Re: Fred Thompson Radio Show: Health Care - Osprey

Ellen,
You get a two-fer. See Melissa's response after mine.

First, let me say, I am not a Democrat or Republican. I am pleased and
displeased with parts of each platform. I am a Christian that values
life and am entirely against euthanasia. I vote for the best person
and I support the good bills regardless of which party sponsors them.
Let me also say I think the current proposal is lacking some key
components, but I also think it has many good parts.

Ironically, the part of the bill that this article is discussing is a
good part. Why all the hype? This is a complex political spin. It
is an attempt by the Republican Party to prey on Americans fear of
death and dying. The goal is to scare Americans into not supporting
the health care bill, not based on the bill's merits, but rather by
taking something the public doesn't really understand and giving it
meaning that isn't present in the bill. This is disappointing because
what we need is to debate valid healthcare concerns. We need to create
a system that works, not sacrifice this discussion to win a political
battle.

Essentially, the bill states that there is a need to discuss end-of-
life issues on a regular basis. And it requires doctors to do this
every 5 years. Currently, these discussions are recommended by every
medical organization and occur on a regular basis in my office and even
more frequently in the ER. The discussions are shared conversations
where we discuss what people would want done if their heart were to
stop beating. For example, should we do chest compressions and
shocks to attempt to restart the heart or put a tube down their
throat to keep the person alive on a ventilator if they were unable to
breathe on their own. The reason these are shared conversations is
because most people can't make these decisions without guidance from a
healthcare professional explaining what these "code status" and
treatments will and will not do. These conversations allow us to do
what the patient wishes.

Many healthy people want every treatment available offered to them.
However, many people do not desire this. I frequently have people
refuse to take cholesterol medicines or refuse to have a colonoscopy.
Similarly, many people do not want us to keep them alive on a
ventilator, if they are unable to breathe on their own. Others do not
want chest compressions and shocks realizing that at the point their
heart stops, they are likely very ill and the resuscitation may cause
rib fractures, pain, and prolonged hospital stays... if they are
successful. People should and do have the right to make these
decisions to accept or refuse treatment. Many people do not understand
that without these discussions, the default is that every treatment
will be provided to them (including chest compressions, shocks, chest
tubes, ventilators, etc). People falsely believe that a living will
may protect them from treatments they do not desire to have. This is
often not the case because most living wills are vague and are open to
interpretation and therefore controversy. They are also not readily
available when needed (example: in the case of a massive heart attack
or stroke, people don't run home to get their living will before they
collapse)
The only new thing being introduced in the bill is that the govt is
going to "require" it (because they know that many docs are too busy to
take the time to discuss end of life wishes unless it's a requirement).

Now, here's where it gets controversial. The Republican Party is
saying that the goal of this part of the bill is to try to talk people
into denying themselves treatment and it is therefore equivalent to
euthanasia. This is simply untrue. The bill never uses the word
euthanasia and never implies it. The wording used for end of life
discussions is the same wording that is used by every healthcare
organization and has never in the past or present been interpreted as
recommended, endorsing, or encouraging euthanasia... (that is until the
Republican Party recently suggested that this is what it means!) The
goal is to get the person to consider and document what they do and do
not want done. The bill absolutely does not mention, recommend, or
require that physicians attempt to talk people into foregoing medical
treatment. I am quite offended with the suggestion that my desire to
honor people's end of life wishes is now being lumped into the actions
of those who support euthanasia. Your daughter [my wife] and I have
these conversations on nearly a daily basis. EVERY doctor in the
country has these discussions. I have also had these discussions with
my parents (and so should everyone).

The speaker is using partial truths and partial lies along with a lot
of convincing sarcasm and prose to create fear. Sadly, it is working.
You may want to send this response back up the chain of e-mails to shed
some truth on a destructive political spin.
Hope this helps.
Mark

Addendum: this is directly cut and pasted from the bill page 430 (bold
print added by me). The interview suggests that the counseling sessions
are to convince the patient how to die more quickly (which is
completely wrong). Read it for yourself. It says that a discussion
should include options from full treatment to limited treatment.
''(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)
may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to
limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of
treatment may include indications respecting, among other items-
''(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse
less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
''(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or
remaining at the current care setting;
''(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
''(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and
hydration.''.


