Just Hurry Up and Die, Will Ya?

From the US Veteran's Affairs Bureau, a booklet titled "Your life, your choices". The booklet is a publication which encourages disabled veterans to consider whether their life is really worth living, or wouldn't they and society be better off if they just refused care and just let themselves die. In its defense, they don't actually answer the question themselves, it's more of a push-poll.

The booklet was originally published in 1997, under the Clinton administration. It was suspended during the Bush administration, and was just restored to the VA website a couple of weeks ago.

I can think of two headlines:

"Democrats baffled at lack of ability to attract senior veteran vote..."

"Here's how we intened to control costs...."

:laugh4:

Uhm................

Am I reading a different link than you? Because, you know... what I'm reading looks an awful lot like instructions on making a living will... And those are quite handy, you know, and I'd say it's even more handy for a soldier to have...

Its a good move, where there is a legal standing concerning "living wills" people should be encouraged to make them.
So Don to you have a problem with people deciding they don't want to be kept as not quite dead yet, hooked up on a life support machine indefinately?

Read Page 12, where they discuss Mrs Chen, and heavily but indirectly editorialize that people with dementia should not be given feeding tubes.

I'm not opposed to living wills, I'm all for them. I'm upset with the tone of the pamphlet... "Rational people who care about society would choose to end treatment here, but you have to make your own choice" seems to be the gist of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Read Page 12, where they discuss Mrs Chen, and heavily but indirectly editorialize that people with dementia should not be given feeding tubes.

---

Uh...

That's reading a little too much into it, isn't it? The issue is sound; do you yourself want those tubes, or do you want to die instead? It's the basic question one has to consider when making a living will, and that's what this booklet is about, isn't it?

As for myself, I know I would like to die in that situation. Actually, much earlier than that. Same goes for my mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm not opposed to living wills, I'm all for them. I'm upset with the tone of the pamphlet... "Rational people who care about society would choose to end treatment here, but you have to make your own choice" seems to be the gist of it.

---

I certainly didn't get that impression from the pamphlet. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...

Btw, as this pamphlet was suspended during Bush, what pamphlet did he provide instead of this one to help people create a living will?

Quote:

---

Read Page 12, where they discuss Mrs Chen, and heavily but indirectly editorialize that people with dementia should not be given feeding tubes.

---

No they don't.
They say that the daughter with power of attorney would have to make that choice on her own judgement, with a living will her mother would have already made that choice for herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No they don't.
They say that the daughter with power of attorney would have to make that choice on her own judgement, with a living will her mother would have already made that choice for herself.

---

They didn't say she would have already made that decision. They're asking if the daughter should make that choice for her mother, in the absence of any knowledge of her mother's wishes.

Quote:

---

They didn't say she would have already made that decision.

---

Errrr...if she had made a living will then she would have ....thats the whole point of the publication Don:dizzy2:

They (and you, apparently) are assuming an editorial bias never evidenced.

They're saying that if she had a living will in place, the daughter would have clear grounds to pull from (or never insert) a feeding tube from/into the mother. Yet nowhere do they ever state that was the mother's wish in the first place, and it's their scenario.

You and they assume that pulling the feeding tube is the correct and only reasonable course of action, all that is required is for people to put together living wills.

I don't want a feeding tube inserted, but I made that choice on my own. If you or anybody else wants one, I wouldn't dream of denying it to you. Well, maybe you, but not anybody else... :laugh4:

To be honest, killing off the old people is probably the only way we are going to dig ourselves out of the current hole we reside in.

Pros:

• Reduced Social Security payments
• Reduced Medicare payments
• Increased tax revenue from estate taxes
• Population decline in Florida

Cons:

• Political suicide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

They (and you, apparently) are assuming an editorial bias never evidenced.

They're saying that if she had a living will in place, the daughter would have clear grounds to pull from (or never insert) a feeding tube from/into the mother. Yet nowhere do they ever state that was the mother's wish in the first place, and it's their scenario.

You and they assume that pulling the feeding tube is the correct and only reasonable course of action, all that is required is for people to put together living wills.

I don't want a feeding tube inserted, but I made that choice on my own. If you or anybody else wants one, I wouldn't dream of denying it to you. Well, maybe you, but not anybody else... :laugh4:

---

Uhm.

