Some day, if we're lucky, we'll all be elderly. A few have suggested I might already be there. And, actually, they may have a point, because I felt a little uncomfortable listening to the president, Wednesday, as he discussed the nation's health care at a town-meeting-type gathering at the White House.
It all sounded good. One way to cut medical costs, the president suggested, would be to stop trying to prolong the lives of people who are considered terminal. What concerned me about this, however, was the possibility that such thinking could become a foot in the door - a first step in the direction of a mindset that might have severe consequences for our aging baby boomers.
Sure, in the beginning, such a policy might be said to apply only to "people who are about to die." I've noticed, however, that most things tend to evolve. They rarely remain unchanged.
And the economic environment, looking down the road, does not appear to be very expense-friendly - or elderly-friendly. With a mounting federal debt and government interest payments threatening to eventually eclipse even the military budget, not to mention the looming travails of Medicare and Social Security, the need to cut healthcare costs is only likely to increase over time, and substantially so.
Also, I have to admit that I'm somewhat influenced by what I saw to the north, in the Canadian healthcare system. I'm not talking about socialized medicine, at least not directly. I'm talking about a mindset that I believe exists, at least in the Province of Nova Scotia, and at least in the case of my father's treatment. That mindset involved the thinking that, at a certain age, life should not be further preserved, regardless of the circumstances.
I think my father ran into that mindset. He retired from his career in Boston in 1959 and spent his remaining years primarily in Nova Scotia where he had grown up. Into his early nineties he was robust and healthy, apparently on his way to 100. Nevertheless, a flu-like cold put him in the hospital at the age of 94. He quickly recovered, but a nurse failed to raise the side of his bed and he fell out and broke his hip, after which I paid him a visit.
He was mending well from that event when a hospital worker inadvertently threw out his false teeth, and here's where he ran into the mindset, although, at the time, I failed to realize it. I was told the teeth would be available soon and it appeared from his condition that he would be out of the hospital in two to three weeks so I returned to California.
However, someone, somewhere up the healthcare chain decided the new teeth were an "unnecessary expense," undoubtedly because of his age. I made repeated telephone inquiries from California, but was completely stymied by the reply that they were on the way. And, of course, they weren't.
As he didn't like the drink the hospital provided him, I'm convinced that the absence of solid food contributed to his death about a month later.
One could wonder if a mindset such as this is prevalent throughout Canada, or if this was just an unusual situation? I don't know. Perhaps one of our Canadian Gatherers can answer that.
The real question, however, is this: Would what the president suggested this week eventually lead to some sort of age-cap thinking within our own healthcare system?
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Friday, to Gather Essential News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will often appear on other days of the week.
Dave has been a senior officer of an eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development.
You can find all of Dave's "the contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian. Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network at: http://atadaskew.gather.com. You'll find Dave and other News correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of news experts at: news.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 61
"The real question, however, is this: Would what the president suggested this week eventually lead to some sort of age-cap thinking within our own healthcare system?"
Kinda like now? My father went thru that at the age of 95. The nurse stood there and told me that if he couldn't ask for pain medicine (he was old, weak, deaf and nearly blind.. not to mention just a tad confused), he didn't need it. The fact that he was lying there weeping and whispering, "It hurts - it hurts." didn't faze her at all. She sid he'd had a good life and we should let him die if he wanted to. I asked when he'd told her he wanted to die. Her response was, "Well, not directly, but I've had a lot of experience, and I can tell." I had to get the nurse supervisor to explain to the silly twit that she'd have to exercize her mind-reading skills elsewhere, and give him his charted pain meds.
All this happened in Ohio, which, although it borders Canada is not, I'm pretty sure, a province thereof.
It can and does happen. This is why close family is so important. Current insurance practices usually do not deny pain meds - but often deny many types of treatments several times before covering the cost and I am refering to asthma medications here.
I was unaware of this, and probably a VERY GOOD thing that I remained so until now. A truly EXCELLENT turn of events for THAT particular nurse.
Ga-a-a-a-ah... Youweren't to know. I got so aggravated by this post, I forgot you'd be reading this. Sorry, Kid.