Mark [Mark Schloneger, MD, PriMed Physicians, Family Practice Woodbury,
7211 N Main St, Dayton, Ohio]

>From Ellen: The following paragraph is from my daughter Dr Melissa
Schloneger, Emergency Room physician at Good Samaritan Hospital.

>From Melissa (the Emergency Medicine doctor) - the sad part about this
is that something that should be addressed and brought to everyone's
attention and discussion has now been demonized into the term
"euthanasia" when the real issue is how many people would be better
served to know that medicine is unable to save them from death, and
sometimes treatment is worse than the cure. There is ZERO discussion
of killing people or denying people care in the BILL - right now in
medicine we have an issue with trying to save everyone, even when it is
absolutely ridiculous.

Example: I have had to put people with end-stage cancer on ventilators
because some of these discussions have not occurred ahead of time and
there is no time for that discussion when you can't breathe. You can
bet that if I have a terminal condition, the last place that I want to
die is the Emergency Department - I would rather have family and a
peaceful setting like hospice.

I am very angry that this has become demonized because I have this
discussion every shift that I work because I have to know what people
want when they get admitted to the hospital - do you really think that
the first time that you have this discussion should be in the emergency
department when you are getting admitted to the hospital for a life-
threatening illness?

I am soooo offended because I, like Hippocrates, vowed to do no harm,
and also vowed to not assist any suicide. This whole stream of lies
makes me ill because now it makes it that much more frustrating and
confusing to patients.

phil scott
August 24th 09, 04:50 PM
On Aug 23, 12:41*pm, "Rod Speed" > wrote:
> phil scott wrote:
> > Comments? *shall us old farts spread the word?
>
> Nothing to spread except FUD.
>
> > here is my take on the subject and I have
> > some (not a lot) experience in the area.
> >> “You must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans
> >> of national compulsory insurance for all classes for all
> >> purposes from the cradle to the grave.” [1945]
> > the 'compulsory' aspect of socialized medicine
>
> Nothing compulsory about it. You're always free to
> not use it when you have a medical problem and go
> to Mexico or India etc etc etc.
>
> Corse that might not be the smartest move when you are
> having a heart attack, but that would get some selection
> back into the system if it wasnt for the fact that that
> normally happens after you have reproduced already.
>
> > carries bad connotations, except that if it is compulsory
> > it has to be affordable or such an economy collapses.
>
> The economy cant collapse when every other modern first world
> country gets its health care for as much as HALF the percentage
> of GDP that the US ****es against the wall on health care. AND
> many of those countrys do rather better on the stats that matter
> like longevity and years in good health than the US does too.
>
> > Private insurance would be fine if done on say the 'Foremost
> > Insurance style'... (cheap, no billion dollar ceo's)
>
> Wrong. You still need the hordes of paper shuffling monkeys.
>
> That doubling of the percentage of GDP spend
> on health care isnt going on ceo salarys.
>
> > (im not a foremost shill)
> > and yes, costs are easily controllable.... pulling the plug
> > on granny aged 90 or whatever with renal failure, comatose
> > and on a ventilator *(where most of our medical dollar is
> > wasted) would get no compliants from any sensible person
> > including granny, or myself who is aging but currently rational..
>
> You also need to pull the plug on anyone with a serious
> medical problem at any age. Premature births and those
> born with serious medical problems in spades, because
> those cost MUCH more than granny, because they
> will be around for a hell of a lot longer than granny.
>
> > The notion of end of life counseling is **supurb** imo...
>
> Bit hard to 'counsel' premature kids, they cant understand what you are saying.
>
> > it just cannot be govt connected, it should be a church
> > service or secular service, with practitioners of all stripes..
> > paid b the state with no strings, even if some recommend
> > living on a ventilator as long as possible.
>
> Why the **** should the state be paying for that ?
>
> > or some variant of that.... forcing life beyond its natural viability stage is *insane.
>
> Try telling that to those whose kids are born premature.
>
> > Video: *I hope you can move those notions, wording and tactic on.
>
> I'll move them where they belong, down the tubes.

an intelligent response, thanks. esp on who pays for the end of life
counseling... you would be correct.


