Just Hurry Up and Die, Will Ya?

[Askthepizzaguy]

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 ). 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.