In the given scenario, where the mother doesn't have a living will, the daughter will have to make the choice on whether to insert the tubes or not. If she had a living will, the mother would've made the choice herself already. The section I highlighted in your post is just plain wrong. It's not about whether to tube or not to tube, it's about already having sorted the situation out or letting someone else make the hard choices for you while you yourself is incapable. You might want to live. Your daughter might think you wouldn't want to. Daughter makes the call, you die. With a living will, you live. That's the issue here.

Also, take a look at the question posed below the little story. The entire point of the story is to make you think. It's printed there to force you to think about hard choices. The story isn't about pulling some tubes or whatever, it's simply a story heavily biased to show that a living will is incredibly useful. And I have to say, such a bias is very acceptable.

You still haven't answered what the Bush administration's pamphlet was though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You still haven't answered what the Bush administration's pamphlet was though...

---

As far as I know, there wasn't one. Last time I checked, the Bush administration wasn't big on euthanasia and encouraging the elderly & disabled to follow the path of the noble eskimo and convincing them to go climb onto an ice flow, for the good of the tribe, so I'm not surprised.

I just skipped to the part about Lily Chen and I don't see what the problem is, either.

Quote:

---

Lily Chen, an elderly widow, was diagnosed 4 years ago with Alzheimer's disease, a common form of dementia. Over time she has gradually been losing her ability to think clearly and make decisions. Now she doesn't remember where she is and she can no longer recognize her daughter who visits her every day. For the last 8 months, she has been completely dependent on nurse's aides to bathe and feed her. Recently, she stopped eating altogether. Her daughter has power of attorney for health care and has to decide wether to have a long-term feeding tube surgically placed into her mother's stomach. The surgery is quick and won't cause much pain, but the real issue is guessing how Mrs. Chen would value her current life. If they place the feeding tube, Mrs. Chen could live for many more years in the same or worse condition. If they don't, she will die in about 2 weeks or less, and probably won't feel hungry or thirsty.

Questions to consider:

Do you think Mrs. Chen's daughter should decide about the feeding tube based on the fact that her mother isn't eating, or based on her mother's memory problems and dependence on others for care? Why?

---

I don't think this has an editorial bias at all.

It's confrontational, as it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As far as I know, there wasn't one. Last time I checked, the Bush administration wasn't big on euthanasia and encouraging the elderly & disabled to follow the path of the noble eskimo and convincing them to go climb onto an ice flow, for the good of the tribe, so I'm not surprised.

---

So.....

Basically, the Bush administration just closed their eyes and encouraged letting other people decide over whether you live or not? Yeah, that sounds just swell...

Look, Don. A living will isn't a document stating that you're to be killed when x happens. It's a document stating what you want to happen when x happens. The choice will be between living or dying. Someone will have to make that choice. Do you want to make it yourself, or do you want to place that burden on your relatives? If you want to live no matter what, and you want medical attention until you die, then you need that living will to make sure that nobody gets the wrong idea and thinks that ending treatment is the best thing to do.

X can happen. A choice will need to be made. No matter what. The only question, is who gets to make that choice. You. Or someone else.

Quote:

---

As far as I know, there wasn't one. Last time I checked, the Bush administration wasn't big on euthanasia and encouraging the elderly & disabled to follow the path of the noble eskimo and convincing them to go climb onto an ice flow, for the good of the tribe, so I'm not surprised.

---

As far as I know during the Bush years they let such cases drag through the courts because people who didn't have power of attorney where challenging those that did by claiming that they knew the person better.
As far as I know the party said it was campaining on the morals of an individual case while its people were circulating memos about maximising the political capital that can be made out of other peoples problems.

In the land of Elves and Fairies where everyone lives perfect lives sure, infinite care for all!!!!!...

Should the fit have preference to care over those with end stage dementia? I think so. The body just hasn't realised the person is dead. Else you are denying the living treatment merely to prolong the death of those with no quality of life.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

"Your life, your choices".

---

It can be a blessing to die.

I think it is unnatural to prolong a life with too artificial means. Modern medicine can prolong agony and misery almost indefinately. This is a problem that needs to be debated openly and frankly. Preferably, without partisanship or alarmist 'there's a democrat next to every veteran, hoping to pull the plug!'


