The Pope has decreed your living will null and void
I.P. Freely
it has become institutionalized nation-wide, maybe world-wide, since I
mentioned months ago that some individual physicians refuse to honor our
living wills. For your family's sake you should be aware of it whether
you want to hear about it or not.
Your friendly neighborhood Catholic-affiliated hospital now refuses to
honor vital tenets of your living will. How's your family going to like
watching you take a few years to die as physicians struggle to keep your
brain viable with tubes in every orifice?
See http://compassionandchoices.org/blog/?p=862
It begins with mandated tube-feeding for all permanently unconscious
patients -- regardless of their religion or lack thereof -- in Catholic
healthcare institutions throughout the U.S., beginning last November.
That includes about 1/3 of all U.S. hospitals.
That's bad enough in itself (I left my church permanently at 24 because
of much less intrusion than that), but ... who's going to pay for it
when Obamacare refuses and your life's savings are depleted? This isn't
simply *like* the Terry Schiavo case, it's explicitly *because of* that
case.
I.P.
jloomis
Some of you are not going to appreciate my bringing this up again, but
it has become institutionalized nation-wide, maybe world-wide, since I
mentioned months ago that some individual physicians refuse to honor our
living wills. For your family's sake you should be aware of it whether
you want to hear about it or not.
Your friendly neighborhood Catholic-affiliated hospital now refuses to
honor vital tenets of your living will. How's your family going to like
watching you take a few years to die as physicians struggle to keep your
brain viable with tubes in every orifice?
It begins with mandated tube-feeding for all permanently unconscious
patients -- >
who's going to pay for it
when Obamacare refuses
I take this above comment as another "swing" at the Health Care Bill trying
to be worked out in the House and Senate as we speak.
You know, I just received a letter from Blue Cross of Calif.
They are mandating and either or situation for myself and my wife.
It is to opt for a lower coverage and and medium raise in the premium....
Or, For the same coverage we have and a 275.00 raise...........
Like asking if you want to get hung with the old rope or a new rope?
I am totally disgusted with the state of affairs in Health Care and
insurance.
this is unconcionable....(spelling)
Blue Cross of Calif. is Criminal and I am going to discuss this issue with
the insurance commisioner.
Now I have worked hard all my life....
Paid into Health Insurance premium all my life.
Now they want to bankrupt me with premium charges in the tune of 19,500 per
year for myself and my wife!
You can sit there with a "government issued" health insurance and critisize
"Obama Care"
I really wonder........
I know this is a little off your point but the snippit in the e-mail raised
my feathers.
john
Steve Kramer
news:Kxg9n.31146$Fm7....@newsfe16.iad...
> Some of you are not going to appreciate my bringing this up again, but it
> has become institutionalized nation-wide, maybe world-wide, since I
> mentioned months ago that some individual physicians refuse to honor our
> living wills.
-- skramer remarks
Let us say, just for an an instant, that the rubbish you provided was
accurate. The objection that I would bring to bear would be that you think
of yourself is such terms that regardless of where you find yourself (e.g. a
Catholic hospital), you believe that the good and wholesome medical staff
therein ought to bend to your flawed will in difiance of God's perfect will.
I can imagine no better example of arrogance.
So, now, let's deal with your fanciful supposition:
The following is a Vatican approved portion of a living will that was
appeared in a Catholic publication "The Catholic Answers" just two months
ago: You will find it diametrically opposed to the lies and distortions you
are trying to propagate.
I offer it to all for your wills.
"If I should have an incurable and irreversible injury, disease or illness
that will result in inevitable and imminent death without the administration
of death-delaying procedures, and I have received the Sacrament of the
Anointing of the Sick, I direct that all, but only, those forms of treatment
and care be provided that offer a reasonable hope of benefit without serious
risk of death or excessive pain, expense or other excessive burden,
consistent with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The continued
sustenance of my life by any treatment or care and benefit of life itself
shall not be considered a risk or burden in this analysis. I direct that
when such decisions involve the withholding or removal of death-delaying
procedures, they may be made in consultation with a Catholic priest and
after consultation with my health care agent whenever feasible. In no event
may anyone refuse or withdraw from me, or administer to me, any medical
treatment if, in doing so death is intended as an "end" or chosen as a
"means."
In accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church, I have no objection to
the use of medication or procedures necessary for my physical comfort even
if the may shorten my life, provided my death is not intended as an "end" or
chosen as a "means." Accordingly, I direct that I be provided with
compassionate nursing care and pain management.
There shall be a presumption in favor of providing me with nutrition and
hydration, even by artificial means, so long as death is not inevitable and
imminent so that effort to sustain my life is not futile, or unless I am
permanently unable to absorb and utilize food or fluids. While some
treatments may be futile in combating or curing a disease, treatment or care
which sustains life is not futile.
With respect to any anatomical gift, I direct that no such gifts be made by
my agent.
Steve Kramer
news:hk46n...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Now I have worked hard all my life....