Phil scott

phil scott
August 24th 09, 05:01 PM
On Aug 23, 3:24*pm, RickMerrill >
wrote:
> 2 MD comments..
>
> From: Ellen
> Subject: Health Care
>
> Rick - I have been receiving your emails .... *Please do the same now
> and send this email on to others so they may be informed.
>
> Please forward this to those who are concerned about the health care
> reform bill and please read this.
>
> I asked my son-in-law Dr Mark S., in Family Practice with
> PriMed Physicians, and my daughter Dr. Melissa S., an Emergency
> Room doctor, both currently practicing in Dayton, Ohio, to respond to
> the email I received that had the audio of the Fred Thompson Show
> featuring Patient Rights Advocate, Betsy McCaughey, attached. *Just
> because [Betsy McCaughey] has read all 1400 pages does not mean that she
> is an expert. *In fact, we are allowing [Betsy McCaughey] to interpret
> for us the bill's meaning, and she is spreading lies and engendering
> fear where there should be none.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ~Ellen
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markschloneger ...
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:31 AM
> To: Ellen
> Subject: Re: Fred Thompson Radio Show: Health Care - Osprey
>
> Ellen,
> You get a two-fer. *See Melissa's response after mine.
>
> First, let me say, I am not a Democrat or Republican. *I am pleased and
> displeased with parts of each platform. *I am a Christian that values
> life and am entirely against euthanasia. *I vote for the best person
> and I support the good bills regardless of which party sponsors them.
> Let me also say I think the current proposal is lacking some key
> components, but I also think it has many good parts.
>
> Ironically, the part of the bill that this article is discussing is a
> good part. *Why all the hype? *This is a complex political spin. *It
> is an attempt by the Republican Party to prey on Americans fear of
> death and dying. *The goal is to scare Americans into not supporting
> the health care bill, not based on the bill's merits, but rather by
> taking something the public doesn't really understand and giving it
> meaning that isn't present in the bill. *This is disappointing because
> what we need is to debate valid healthcare concerns. *We need to create
> a system that works, not sacrifice this discussion to win a political
> battle.
>
> Essentially, the bill states that there is a need to discuss end-of-
> life issues on a regular basis. *And it requires doctors to do this
> every 5 years. *Currently, these discussions are recommended by every
> medical organization and occur on a regular basis in my office and even
> more frequently in the ER. *The discussions are shared conversations
> where we discuss what people would want done if their heart were to
> stop beating. *For example, should we do chest compressions and
> shocks to attempt to restart the heart or put a tube down their
> throat to keep the person alive on a ventilator if they were unable to
> breathe on their own. *The reason these are shared conversations is
> because most people can't make these decisions without guidance from a
> healthcare professional explaining what these "code status" and
> treatments will and will not do. *These conversations allow us to do
> what the patient wishes.
>
> Many healthy people want every treatment available offered to them.
> However, many people do not desire this. *I frequently have people
> refuse to take cholesterol medicines or refuse to have a colonoscopy.
> Similarly, many people do not want us to keep them alive on a
> ventilator, if they are unable to breathe on their own. *Others do not
> want chest compressions and shocks realizing that at the point their
> heart stops, they are likely very ill and the resuscitation may cause
> rib fractures, pain, and prolonged hospital stays... if they are
> successful. *People should and do have the right to make these
> decisions to accept or refuse treatment. *Many people do not understand
> that without these discussions, the default is that every treatment
> will be provided to them (including chest compressions, shocks, chest
> tubes, ventilators, etc). *People falsely believe that a living will
> may protect them from treatments they do not desire to have. This is
> often not the case because most living wills are vague and are open to
> interpretation and therefore controversy. *They are also not readily
> available when needed (example: in the case of a massive heart attack
> or stroke, people don't run home to get their living will before they
> collapse)
> The only new thing being introduced in the bill is that the govt is
> going to "require" it (because they know that many docs are too busy to
> take the time to discuss end of life wishes unless it's a requirement).
>
> Now, here's where it gets controversial. *The Republican Party is
> saying that the goal of this part of the bill is to try to talk people
> into denying themselves treatment and it is therefore equivalent to
> euthanasia. *This is simply untrue. *The bill never uses the word
> euthanasia and never implies it. *The wording used for end of life