I am very dissappointed that the Bush administration censored debate and witheld information about 'end of life' choices to the very people who need them: veterans and their families. To me, it really is 'their lives, their choices', and government should not interfere with these private matters out of its own religious or electoral agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

To me, it really is 'their lives, their choices', and government should not interfere with these private matters out of its own religious or electoral agenda.

---

Religion and votes have nothing to do with it. Keeping people alive despite their pain or capability to enjoy life means they can be milked for every last dime. Medical-Industrial Complex :yes:

Take it from someone who has walked that walk, planning ahead for that eventuality is the best & easiest way for one's family to deal with such an emotional situation. No one should have to put up with the three ring political circus that the Terry Schiavo case turned into.

The manual seems to present a reasonable range of considerations. It does make some unwarranted assumptions that could be construed as slanting the debate.

"...and probably won't feel hungry or thirsty." Oh? Apparently the author has some ability to reach beyond the veil for assertions like that.

With a little editing, it would be a very good manual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

The manual seems to present a reasonable range of considerations. It does make some unwarranted assumptions that could be construed as slanting the debate.

"...and probably won't feel hungry or thirsty." Oh? Apparently the author has some ability to reach beyond the veil for assertions like that.

With a little editing, it would be a very good manual.

---

They probably won't in end stage dementia.

~:smoking:

Sugar coating is one thing; making unsupported assertions in a manual is quite another.

I think most ppl faced with the reality of what their condition would be in end-stage dementia would say: "Gah! Just end it already"; no need to add fantasy.

post removed

I'd be greatly relieved if members showed due respect for other patrons, even if they hold opposing views.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

There is nothing controversial in the document, all it talks is about the freedom of choice. I am guessing to decide whether you want to live or die is too controversial to some people in itself and they want to make their choice for them. The only bias I see is the opening post, trying to invent issues, I would suspect the opening post probably copied and pasted their article from another article, saying this about it.

On an unrelated note: I support Euthanasia, anyway. It's the persons choice. I also support assisted-Euthanasia which is safe-guarded with medical experts and applied for in advance to authorities, and involves interview with a consular, making aware of other options and allowing them to decide whether or not it is the right way to go, and with the clause they can back-out at any time, even to the point the needle is inserted and they ask "Are you sure this is what you want?" before they press the syringe.

This is all about a persons choice for what they want. You either support any decisions they take, whether or not to continue living, or pass-away, or you are against allowing them to make their choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pamphlet

Her daughter has power of attorney for health care

---

It sounds as if Miss Lily already made her decision: she decided to not decide, but to let her daughter do so. Presumeably, with the daughter's consent.

Quote:

---

Do you think Mrs. Chen's daughter should decide about the feeding tube based on the fact that her mother isn't eating, or based on her mother's memory problems and dependence on others for care? Why?

---

That's the "leading" part; it gives only two options to the daughter for basing her decision upon. There might be any number of other factors for the daughter to consider: economic, religious, effect on the rest of the family, and so on.

I have no objections to end of life planning. Might surprise you all to learn that I have a will in place, and my standard for taking extraordinary means is actually higher than most. My objection to the document is based on its editorial slant, as opposed to the content and material presented, a valuable service indeed.

I cited one example, but read the others. In every case, they're assuming that termination is the correct course of action, and they're offering reasons why people should feel at ease with making that decision.

Put another way, I challenge any of you to identify where in the pamphlet they offer moral support for the decision to "fight for life at any cost", which, theoretically, should be an equally valid option, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Put another way, I challenge any of you to identify where in the pamphlet they offer moral support for the decision to "fight for life at any cost", which, theoretically, should be an equally valid option, no?

---

This is a pamphlet about a living will, so that's already covered. Living wills have absolutely nothing to do with termination. It's about what to choose when you're forced to make a choice.

You read this differently to everyone else, Don. I don't see anything to indicate that the writer has a bias for termination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is a pamphlet about a living will, so that's already covered. Living wills have absolutely nothing to do with termination. It's about what to choose when you're forced to make a choice.

You read this differently to everyone else, Don. I don't see anything to indicate that the writer has a bias for termination.