> Paid into Health Insurance premium all my life.
> Now they want to bankrupt me with premium charges in the tune of 19,500
> per year for myself and my wife!
--
skramer remarks
Aint that the truth! I have been paying into "health care" since I was 13
and working at a Sohio gas station. When I was 45 and suffering from
diverticulitis, my doctor asked my wife, "Is Steve my patient?" Tens of
thousands paid in and invested in skyscrapers and stadiums, and now I needs
some back. But, they'd rather I just died.
Steve Kramer
thought.
"Steve Kramer" <skr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hk4aec$idm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I.P. Freely
> Let us say, just for an an instant, that the rubbish you provided was
> accurate. The objection that I would bring to bear would be that you think
> of yourself is such terms that regardless of where you find yourself (e.g. a
> Catholic hospital), you believe that the good and wholesome medical staff
> therein ought to bend to your flawed will in difiance of God's perfect will.
> I can imagine no better example of arrogance.
>
> So, now, let's deal with your fanciful supposition:
>
> The following is a Vatican approved portion of a living will that was
> appeared in a Catholic publication "The Catholic Answers"
Read my comments again and actually look at the documents I cited. Your
comments and quotation oppose assisted suicide; mine mandate indefinite
artificial extension of brain waves. There's no connection.
"My" supposition? It comes from the Vatican.
And what could be more arrogant than some dude in one church mandating
that his edict subject every Jew, Muslim, Christian Scientist, athiest,
Bhuddist, etc. to his will just because they happen to end up in one of
his hospitals? Even if it MAY BE a hospital's right to reject a legally
binding living will if the church that funds the hospital so decrees
(the courts will determine that), it is most certainly legal -- and, I
submit, morally mandatory -- that the public be advised of that threat.
You can wax Catholic all you want, but I'm still going to inform people
at risk of hospitalization that a large minority of U.S. hospitals have
been ordered to violate their legal refusal of indefinite artificial
life support. Their fiscal, legal, and emotional survival is more
important than the feelings of a few Catholics, IMO.
I.P.
ChuckP
I have reviewed the document you referred to. I find no issues. Para 58
points out the ethical principle to sustain life.
However para 57 deals with the "ussue" you percieve.
57. A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving
life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not
offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose
excessive expense on the family or the community.
The para 59 would appear to permit the use of well drawn living wills.
59. The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient
concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always
be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic
moral teaching.
Earlier in the document, the acceptance of surrogates is noted, so should
the patient be unable to comunicate, the surrogates opinions are as valid
as the patients.
My living will and choice of surrogate in medical matters seem secure.
What am I missing?
Chuck
I.P. Freely
> I take this above comment as another "swing" at the Health Care Bill trying
> to be worked out in the House and Senate as we speak.
No, it's a heads-up for all of us, including myself, who had some faith
in our living wills. My extra, afterthought, forewarning was for anyone
who hasn't put this problem together with the stated objectives of the
federal health care bills: Subtract money from the wealthy and care from
the elderly to give more of both to the younger and less wealthy.
Particularly under that stated threat, I will not patronize a hospital
which values church tenets above my health choices.
> Now they want to bankrupt me with premium charges in the tune of 19,500 per
> year for myself and my wife!
Wait 'til your premiums go up by over 53%, as forecast by your insurer.
> You can sit there with a "government issued" health insurance and critisize
> "Obama Care"
"Government issued"? My primary health care insurer is Medicare, for
which I paid just as much as you did. My secondary health care insurer
is Mailhandlers, for which my wife paid for many years while a DoD and
DOE employee. The gov't paid for part of that coverage before she
retired, just as most big employers did back then, as partial
compensation for the very low pay she received compared to her industry
counterparts. My third insurer is TriCare, into which I've paid for >20
years. My fourth insurer is the VA system, which I consider slightly
better than nothing except when it actually harms me, as it often has.
Not only are my first three insurances rejected by a large minority of
providers -- to become a majority under Obamacare -- but the
administration has explicitly promised to reduce coverage and raise
costs on all four of my insurance sources. Do you really think you'll
escape that?
All I can do about any of those problems is raise hell with my
Congressmen and vote accordingly, as most informed citizens are doing in
rapidly growing numbers; the Catholic hospitals I can avoid altogether.
I advise anyone to do the latter unless they can afford the cost in
money and anguish of being artificially kept in a vegetative state
indefinitely.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> What am I missing?
Maybe this, from the article I linked:
" the Pope sided with the picketers outside Ms. Schiavo�s hospice room,
declaring that tube-feeding patients in a permanent vegetative state
�always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical
act� and should �be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate.�
Did the pope�s guidelines allow for the patient�s view of benefits and
burdens? Some ethicists still thought yes, but a September, 2007
response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF,
formerly called the Office of the Inquisition), said:
No. A patient in a �permanent vegetative state� is a person with
fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and
proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of
water and food even by artificial means.