Oh man, I would have had that witch's job! Any nurse worth her salt knows, that even those who cannot say "It hurts" can have pain, and know the non-verbal signs of pain. To say that he didn't need pain meds because of his age or ihis diagnosis is beyond horrible, it is gross negligence and dereliction of duty. Remember, we all take the "Nightengale Pledge":
I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly, to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession, and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician, in his work, and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.
In many ways, the way our medical fields are done, both of you talk of the "extremes". Twenty years ago, terminal patients were not given pain meds any differently than acute patients....the worries about addiction, etc. Now, if I'm dying I want my pain meds! Although that idea has changed in recent times(and larger cities), the nurse Chuck was trying not to strangle, probably came from that school of thought. On the other hand, I've heard similar stories in Canada, although much fewer than I've heard good treatment at any age.
On the "age cap"; guess it would have to be worked out...would this mean that if you went in at 94 and broke a toe, they wouldn't treat it? I don't think so, but if diagnosed with a terminal disease, at the end, could the doctor(or more probably a team of medical practioners, hospice, clergy if you want) order a DNR instead of having to prolong a person's pain? I would hope so.
I'm 71. When I was in the hospital with MRSA back in October and Novenber (2 1/2 months) my son came up from Texas. The doctor in Bozeman shook his head no when my Son asked if I was going to be okay. They expected me to die, later the expected me to loose my leg. The hospital in Sheridan didn't believe it so helped me recover. One of the nurses in Sheridan limited my pain medication severly and let it completely quit working before he would give me more. I still don' t know why. I would be hurting for about an hour before I could harass him into giving me more meds. It took another hour for the Codine to take effect. Eventually my doctor told him to give me my meds whan I asked for them.
My point being. If I was under Obamacare would I get my meds and would I still be alive? That pain was so bad I strained my voice and now sound slightly horse. I'll never forget that experience. It would be a horrable death.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience.
And rationed care doesn't happen now?
It hasn't happened to me yet.
I'm sorry about your father, Dave. I do think we have to worry about both the elderly and disabled in this country. From what I've gathered, didn't Tom Daschle help design the original Obama health care plan? If so, and if it still contains elements from Daschle's plan, then we have reason to worry. He thought too much money went to the disabled and elderly.
Euthanasia has long been controverial. I believe the a terminal pateint should be able to request assisted suicide help.
But what about situations like the Florida nursing home patient Terri Schaivo? At least she was kept pain free.
Anyone besides me found it odd that when it came to insurance money she was kept alive but when it took 'too' long and became an inconvient incumbent her disposal was requested?
> Anyone besides me found it odd that when it came to insurance money she was kept alive but when it took 'too' long and became an inconvient incumbent her disposal was requested?
The Terri Schiavo case was a mass media spectacle and then some.
It's hard enough for any group of people to make decisions like this one.
It's not made easier when surrounded by TV camera crews and others playing this event for all it was worth.
Harder still when offers of tens of thousands of dollars are made to assassinate some of the key players.
Near impossible when a caller threatens to occupy a nearby elementary school and start killing children if you don't comply with THEIR beliefs.
I am not surprised that Obama would talk like this. It does open a door for a lot of options a Dr. can use to their own advantage. What will they do with people that are in a coma just automatically pull they plug.? People have come back from comas after years and been healthy.
They want to legislate who lives and dies, the GOP should suck this one right up and i'm sure it goes along with the thinking by the GOP leader Limbaugh.
Now all I need to do is wait to hear from the politically correct on this lol, duh.
There is no original plan left. The gop have seen to that. We will still be dependent on private for profit insurance companies to make the decisions and cough up the dough or do without. What exactly does it take to vote the bums out of office?????
What exactly has the GOP done to see to it Sandy? Oh I know they believe in the free enterprise system that made this country great. They don't like Socialism being sold to us as a way to "help". Help is not the object in Obama's health plan. Government control is the goal.
How do you vote them out Sandy when one party is as bad as the other?
Obama's transparency leaves a lot to be desired.
Col. George, I'm glad you believe so strongly in the free enterprise system. But I think your faith may be misplaced. Insurance companies are exclusively about their bottom line, regardless of the circumstances. A girl I know was on suicide watch in a local psychiatric unit; when the insurance ran out, she "got better". They didn't want to treat her anymore unless they got paid. So much for the Hipocratic Oath.