---

But that's my entire point. I object not to the information, but the way it's framed as its presented. The booklet is an endless series of anecdotes and "questions", designed to lead you to understand euthanasia is okay in case A, in case B, in case C. But what about the guy who doesn't want to be euthanized in case A, B or C? There's nothing in the booklet that supports that point of view, though this is put forward as "an objective look at end of life issues", but it's not. It's a defense of euthanasia, and if anything, hints strongly that it's the preferable course of action.

Again, for the record, I strongly believe in the Hemmingway plan. I just do NOT believe it's my right to make that decision for somebody else, or even sway somebody else to make the same decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But that's my entire point. I object not to the information, but the way it's framed as its presented. The booklet is an endless series of anecdotes and "questions", designed to lead you to understand euthanasia is okay in case A, in case B, in case C. But what about the guy who doesn't want to be euthanized in case A, B or C? There's nothing in the booklet that supports that point of view, though this is put forward as "an objective look at end of life issues", but it's not. It's a defense of euthanasia, and if anything, hints strongly that it's the preferable course of action.

Again, for the record, I strongly believe in the Hemmingway plan. I just do NOT believe it's my right to make that decision for somebody else, or even sway somebody else to make the same decision.

---

Not treating someone who will otherwise die is not euthenasia, it's treatment stoppage.

Is there anything in there about how it's ok to administer lethal morphine doses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not treating someone who will otherwise die is not euthenasia, it's treatment stoppage.

Is there anything in there about how it's ok to administer lethal morphine doses?

---

Do we really need to delove to semantics games? Would you really argue that a couple that refused to feed their 6 month-old child was "exercising their right to make a decision of quality of life for a loved one"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But that's my entire point. I object not to the information, but the way it's framed as its presented. The booklet is an endless series of anecdotes and "questions", designed to lead you to understand euthanasia is okay in case A, in case B, in case C. But what about the guy who doesn't want to be euthanized in case A, B or C? There's nothing in the booklet that supports that point of view, though this is put forward as "an objective look at end of life issues", but it's not. It's a defense of euthanasia, and if anything, hints strongly that it's the preferable course of action.

---

See, this is where we disagree. First of all, all I see it saying, is that stopping treatment is an option. An option that needs to be considered. How is that wrong? For or against, that remains a fact.

Secondly, I do not see any problem for a guy who doesn't want his treatment ended. Actually, the way I read this pamphlet, is that prolonging life is seen as the default choice, and that this pamphlet is about making you think about whether that's what you want or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

See, this is where we disagree. First of all, all I see it saying, is that stopping treatment is an option. An option that needs to be considered. How is that wrong? For or against, that remains a fact.

Secondly, I do not see any problem for a guy who doesn't want his treatment ended. Actually, the way I read this pamphlet, is that prolonging life is seen as the default choice, and that this pamphlet is about making you think about whether that's what you want or not.

---

You say tomayto and I say tomahto? Fair enough.

Before I drop it completely though, one last time for those of you that are confused and I think I'm arguing against end-life-care decision counseling, I'm not. I personally am not afraid to die, though I am terrified immensely of unnecessary and prolonged agony, or loss of identity (Alzheimer's runs frighteningly high in my family). I'm not certain I won't even be a bit proactive, given a Kobyashi Maru scenario.

However, I have made these considerations and I have made that choice. Who the hell am I to tell anybody else "well, if you weren't so selfish, you'd see that you should kill yourself, or at least deny feeding/treatment and let yourself die, but hey... you do what you want...", which is exactly how this pamphlet reads to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's a defense of euthanasia, and if anything, hints strongly that it's the preferable course of action.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Do we really need to delove to semantics games? Would you really argue that a couple that refused to feed their 6 month-old child was "exercising their right to make a decision of quality of life for a loved one"?

---

It's not semantics, there are very significant legal differences between refusal of medical treatment and euthanasia. I believe part of your problem with this document comes from a confusion between those two separate issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

It's not semantics, there are very significant legal differences between refusal of medical treatment and euthanasia. I believe part of your problem with this document comes from a confusion between those two separate issues.

---

Alright, let me turn the question on you. You're saying that denial of feeding is a form of withholding of medical treatment. So, let me ask you.... if a young couple decides not to feed an infant, are they not simply making a "quality of life, end of life care" decision on behalf of a loved one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Alright, let me turn the question on you. You're saying that denial of feeding is a form of withholding of medical treatment. So, let me ask you.... if a young couple decides not to feed an infant, are they not simply making a "quality of life, end of life care" decision on behalf of a loved one?

