Will it solve you, Yeal, in your ledger domain?

Or ab-solve?

Bottom line: Morphine solves most of the issues.

"Sin, sickness, and our failing bodies are part of this fallen world.
That said, this believer understands that people should have control over their end of life decisions when there is little to no hope.
I don't think Susan added to this conversation by attempting to point out what a few in the religious right did. Most if asked honestly would side with giving people the choice when the end of life decision time comes."
Posted by: Counterww

Counterww, I understand your feelings, however I don't feel you fully understand the passions of many, if not most of your fellow conservative Christians on end of life issues.

I well remember the Schiavo case. It was conservative Christians picketing outside the hospice, demanding a brain-dead woman be fed through a tube to keep her breathing. It was conservative Christians who lobbied against the assisted suicide laws passed recently in Oregon and Washington. It was conservative Christians who painted a reasonable idea in the health-care reform act permitting Medicare payment for end-of-life counseling as 'death panels.'

You may respect the rights of others to decide the ending of their lives according to their own beliefs, but many conservative Christians seem not to. This, frankly, is one of the reasons I have a great deal of difficulty trusting conservative Christians in power. Some seem to have a great deal of difficulty differentiating between what they, personally, believe is moral, and what they want to see enforced in law.

I'm pleased to see in this case, you don't. Just out of curiosity, do you have the same libertarian views regarding the laws concerning gay relationships? That's another one of my problems regarding conservative Christianity. I understand the Christian belief in sin. I just don't get why conservative Christians want laws restricting this one 'sin.'

I believe that people can follow whatever beliefs they feel are true, but they only have the right to restrict the actions of others based on proof that those actions will cause harm to others. Progressives used to seem the most restrictive of personal liberty, but I feel that conservatives left them in the dust years ago, mostly due to the growing influence of Christianity in the conservative movement in the last 30 years. Your view?

Thank you Susan for bringing this topic into discussion. I wonder how much of our shared national medical expenses are used to keep un-recoverable patients barely alive for a few weeks or months or even days at HUGE expense that we ALL pay for via insurance pools or Medicare? Follow the money. Is there an incentive for hsopitals, doctors, pharmaceuticals etc. to keep these patients alive as revenue streams? Whare are the economics of this issue? Are dying patients being "used" to balanace the books?

Hi Counterww,

I don't quite understand why you're upset with Susan on this. What she says is true. I recall the controversy quite well. What exactly are you taking issue with?

Frankly, I'd like to see a column on the barbaric conditions operating in some hospitals, but I suppose that has nothing to do with religion. ?

ONOFRIO

I stated the truth, and you just don't have a real answer and did not even read the post. my post.

I have seen what happens to old people and it is not a fun thing to watch. This has NOTHING to do with who believes or not but what our system does with old people and how end of life decisions are made. How the so called religious right gets involved in politics at any level has nothing to do this, and by the way, it is their first amendment right to do that if they want.

SIn, sickness, and our failing bodies are part of this fallen world.

That said, this believer understands that people should have control over their end of life decisions when there is little to no hope.

I don't think Susan added to this conversation by attempting to point out what a few in the religious right did. Most if asked honestly would side with giving people the choice when the end of life decision time comes.

This is a very important and touchy subject and it really does not have anything to do with whether you believe or not - we all want to be treated humanely and ethically when this time comes, and it is a very delicate balance .

Counterww writes,

Susan uses this as an excuse, as a radical atheist, to attempt to demonize those that believe in God and somehow we are responsible for suffering of those that are coming to end of life decisions."
...
"I am disappointed in Susan's politicizing this and attempting to blame the religious right."

Yeah, Susan; leave the Religious Right alone! When did they ever politicise anything? Or demonise anyone? Or dish out blame?

(What's that racket? Sounds like those log-eyed folks are at it again, throwing black pots and kettles in their glass houses...)

Susan uses this as an excuse, as a radical atheist, to attempt to demonize those that believe in God and somehow we are responsible for suffering of those that are coming to end of life decisions.

The issue is not the belief in God and how it relates to those decisions, it is educating people on what THEY want when the end of life occurs in numbing pain where there is little to no hope in beating the disease that has taken over, or that your body is just too old, or the mind is demented etc etc.

I have experienced this with a loved one , the mother of my wife. All I can say is that it comes down to making these decisions you have to plan them before you become incapacitated as the laws, hospitals, and institutions just don't always follow through even when your intent in a written document is plain .

I am disappointed in Susan's politicizing this and attempting to blame the religious right. Being a believer I can tell you she is mistaken and obviously does not get out to talk to believers about this topic.