Doctors love old people... they can order so much done to them. Insurance companies on the other hand, do not because they cost money that is better spent on CEO bonuses.
Hi Dave ~ I did not SEE the Town Hall type meeting that this Article is referring to, but one thing in your Article made my eyebrows raise . . .
"It all sounded good. One way to cut medical costs, the president suggested, would be to stop trying to prolong the lives of people who are considered terminal. What concerned me about this, however, was the possibility that such thinking could become a foot in the door - a first step in the direction of a mindset that might have severe consequences for our aging baby boomers." ~ Dave McGill
I'd have to actually hear the way he said the above, but this sounds to be like "killing" people. Which, by the way, I believe has been happening for a long time already.
Going to the next comment box to continue . . . I'm still reading . . .
Okay Dave ~ I've finished reading your EXCELLENT Article. What happened to your father happens to so many ~ even those much younger than your father. I've witnessed so many go into the Hospital and never come out from illnesses that should not cause immediate death.
I'm sorry to hear about your father. Your story leads me to this question . . .
Are the medical workers (Doctors and Nurses) turning into Murderers? I've long since came to that conclusion. Better to bear the pain of whatever is ailing you than to go into a Hospital for care these days.
~ just my thoughts.
Especially in a government run hospital like the VA hospitals
Most people do not realise that our wounded troops have to sign a release form so the VA can use experimental drugs on them.
Free guinea pigs.
Col. George W. and Jack E. ~ I'm glad that you both added more input on this topic. Both of you are so RIGHT in your thoughts. I do agree with you both. The MILITARY has never been out for the preservation of LIFE.
WE are in the midst of HOMELESS VETS, JOBLESS VETS, WOUNDED VETS, ABANDONED VETS, not to mention VETS that never made it back ~ and all of the promises that were made to them when they joined the MILITARY are not being kept. How TRAGIC. It is a LESSON. If no one joins up, no one gets in the midst of battles that will never be won. Not today ~ not EVER.
We have substantive differences now, among the states. It would be difficult to figure out how many older people move to Oregon because we have a Death With Dignity Act, but it likely happens, particularly among medical personnel who understand there can be risk from inadequate pain medication. On the other hand, we also have risk from over-medication and inappropriate medication in general. We need non-government clearing houses for information.
Both governments and universities can be influenced by interest groups with values I would not agree with. I would check many sources before going with a therapy for a particular thing. One plan won't work for everybody in this country because what you believe and how you live have so much to do with health outcomes. Some people want to tell their doctor to give them every medication they see on TV. Others wouldn't want such a thing near them because it was on TV.
My neighbor, who is a dentist, says people often don't want to take anti-biotics any more. They tell her they will get by with herbs, and some people say the same thing about pain medications.
Some doctors are refusing to continue to prescribe mood medications with life-threatening side effects for particular patients. The patients could likely get the medications from a different doctor, but sometimes they appreciate what the doctor has said and want to taper down to get rid of the side effects. I believe some non-profit plans have enough bricks and boards and other resources that they could become a public option fairly easily, especially if they coordinated with Veterans and other facilities that are already sort of public. I also think it more likely that a non-profit would be less subject to pressure from big suppliers like pharmaceutical companies. I also believe most private providers of care do their own outcomes research, partly because their capital is on the line if they are sued.
A scary challenge for people with public care is that the government is that accountability in government is pretty tough to pin down or to publicize. In addition, government can exempt itself, through legislation, from responsibility for damages.
Exempting itself is tougher for local government, I think, than it is for the federal government. If a local government hurts somebody, the body is still there, and they have to deal with it, especially if it's been in the news. For this reason, the states should come up with plans. If you visit a state and get sick, your state could pay, but you will probably be treated with the rules from that state. So, you could have death with dignity in Oregon, but not in other places. It's complicated.
"He was mending well from that event when a hospital worker inadvertently threw out his false teeth,..."
Same thing happened to my father and eventually to a similar outcome, in Pennsylvania.
"A scary challenge for people with public care is that the government is that accountability in government is pretty tough to pin down ..."