---

Let me help ya, Don:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

It's not semantics, there are very significant legal differences between refusal of medical treatment and euthanasia. I believe part of your problem with this document comes from a confusion between those two separate issues.

---

And your example isn't sound, Don. The infant hasn't stated whether he wants to be fed or not(let's say it's a quiet baby for a second...). So, we must guess whether he would want food or not. I'd say it's fairly certain that it wants food... As for the person with dementia, you also have to guess whether he/she wants to be kept alive artificially. With a living will, there's no need to guess, the persons wishes are crystal clear.

Hence the reason why having a living will is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Do we really need to delove to semantics games? Would you really argue that a couple that refused to feed their 6 month-old child was "exercising their right to make a decision of quality of life for a loved one"?

---

There's difference between a helpless child and a terminally ill pensioner. The baby can take food itself, the woman requires an operation.

In fact, if you offer the baby food it will take it, the woman not. So the baby can, however primatively, express an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Alright, let me turn the question on you. You're saying that denial of feeding is a form of withholding of medical treatment. So, let me ask you.... if a young couple decides not to feed an infant, are they not simply making a "quality of life, end of life care" decision on behalf of a loved one?

---

If we exclude juveniles from the equation, yes, refusal of feeding is a form of withholding medical treatment. The law in most states is pretty clear that no one can force another person to receive medical treatment, except in rare situations where they are found to be incompetent.

When minors are introduced to the equation, it's far more complex and there's no generally accepted rule on the situation (which, I suspect, is why you chose to focus on it). Current US state and federal law has not determined where the line is drawn on the issue of parental authority over medical decisions involving a minor. The law is clear that parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children in their role as guardian. However, child abuse is also illegal. Issues arise in borderline cases where the parents are making a medical decision that some people consider to be child abuse. I'm not going to pretend like I know what the right answer is to that hugely complex issue.

However, that's pretty much exclusively an issue involving minors. Since this pamphlet is specifically targeted at adults, the issues that are involved with the introduction of juveniles are irrelevant. So that I don't entirely dodge the question... in the example you give, it's a no-brainer. You're not talking about a medical situation, you're talking about starving a baby who is otherwise healthy. In that scenario, the parents go to jail and kid is put in a foster home, guaranteed. Give that kid terminal cancer and put them in a coma, and it's entirely different.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room is simple enough: 90% of your healthcare expenses will likely be incurred in the last six months of your life. As one nurse posted on another forum, how many times do you want to be resuscitated when it's obvious you will never breathe, eat or move again without mechanical assistance?

In this respect, living wills are a boon. I never, ever want to wind up in a Terry Schiavo situation, with different relatives bickering and dickering over what my "real" intentions are. As several posters have pointed out, a living will spells out your intent and saves everyone involved a lot of guesswork and freaking out.

And that living will can say whatever you like. If you want every option for keeping you around to be used, you can spell it out. It's hardly a one-way ticket to euthanasia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Alright, let me turn the question on you. You're saying that denial of feeding is a form of withholding of medical treatment. So, let me ask you.... if a young couple decides not to feed an infant, are they not simply making a "quality of life, end of life care" decision on behalf of a loved one?

---

Your example of the Democrats pushing an agenda of euthanasia was not euthanasia, and many disagreed with you that there was a bias towards choosing to allow someone to die naturally. The question is simply asked whether you know for sure whether or not the person in question wants extraordinary measures to stay alive, when a significant percentage of people would prefer not to have such measures if they were in a vegetable-like state or otherwise unable to speak for themselves.

The entire debate we're having here is that within a pamphlet asking serious questions that you agree need to be asked about living wills and end-of-life care, you consider the wording to be slightly biased, and based on that, Obama and the Democrats are trying to destroy veterans and the elderly to save a buck (yes, those same tax-and-spend Democrats who don't care about out of control spending :dizzy2: ). I apologize, but this is all hype and no substance in my opinion, and distracting from the larger issue. Come to think of it, scratch that, it's distracting from the issue. There is no issue of euthanasia here that I can see.