Susan,

Thank Non, you've returned. The bottom line is how to get these God-forsaken religionists out of Congress, the Court, the presidency.

Couldn't they go to my country, Iran? Or, perhaps, Saudi Arabia, whose Constitutions (such as they are) synchronize with their agendas?

The Constitution is supposed to protect me from Christians dominating my reproductive choices and death, is it not?

Can one get them out of one's bedroom and bar them from one's hospice?

"...common sense tells you that if you have a cancerous tumor in your brain and cancer in your bones at such an advanced age, it makes sense to spend your remaining time saying good-bye to the people you love instead of injecting more nausea-inducing poison into your body in an effort to live an extra week or month."

After my mother died in a wonderful hospice facility, I spent a couple of years volunteering in that facility. I saw many, many people die just as Susan describes above, with their families and friends around them. I also saw many people who had no family or friends but who were able to die as though they did because hospice care gave them love and respect in addition to painkillers and great food.

One of the most moving things I experienced while working there was the amazement on the faces of visitors who would look around the beautiful facility and say, "Wow, I'd love to be able to afford this when my time comes...," at which point I'd explain that everyone was welcome because Medicare would pay for those who couldn't afford the cost.

Quite simply, it is phenomenally cheaper to maintain a dying patient comfortably in a hospice facility than it is to keep the same patient in a hospital bed. This is fiscal sanity that the tea baggers should understand.

Furthermore, for all their raving about a "nanny-state" making all the big decisions for citizens, they can't fathom a scenario in which we let people decide for themselves how much or how little treatment they want or how they want to die.

That hospice and palliative care options exist for people but aren't routinely discussed by their doctors is criminal. The medical profession doesn't like to acknowledge "failure," and for many oncologists, pulmonologists, cardiologists, etc., death constitutes failure of treatment. This kind of absurdity then contributes to the reluctance of patients and their families to try and discuss palliative care as a viable option.

Americans -- the dying and their caregivers alike -- are hungry for information about death: what to expect, how to manage pain, what to talk about with the dying person (or, if you're the dying person, how to talk about death with your loved ones). Yet the religious right slaps down those medical professionals who would relieve the sick and dying of their anxiety simply by talking with them.

Everyone dies. Most people are not lucky enough to have death come quickly or while they're asleep. So dying is a critically important discussion that everyone needs to have with their physicians and potential caregivers.

Yet, by minimizing the options, the tea baggers are guaranteeing that terminally ill patients will be able to continue suffering right up until the last treatment has failed. After all, it's their right as Americans to live their lives to the last drop. They're entitled to those last weeks or months of agony and misery, and, by God, the Tea Party will make sure they get what they are owed.

Hmmm, an enumeration of provisions that can be spoken about in a consultation. How much more government can you ask for?

Sounds like bureaucracy meets special interests in an effort to find a way to charge different rates for different "services".

Obama was right to remove it in order to remove government interference with doctor and patient discourse.

Old people go to doctors a lot. Yearly at least and more when something happens. At each of these events, consultation happens, prognoses are prognosticated and questions asked. To force doctors to account for the free speech that they engage in with their patience and stuff it into government-approved categories for state-approved compensation is ridiculous.

Thank you president Obama. One minor win for the future.

Speaking of WTF:

From my experience with dying family, pneumonia is the killer that upsets all end of life plans. In a nursing home, they're ill-prepared to handle the curse of pneumonia and make the patient comfortable. Next step is the hospital.

Cancer, piece of cake, home hospice situation. Administer meds, say goodbye and wait. 1-2-3.

Pneumonia, you need antibiotic drips, fever reducers, and isolation to prevent spreading. i.e. more skilled care and resources. This kind of care needs to be available outside the hospital. And simply must accessible in nursing homes. I also suspect that part of the reason residents are shipped to hospitals is the "score" of how many die at the home.

There is going to be a burgeoning market for medical services and the service industry is hamstrung or paralyzed by the current and coming healthcare "systems".

It can't be this hard to figure out. Lack of competition, price-gouging, incompetence aren't addressed by any proposal out there.

Obama is right, it's time for all sides to pony up ideas that open up the bottleneck we've imposed upon ourselves.