There is a huge difference between a public insurance plan and public health care as you describe it. Most large cities have public hospitals but I haven't seen where the doctors that work in them are any less likely to get sued.
My parents, being in medicine themselves, foresaw this day more than 40 years ago. They were against the death penalty but were Pro Choice. They foresaw the day when the death penalty would lead to euthanasia and mercy killing across the board.
How exactly do you get from the death penalty (which I do NOT support) to euthanasia. Unless you mean simple desentization to the idea. Assisted suicide should be a right, I think. We should not be so afraid of the slippery slope that we opt for eternal suffering while raking in the money. It's terrible to bankrupt the living to support the undead and is the last thing most terminally ill want. Thus we have living wills and health care directives to state what our values are on this subject, so no one has to guess at them.
They believed in keeping people alive at all costs becuase you don't know when someone WILL recover from a coma. But that is before brain dead and life support as we know it became an issue.
But I dont like the current direction of assisted suicide and all that.
I apologize that my paragraph about accountability was garbled. The story behind the comment is of a person disabled by over-medication. A caregiver looked the patient's medication up and found that it should not have been taken for more than 6 months. The patient had been on it for more than 15 years and could no longer walk without assistance. The doctor did not want to rock the boat. The caregiver said she could not refuse to give it, but the patient, on public assistance, could refuse to take it. Caregiver and patient carefully reduced the dose and logged the process until the patient was off. The patient improved in all health measurements and was able to move out of foster care into independence. The caregiver, on the bottom of the chain, had accountability for the patient's health. What about accountability for disability, for the huge cost over those years to that patient and to the system? People who do not have family or, eventually, compassionate caregivers, are in trouble, and so is the system. When I tell this story, responsible people in the field look down and shake their heads. They know this goes on. And that's before we get to a discussion of end-of-life, where accountability tends to run into huge issues of culture and other kinds of clashes. Our present system is supposed to have auditors who look into whether medications are appropriate. In general, it does not happen. To put more money and persons into a system like this does not seem wise to me.
Having experience with my own father's cancer and hospitalization, I can say that what every patient needs most is their own advocate (family member or other loved one) to fight on their behalf. They lost my father's false teeth while he was in the oncology department, but the hospital did replace them. However, there were many times when I would have to request things of the nurses or doctors treating him. One morning, for example, I came to his room and discovered discarded syringes on his bed. Without a vocal watch dog, patient care is likely to suffer.
Come on Dave, in the second paragraph you speculate ... no, fantasize on what Obama was saying to drum up fears of euthanasia ... come on.
The story of your Dad is a powerful one. This is one of the ways that having a wealthy or determined family will make a difference. Is something had the wherewithall and time to be with your Dad every minute they could have avoided losing the teeth most likely.
One wonders what goes on when something like that happens. It is hard, maybe impossible to know. A friend of mine's father just went through a similar situation and died in the hospital just short of his 100th birthday.
It's a hard questions, and the idea that something is being schemed in the background, or policies that we do not see are affecting us or our loved ones are hard to shake.
I have been going to the same medical group for 10 years at Stanford Hospital, one of the supposed best in the world. I have asked for records of test and X-Rays, and it seems like as soon as they take them they have lost them. I think they lose them or do not want to hand them over to the patient because there have been many lawsuits of things that have been missed on X-Rays that led to dangerous or fatal injuries, but Stanford would never confirm that, and I cannot prove it. It sure seems funny. On the one hand if I have something wrong I could not prove it, on the other, I surely ought to be able to prove negligence or incompetence.
These medical groups are very aggressive in ways that we do not know and would never guess given the Marcus Welby programming we have had in how to look at the medical industry.
My Aunt Tuckie died, years ago, after going through 10 years of cardiovacular disease. After her 1st heart attack, at age 74, which extensive heroic efforts were made, and successfully brought her back, she lived doing all the things the docs ordered, and perscribed. Lost weight, exercised, and during those last 10 years of her life she had several more heart attacks, and was heroically brought back, again and again.
She was miserable the last 10 years of her life to the point she was begging them to let her go. The doctor finally saw to her wishes, and ordered non-intervention, and she was finally allowed to go.
