I think what that statement is saying is that state-sponsored euthanasia would not be the norm; rather, whomever wanted to end the life would have the burden of proving that everything other effort had been exhausted, and so it would the exception, not the norm. This is contrary to the argument that "state-sponsored euthanasia would be routine."

 

FWIW, I'm not really commenting on the whole death panel issue, just the misrepresentation of Dr. Emanuel's views.

 

Furthermore, I'm opposed to every single form of euthanasia (state-sponsored and individually).

 

Considering that Obama's health care plan carries the taxpayers NOW funding abortions, too. I wonder if the bolded would have been a similar mindset when Roe v Wade was first set down. And now the genocide that is occurring in this country would be shocking to those at this time.

 

I honestly believe that a country that thinks it is societally acceptable to abort over 3,000 babies A DAY would have not problem doing what Palin has set forth.

 

If we as a country are willing to accept the mass killing of unborn babies on a daily basis, we do not have a country built on strong morals, ethics or values.

 

I honestly believe that a country that thinks it is societally acceptable to abort over 3,000 babies A DAY would have not problem doing what Palin has set forth.

 

If we as a country are willing to accept the mass killing of unborn babies on a daily basis, we do not have a country built on strong morals, ethics or values.

 

:thumb: No doubt. I was reading a "piece" in Time or Newsweek interviewing an All-Star cast including Paul Krugman and Michael Moore. Moore stated that 65 people a day die from having no healthcare insurance, and, while I sympathize, that number is dwarfed consider that at least 65 deaths through abortion happen every 45 minutes.

Considering that Obama's health care plan carries the taxpayers NOW funding abortions, too. I wonder if the bolded would have been a similar mindset when Roe v Wade was first set down. And now the genocide that is occurring in this country would be shocking to those at this time.

 

I honestly believe that a country that thinks it is societally acceptable to abort over 3,000 babies A DAY would have not problem doing what Palin has set forth.

 

If we as a country are willing to accept the mass killing of unborn babies on a daily basis, we do not have a country built on strong morals, ethics or values.

Euthanasia and abortion are separate issues.

Euthanasia and abortion are separate issues.

To a person such as myself who considers abortion murder, euthanasia dwarfs in comparison (due to numbers and other ethical considerations).

Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?

 

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.

 

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

 

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

 

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

 

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

 

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

 

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

 

Republican Senator Johnny Isakson

Republican Senator Johnny Isakson

 

Clearly he's a RINO. If I'm not mistaken, the three core values of the Republican party are earmarks, being the party of morals yet having multiple affairs with foreign women and young boys, and unconditional support for the death panel concept.

 

I think what that statement is saying is that state-sponsored euthanasia would not be the norm; rather, whomever wanted to end the life would have the burden of proving that everything other effort had been exhausted, and so it would the exception, not the norm. This is contrary to the argument that "state-sponsored euthanasia would be routine."

 

FWIW, I'm not really commenting on the whole death panel issue, just the misrepresentation of Dr. Emanuel's views.

 

Furthermore, I'm opposed to every single form of euthanasia (state-sponsored and individually).

You're a bad libertarian!

Clearly he's a RINO. If I'm not mistaken, the three core values of the Republican party are earmarks, being the party of morals yet having multiple affairs with foreign women and young boys, and unconditional support for the death panel concept.

 

Only the bad apples ... :lol:

Clearly he's a RINO. If I'm not mistaken, the three core values of the Republican party are earmarks, being the party of morals yet having multiple affairs with foreign women and young boys, and unconditional support for the death panel concept.

 

 

:lol:

Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....

To me, this is scary as hell. It sounds just a half a step shy of a return to eugenic philosophies.

 

 

 

Phillip Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death.

 

- Adolph Hitler (In signing his "Action T4" decree, September, 1939)

Euthanasia and abortion are separate issues.

 

Not in my mind. If you are heartless to an unborn child and say they deserve no protection, it is a small leap to say the same thing about someone that is at the end of their life and medical knowledge cannot save them.

To me, this is scary as hell. It sounds just a half a step shy of a return to eugenic philosophies.

 

 

 

Phillip Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death.

 

- Adolph Hitler (In signing his "Action T4" decree, September, 1939)

 

What is that?

What is that?

It was a belief that people judged to be genetically inferior or a burden on the state, for any number of reasons (disability, I.Q., race, or whatever), should be sterilized and/or euthanized for the good of the state. Hitler made it a state policy in 1939 with the Action T4 Decree. It set the stage for the Mengele experiments and the murder of over 275,000 people.

Let me quote my great uncle from Lee County.

 

Anyone that uses anything written or said by someone like Sarah Palin who has not shown a great capacity to grasp complicated issues is , as he would say, "a darn fool."

 

She uses Eugene Robinson's quote but leaves out an important part ie the part that criticizes people like her.

 

It's irresponsible for politicians, such as Sarah Palin, to claim -- outlandishly and falsely -- that there's going to be some kind of "death panel" to decide when to pull the plug on Aunt Sylvia.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html

 

However, she was ultimately successful in her goal. The House has removed the counseling that this bill contained. All doctors have this conversation today. The only change I see is that they now get paid for it.

 

If you quote Palin without doing research you're a fool.

It was a belief that people judged to be genetically inferior or a burden on the state, for any number of reasons (disability, I.Q., race, or whatever), should be sterilized and/or euthanized for the good of the state. Hitler made it a state policy in 1939 with the Action T4 Decree. It set the stage for the Mengele experiments and the murder of over 275,000 people.

 

While Hitler took it to the unfortunate extreme, the Nazi regime can't be given full credit. Experiments in cranial size and that sort of thing were wildly popular in the US and Europe more than a half a century prior. Woodrow Wilson was a big supporter of compulsory sterilization in the cases of some mental patients, and some eugenics laws relating to compulsory sterilization were still on the books in the US as late as the '50s.