I see no bias whatsoever towards choosing termination over life, just a bias towards making sure people know what a person's wishes are. But you know what? Even if this were a government-sponsored screed against choosing life, courtesy of the Democrats and stamped with their approval, it would still be a legal point of view (one I would disagree with). I could point out examples of bias and government-sponsored discrimination that I find wholly offensive, such as discharging someone from their lifelong career, who has earned medals for their valor in combat, merely for preferring persons of their own gender. That would be something which is part of the platform of a certain political party, and there's plenty of reading material out there endorsing that point of view, up to and including the actual regulations of the military itself, thus making it mandatory. Nothing the Democrats have proposed about end of life decisions or planning has been mandatory, to my knowledge.

One is a very real outrage and injustice, the other is a suggestion to plan ahead about a choice you would have to make anyway. One is the very definition of injustice and intolerance and double-standards, (especially since it apparently does not bar you from performing any other kind of team-oriented and highly dangerous work) the other is a suggestion to decide how you want to handle a difficult situation before you're placed in that situation, akin to asking people to keep emergency numbers near their telephone but not even making it mandatory.

It's an outrage based on nothing at all in my opinion, but we are free to disagree. I don't think either side is making headway convincing one another. However, I want you to know I examined your evidence with an open mind, and listened to every point you made very carefully to see if I could possibly understand your point of view, even if I disagreed with end of life planning as a concept... under the circumstances I still cannot, sorry.

This final, above example I quoted from you seals it in my mind that there is nothing to this matter, we aren't discussing starving an infant. We're discussing that it is possibly a good idea, but not mandatory, to plan ahead for the eventual and inevitable conditions immediately preceding one's own death or the death of a loved one, and what measures, extraordinary or not, should be made to keep someone alive, in essence determining where the "do not resuscitate" order takes effect, or what treatments are refused or accepted. And yes, there may be a bias in how it is phrased, because as it stands, the DEFAULT condition is to accept treatment. Doctors and nurses are required, in the absence of orders to the contrary, to keep you alive no matter how painful or terrible your life may become, to the point of absurdity in my mind, but hey... we want to save your life, don't we? And unless you tell us not to, that's what we are obligated and compelled to do out of human compassion and respect for your life, whether we would want to exist under such circumstances or not. The BIAS is already towards choosing life in all circumstances, to err on the side of caution.

The entire point here is because (I won't say most people) a significant percentage of people would consider it to be absolutely awful to have to endure certain conditions and have already opted-out of extraordinary measures to sustain their life under certain circumstances which they have predetermined, and given that is a legitimate point of view and it is a personal matter no matter which way you'd prefer it to go, and sometimes people disagree on what they would want to happen to them, it is best to determine ahead of time what you want to happen, because someone else may choose differently for you.

Don't put a feeding tube in me, don't shove a vent down my throat, don't shove all kinds of IVs and tubes and bags in here or there, don't continue this treatment if the doctor concludes the condition is very much terminal, don't try experimental drugs, etc ; if patient reaches condition X (and they can define condition X all for themselves) and can no longer speak for themselves, what would they want? And yes, at the end of the day, a feeding tube is an intervention, which may be unwanted or uncomfortable, and an extraordinary measure to keep you alive that is wholly different from feeding an infant from a spoon or a bottle. Just like a being put on a machine that breathes for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The 800-pound gorilla in the room is simple enough: 90% of your healthcare expenses will likely be incurred in the last six months of your life. As one nurse posted on another forum, how many times do you want to be resuscitated when it's obvious you will never breathe, eat or move again without mechanical assistance?

In this respect, living wills are a boon. I never, ever want to wind up in a Terry Schiavo situation, with different relatives bickering and dickering over what my "real" intentions are. As several posters have pointed out, a living will spells out your intent and saves everyone involved a lot of guesswork and freaking out.

And that living will can say whatever you like. If you want every option for keeping you around to be used, you can spell it out. It's hardly a one-way ticket to euthanasia.

---

From my experience the decision for extrordinary measures to prolong life is the default option when the patient's wishes are not known. Living wills put control of that decision in the hands of the patient, where it belongs. This "death panel" scare mongering is complete :daisy:. Paying a doctor to explain/counsel/give guidance/information to help the patient decide what they feel is best for them and their loved ones. I see nothing wrong or unethical about that, and encourage everyone to talk with their loved ones about these issues and document them via a living will.