I do understand the many fears, but I also do, and always have thought that too much intervention has been made to extend the life of the elderly, and those experiencing severe life altering illnesses, due to age, and other situations.
I've heard of many such stoies like that of your fthers, Dave. Here in the states with a different healthcare system than Canada. There is BOOBERY in every system, and it would be hoped to be at a minimum, allowing for human error, but I, for the most part, have always thought that we all should try to live as naturally, and normally as we can, and then die the same way.
I do not care to attempt to extend my life, if I am unable to continue living a good quality life, and I do not want to contribute to the banikrupting of my country, nor that of my estate (which I plan to leave to my children), through the medical intervention, and extending my life. I haven't worked all my life just to hand over to medical bills, all the things I plan to have my children and grandchildren to inheret.
If you choose not to extend your life its a personal choice quite different than the government legislating who can live and who cannot.
I agree Dorothy. We should motivate a system that is compassionate at the political/governmental level ... the problem is that we are not so far off from the Nazis in some of the things we have done secretly. How do we know that something untoward did not happen to Dave's Dad or others under discussion.
Ideally for me, if I knew I was going to die, I'd like to find a very desolate wilderness area and hike out into the middle of it until I can't go any further or find a nice isolated spot and then lie down and take some nice drugs to kill any pain until the end. At least it would be under my control. I'll carry some money or a bar of gold so that whatever unfortunate stumbles across my corpse someday is compensated for whatever unpleasantness they experience. ;-)
I had a 90 year old uncle who did not want his life artificially prolonged, but had never signed a DNR and I suspect had never even been asked if he wanted to sign one. One day I found him lying on his kitchen floor where I estimated he had lain for almost 24 hours.
Even though he resisted the idea I insisted he go the hospital where I expected them to do little more than hydrate him and make his final hours more comfortable. It was a decision I lived to regret. Because I did not have his power of attorney the hospital ignored what I knew to be his wishes and once he was stablized they deemed him mentally incompent to determine his own fate and kept him until he was stable enough to sent to a nursing home where he also was put a respirator and given drugs that made him hallucinate in addition to making him unable to resist treatment that was prolonging his life. The poor man probably died convinced that drug dealing gangsters were intent on toruring him rather that let him die in peace and with his dignity intact. Those were the last sentiments I heard him express before I received the call that despite their attempts he had died during the night.
I have had several relatives who have reached a ripe old age were ready to leave this world, and my uncle's case has left me convinced that doctors who are treating the all patients should be required to periodically determine their patients wishes and have them recorded in a central database where they will be available to and be required to honor by anyone who happens to ends up caring for that patient. I also think such inquiries into a patient wish should extend beyond extraordinary care. What is the point of trying to control the blood pressure of a 97 year old woman? None that I can think of but it wasn't until she was diagnose with terminal dementia that a doctor considered taking her off her blood pressure medication despite evidence that suggested the medication was not preventing the many tiny strokes that were nibbling away at her brain.
As to a cap on treatment, I think that unless a patient has expressed wishes to contrary there probably should be caps particulary in cases where there is little likelyhood of the patient both surviving and recovering from something like surgery. In the case of the extremely eldery I also the the quality of life should be balanced with the ability to keep a patient techinically alive.
I totally agree!
My aunt used to talk about not wanting to live as a vegetable her whole life. Then she eventually got Alzheimer's disease and changed her mind, like most people probably would when the question is put to them immediately. Now she lives on, does not know here name, or recognize any of her family or friends, has to be cared for totally, and oddly enough even says she does not like living, though she is physically fairly healthy. What is there to do? What should be done? I don't resent opening a discussion about that, but I think it is a very tricky thing to craft any kind of legal framework around such an idea that will not be distorted or misused or morphed into something it was not meant to be in the future.
Bruce,
You are right, it is tricky, but by and large, the medical profession has already distorted, morphed, or misused the part of the Hippocratic Oath that states a doctor should do no harm to the point where death is the ultimate harm that should be avoided as long as possible even if that means defining being alive as having a heartbeat and a means of getting oxygen into the blood stream even though a persons body is no longer capable of doing those things without being attached to devices that can do what the person's body can no longer do on its own.