> discussions is the same wording that is used by every healthcare
> organization and has never in the past or present been interpreted as
> recommended, endorsing, or encouraging euthanasia... (that is until the
> Republican Party recently suggested that this is what it means!) * The
> goal is to get the person to consider and document what they do and do
> not want done. *The bill absolutely does not mention, recommend, or
> require that physicians attempt to talk people into foregoing medical
> treatment. *I am quite offended with the suggestion that my desire to
> honor people's end of life wishes is now being lumped into the *actions
> of those who support euthanasia. * Your daughter [my wife] and I have
> these conversations on nearly a daily basis. EVERY doctor in the
> country has these discussions. *I have also had these discussions with
> my parents (and so should everyone).
>
> The speaker is using partial truths and partial lies along with a lot
> of convincing sarcasm and prose to create fear. *Sadly, it is working.
> You may want to send this response back up the chain of e-mails to shed
> some truth on a destructive political spin.
> Hope this helps.
> Mark
>
> Addendum: *this is directly cut and pasted from the bill page 430 (bold
> print added by me). The interview suggests that the counseling sessions
> are to convince the patient how to die more quickly (which is
> completely wrong). *Read it for yourself. *It says that a discussion
> should include options from full treatment to limited treatment.
> * * *''(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)
> may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to
> limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of
> treatment may include indications respecting, among other items-
> * ''(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse
> less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
> * ''(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or
> remaining at the current care setting;
> * ''(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
> * ''(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and
> hydration.''.
>
> Mark [Mark Schloneger, MD, PriMed Physicians, Family Practice Woodbury,
> 7211 N Main St, Dayton, Ohio]
>
> *>From Ellen: The following paragraph is from my daughter Dr Melissa
> Schloneger, Emergency Room physician at Good Samaritan Hospital.
>
> *>From Melissa (the Emergency Medicine doctor) - the sad part about this
> is that something that should be addressed and brought to everyone's
> attention and discussion has now been demonized into the term
> "euthanasia" when the real issue is how many people would be better
> served to know that medicine is unable to save them from death, and
> sometimes treatment is worse than the cure. *There is ZERO discussion
> of killing people or denying people care in the BILL - right now in
> medicine we have an issue with trying to save everyone, even when it is
> absolutely ridiculous.
>
> Example: *I have had to put people with end-stage cancer on ventilators
> because some of these discussions have not occurred ahead of time and
> there is no time for that discussion when you can't breathe. *You can
> bet that if I have a terminal condition, the last place that I want to
> die is the Emergency Department - I would rather have family and a
> peaceful setting like hospice.
>
> I am very angry that this has become demonized because I have this
> discussion every shift that I work because I have to know what people
> want when they get admitted to the hospital - do you really think that
> the first time that you have this discussion should be in the emergency
> department when you are getting admitted to the hospital for a life-
> threatening illness?
>
> I am soooo offended because I, like Hippocrates, vowed to do no harm,
> and also vowed to not assist any suicide. *This whole stream of lies
> makes me ill because now it makes it that much more frustrating and
> confusing to patients.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

thanks for this response.

it seems that whomever is driving this great assault against health
care reform
by spinning this end of life range of issues needs to be outed...big
time... it seems
a near majority are now supporting the disasterous status quo...on
this 'dont pull the
plug on granny' issue.


If there are last minute realizations and settlements to be made at
the end of life, those can be
made while the person is still coherent as I have experienced..the
person wearing
a blue do not rescucitate band on their wrist...these indeed may be
the most valuable
times in a persons life. (he said as he handed her a final coke a
cola..which
she releshed in silence,


Phil scott

Bob F
August 25th 09, 10:18 PM
phil scott wrote:

> The notion of end of life counseling is **supurb** imo... it just
> cannot be govt connected,

Which it is not. The only connection is that the doctor can get paid for his
time in talking to the patient and/or their family about these issues. The
"death panel" lies are nothing more than scare tatics.

Google