Several posters have mentioned the wonderful end of life care given by hospice, and, indeed, it is extraordinary. One problem that arises frequently, though, is the physician's reluctance to make a referral until the very last minute. Hospice is most effective when given sufficient time to get to know the patient and loved ones and to make seamless care arrangements. When the physician waits until the patient is actively dying, all hospice can do then is provide pain medicine. It is often up to the individual or family to suggest hospice, as the physician is heavily invested in ongoing treatment. As a former hospice nurse, I can attest to the fact that many doctors are indeed not only very uncomfortable with death and dying issues, they are frequently unfamiliar with the signs of impending death, and overestimate the patient's life expectancy, sometimes by many months or even years. In hospice, the focus shifts from hope for a cure to hope for comfort, a distinct shift from the medical model, and often unknown territory for MD's. Then, too, there are sometimes blatant control issues.
So, the bottom line is that patients and their families are ultimately responsible for their own lives and decisions. It is wise, as noted in the article, to put any instructions in writing, TODAY, and give copies to any potential caregivers. Make your wishes known.

Thank You Sasan for taking an issue straight on. For all Christians out there read the bible... literally and while your at it the constitution I'll know if you did because if you don't... You'll argue with me.

This death panel business illustrates an unfortunate truth:

For politicians in general and conservatives in particular, controlling the terms of a debate (often to generate and capitalize on fear) is more important than being reasonable or correct. Why win a debate when you can scare people by suggesting that the government is going to kill them to save money?

I know this isn't the point of the article, but I come from a family of good genes, and never had to watch a non-smoking relative die without dignity or before 83.

The President really had to delete the consultation provision to keep that distraction out of debate. There are too many serious issues about constitutionality and severability, wildly differing budget projections, and concerns whether promises about recission and illegals getting benefits will come true, that end-of-counseling needs to be detail issue set aside for later.

That said, the cost of dying is a very important part of the budgetary discussion along with the moral issues.

Susan,

"Who decides when medicine prolongs dying, not living?"

Ideally, the person who is dying, with the aid of whoever that person seeks for assistance.

Also, ideally, the person who is dying has the right to decide to hasten his/her death, with the aid of whoever that person seeks for assistance, and to implement whatever is necessary to humanely hasten his/her death.

My dad died two days ago of pulmonary fibrosis. That means that there is scar tissue in the lungs and there is no cure or hope for imporvement. After a bout with pneumonia a few weeks ago he decided that he did not want to fight for every breath anymore. He refused all meds and treatments at the hospital and ended up in a nursing home. He then refused all food and water. He wanted so much to be "put down" and have his suffering ended. He said that he would have never let any of his pets suffer the way that he was suffering. It was a long, slow, painful death for him. I wish, too, that the family did not have to watch all this suffering. Other that starving one's self to death, I wish there could be a more humane, comfortable, and acceptable way to come to the end of one's life.
P.S. He never smoked a day in his life. The lung disease may have been from years of breathing asbesto when he was in the Navy years ago.

Good for you and thank you, Ms. Jacoby.

My father died at home, electing to have no further chemo or radiation when cancer returned; treatment promised a few months of misery. We had Hospice help - a wonderful organization who brought help and peace to my father's leaving and our staying. My mother told my sister and I how far she wanted "extending life" care to go. Being Catholic, she wanted cured what could be cured, or even tried. But, she did not want feeding tubes or oxygen masks when that was what was required to live on and on and on, with no real cure for whatever her final disease was. She had alzheimer's disease and knew it, but hoped her heart would give out first. It didn't - she lived to her early 90's.

If you live in Georgia, you can get information about planning for end-of-life care and designating an agent for health care by going to www.critical-conditions.org. This organization has a booklet available in lots of places across Georgia. It is free to Georgians but costs $15 for non-state residents.

A dear friend of mine recently passed away - we lost him to cancer. He had taken chemo years before, gone into remission, and it returned. When it did, the doctors told him that more chemo would add, at most a few months to his life, and that during those few months, he would have three to four days of feeling like hell for every day he had of feeling decent. He decided that it wasn't a good enough trade-off, and opted for a hospice team and palliative care at home. He died in his sleep, in his own bed, with his beloved dogs beside him, about a month later.

End of life issues are difficult for everyone. When is hope gone? When do medical procedures become a matter of preserving the flesh only? These problems are exacerbated more by poor communication within families and avoidance of end of life issues than they are about obstructionist religions.

There is also a strange cultural bias against accepting death gracefully. It is seen as "giving up" and kin are cast as greedy potential inheritors if they do not authorize all sorts of medical interventions. The best solutions to these problems are personal and not institutional. Face end of life decisions head on and talk about your decisions to your family, all of them. Put your wishes in writing. Put the power of medical decisions into someone you trust to carry out your desires. Don't leave it to the state or the hospital. Hospitals fail safe position is often one of doing everything to ward off legal assault.

Gee, Susan, couldn't you have made your return a little less of a downer?