I do not think all this morphing, etc of the Hippocratic Oath has been done out of concern for the patient. Just as some institutions see letting a person die as a means of saving money, others see forcing people to live on as steady and lucretive source of income and as long as there is someone who will pay the bill. they will provide the medications, conduct the surgeries, and keep a person's body attached to devices that will insure a hearbeat can be detected.
It will be a tricky thing to craft but without legal framework there will be those who would for selfish reason deprive others of the right to make their own decision while they are still the person those who loved them knew.
Yeah, moral concerns and right and wrong, and what's sensible take a back seat to the motivations of whoever can bend a situation to their advantage either to make money or cut costs, or whatever. There is not general law that can be written which is why it is so vexing to us. And of course no one really wants to think too much about it because it is a difficult intractable problem that we do not have to face right now, and when we do it will only be once ... God-willing.
How can anyone make that decision anyway. What we say about this situation is often in my opinion more to impress others. I don't know anyone who says, I want to stay alive with feeding tubes when my brain is gone or I cannot move, but the idea that someone may be conscious inside their heads while watching someone disconnect their tubes and kill them is pretty hard to imagine as well.
Since we have to make errors, we should rightly err on the side of prolonging life, but that means we have to be rich enough to devote the resources to that. We never are and we never will be rich enough, nor might that be the best alternative.
Face it, there are going to be inconsistancies in laws, government, society as long as there are people. There is a lot more progress to be made in helping people to live and contribute than there is in worry about this, even though this is a more compelling issue.
Personally when I can't take care of my self I intend to die anyway.
But that's me and I don't think I should be making that decision for anyone else.
All the personal experiences I have noticed on this and other threads seem to be examples of individuals in the health care field making their own decisions as to whom to care for and whom to let suffer. That's the good side.
The bad side is that at present, institutions have a powerful money motive to just let people die. That kind of incentive is a powerful motivation and temptation. Institutions always yield to that kind of temptation because few people can resist temptation for long and institutions have a lot of people filling policy positions.
This problem cannot be solved with our current money. It really doesn't matter what the President says. It doesn't matter what he tries to do on health care. The institutions (governmental, insurance, hospitals) will try to save money by letting people die. It's that simple.
When you say "institutions' I hope you do not mean government institutions or "just" government institutions. The powerful motivator is always money.
I mean institutions of all kinds from hospitals through insurance/drug companies to the federal government. I include government institutions at all levels but in no way restrict it to them.
Interesting Dave. You are one of the few progs who actually note that Obama said that. Of course no one can call you a right wing nut with your background but I do notice some come close to politely calling you such.
That this is inevitable goes without saying. That some of you are actually noticing it is remarkable.
Too many are kept alive when nature would take its course and let people die naturally. I am all for withholding treatments which sustain life far beyond the natural time to die.
At ninety-one, my father's body simply was slowly shutting down. When he could no longer correctly swallow food (some food went to the lungs). I had to choose between a feeding tube, withholding food or letting him starve, or feeding him pureed food. I saw no reason to prolong his suffering with a feeding tube, and I could not let him starve. I chose to feed him and have no regrets. He died about two weeks later It was time.
Ultimately I think we like to fantasize that this is something we have more than just a minor control over, but as was said in the something I saw on You-Tube, mathematics says that we are in the beginning of a knee of the curve on this planet where we will either practice birth control, or we will have death-control forced on us by nature, circumstances and scarcity. The human race is delusions, we rarely get anything right except occasionally in our fictional imagination, but when have we ever learned from that. We like to look back and use it as evidence that we are intelligent, but it just means that some people are, not that intelligence controls any of our actions.
Still spreadin' the same ol' boundless optimism, eh Bruce?
Thomas, the extent of your comments seem to be petty snippy quips at ideas that threaten you or people you have a problem with. Unprovoked optimism is not doing anyone any good at this time in history - it is very easy for people to be overwhelmed and to just ignore things they believe they can do nothing about. It really says a lot that the human race has controlled this planet for roughly 10,000 years and we have no way to control our numbers, in fact most societies still think it is a good thing to have a high birth rate in order to prevent invasion.
I appreciate this conversation. I like being able to talk about this tough stuff.
As for getting your medical records, if you hire a respected professional for a second opinion about something, s/he will know how to get the records. They will cooperate because a second opinion covers their assets, if they are doing best practice, which they will be before they release your records.
They will likely go over your file to make sure allergy cautions are carefully noted and stuck on top where they will likely be seen before somebody does something to you, for example.
A good friend of mine got called when I knocked myself out in the gym with a head injury. I was in the middle of a difficult separation. She had to go to my lawyer, get a form written making herself my medical power of attorney, bring it to me to sign, all while she was pretty upset (my blood pressure was something like 80/50). Fortunately, she has three grown boys, and she's used to that kind of thing, plenty of drill-and-practice.
Whatever age you are, and even if you only sit at the computer, you are best advised to get someone as a medical power of attorney who knows you and cares about you, someone who sees more value in you alive and properly pain-medicated than in you dead.
In my case, my ex and his girlfriend would have profited enormously if I had died. Nonetheless, they did not want me dead because it would have been embarrassing in front of the group where they met, where people also knew me. Nonetheless, allowing my ex to continue as medical power of attorney was a bad idea, for other practical reasons.
The situation with my kids demanded that someone (my friend is a nursing instructor with much family experience) watch over me who knew specifically the dangers in hospitals and how to protect friends and family. It helped that she already knew some of the people on the neuro team, who were entertained when I came to in brief moments, but who could not get straight answers to important questions from me. They were far more comfortable with getting information from a non-head-injured professional they already knew because she placed students in their programs.
It is she who guided me as my parents checked out. She doesn't particularly believe in heaven, but I do, and I know she's going there. I have worked in the helping trades, and I have good friends who know how things work from different prospectives.
Given the challenges of a sandwich situation (kids and elders needing stuff at the same time), I figured I might as well work in family crisis, since I was familiar with the terrain.
It is better to know the existential physics of this stuff before you have to make decisions on the fly, and it is better to make joint decisions with people you trust. This is especially true when there is more than one sibling and decisions are being made about parents.
Yikes! I'm old. Yikes!
I don't know Dave. At times I feel it's all about money here in the states but then in Canada it's never about money.
" One way to cut medical costs, the president suggested, would be to stop trying to prolong the lives of people who are considered terminal. "
Change we need indeed! Think about it. Prolonging the lives of the supposed terminally ill under a Government controlled health care system will simply have a negative financial impact on the system since it will cost money to keep the patient who isn't contributing taxes alive.
I'm truly sorry that your Lord and Saviour is letting you people down.
I'm truly sorry that your Lord and Saviour is letting you people down.
TWIT
" TWIT '
Misguided moron!
I'm afraid I've been influenced by Piers Anthony's book "On a Pale Horse". In it, he writes about a man who was in extreme emotional pain because, even though he was ready to die and the Grim Reaper had come to collect his soul, the doctors still had him on total life support.
No medical professional should ever be allowed to put a DNR in effect for one of their patients. That sad duty should be left to the family, or at least close friends. The ideal situation would be for the patient to have a Living Will or Advance Directive in effect, and for the medicos to follow it to the letter.
I'm sorry for your father's experience, but I don't think it was a result of the Canadian medical system; there are too many similar cases here in the States. It was most likely the home which was substandard, not the system.
Our current system is insane, if you have lots of insurance every effort will be made to keep you alive, if not, well good-bye, patient/family wishes are ignored.
I have had experiences with both very agressive attempts to treat when treatment is repeatedly refused and attempts to not treat when the outcome would be for some more good time, such as with David's father.
We have a mess, there will be no end to it because some want to live as long as possible no matter what the circumstances, some are ready to go after certain levels of pain or helplessness. Some families will cling, no matter what the patient's wishes are, some seem to quick to want to say good-bye.
I have noticed though that the overall very excellent "hospice" movement seems to have generated a lot of "hurry on to death's door" nurses and care givers, they are frightening in a way, even when the patient no longer wants treatment, only care.
This is a dilema now, I don't think it will get worse, but it will continue.
In western societies only the very rich have the resources to live out their lives to the full extent that a person can.
This is to let you know that your content has reached at least 20 comments and therefore has been removed from I want it All Please be sure and post all of your photos, posts and videos to the group and don't forget to stop by and comment on group content!