Even then some Catholic bioethicists like John Hardt looked for personal
choice in the CDF�s use of the phrase, �in principle.� But in November,
the Bishops closed the door: *feeding tubes are obligatory*. "
It's extremist, dogmatic, one-size-fits-all points of view like this
that make organized religion hard for me to stomach. Sorry, Mr. Pope,
but I'm under no obligation to blindly kiss your ring unless I
voluntarily join your church. I most emphatically do not believe that
every Jew, Muslim, athiest, Bhuddist, or whatever will burn in hell
simply because he is not a Catholic.
I'm not trying to debate, prove, or disprove any aspect of this issue
here; much finer minds, from the Vatican to local U.S. Bishpoprics to
state- and national-level attorneys have argued it for years, and anyone
is welcome to choose for himself what hospital to use. I just think that
choice should be an educated one. In particular, anyone who wants to
have his and his family's well-being managed by some other person or
institution is welcome to do that.
Heck, I personally support what Mr. Roeder did to Tiller the Baby
Killer: He chose to give up his freedom, maybe his life, to stop Tiller
from murdering any more healthy 9-month-term babies. OTOH, I support his
premeditated murder conviction, too, for one simple reason: he was
clearly guilty of premeditated murder. Religion does not supercede law
in this country.
I.P.
Steve Kramer
> Religion does not supercede law in this country.
Actually, it IS the law in this country. The 1st Amendment in that regard
is more absolute and more clear than your inalienable right to speak against
it.
Steve Jordan
Here is the full text of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances."
Make of that what you will.
Regards,
Steve J
I.P. Freely
> "I.P. Freely" wrote
>
>> Religion does not supercede law in this country.
>
> Actually, it IS the law in this country. The 1st Amendment in that regard
> is more absolute and more clear than your inalienable right to speak against
> it.
Huh? Neither I, nor any court in the land, nor the First Amendment (I'm
reading it now, and the "free exercise of religion" does not include
breaking laws) supports that statement. Courts often take children from
parents who deny medical treatment to their kids due to religion.
Mormons cannot practice polygamy. Most states prohibit Muslim women from
covering their faces in ID photos. Muslim honor killers are convicted of
murder. Abortion is legal. We can't cut off the hands of thieves.
Crashing airliners into buildings in support of Allah is theft,
kidnapping, murder, and destruction of public property, and violates
altitude restrictions. Shooting abortion doctors is murder and probably
violates noise ordinances.
Etc.
Besides, I don't speak against religion anyway; I just want no part of
some of its intrusive features. I'm a very strong advocate of value
systems, and most -- maybe all -- religions have some great values to
offer.
I.P.
Steve Kramer
news:btq9n.29450$_96....@newsfe02.iad...
Thanks, Steve. I have very nearly memorized the Constitution. It is a very
concise document and the _only_ legal basis for the existence and operations
of the Federal Government. It is, literally, the document with which _I_,
as a citizen, give the Federal Government notice and permission as to what
_I_ will allow them to do and and direction as to what _I_ want them to do -
at least in the collective "I", or more commonly written as "We, the
People."
It is sad, and embarassing, that so few in these United States have bothered
to read the document, much less memorized it. If they would, I believe they
would take 44% of the Judicial Branch, 99% of the Legislative Branch, and
100% of the Executive Branch, give them speedy trials, and line them against
a wall, and shoot them for Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors
(in accordance with the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments).
> Make of that what you will.
That is another manifestation of the genius of our forefathers. You really
don't have to. It is absolutely clear so long as you don't redefine
"religion", "speech", "press", etc. and then add expressions, such as
"expression". As a citizen, _I_ do not permit the Federal Government to add
to the Constitution penumbra of emanations. Ergo, much of the 'body of law'
is just so much more fraud. But, that's another topic for another forum.
Steve Kramer
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>> "I.P. Freely" wrote
>>
>>> Religion does not supercede law in this country.
>>
>> Actually, it IS the law in this country. The 1st Amendment in that
>> regard
>> is more absolute and more clear than your inalienable right to speak
>> against
>> it.
>
> Huh? Neither I, nor any court in the land, nor the First Amendment (I'm
> reading it now, and the "free exercise of religion" does not include
[[ Obfuscation deleted ]]
I am delighted you have chosen to finally read what, when it serves your
purposes, you so often defend. Take our a phrase and some punctuation
(without changing the obvious meaning), the appropriate sentence in this
debate is "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of
religion."
Please don't relate to me each of the laws that are unconstitutional. I
already know about 2/3rds are unconstitutional and it sickens me. The same
governments that disallow Mormons from multiple wives promote the same
practice in Section 8 handouts. The same governments that disallow women
wearing burkhas for a driver's license allow purely fictitious ID to illegal
aliens and Federal undercover agents (most of whom use them to enforce
unconstitutional laws). And so it goes on, and on, and on...
The salient point to your thread is, the 1st Amendment allows Catholic
doctors to practice their faith in lieu of your petty wishes and in lieu of
any other man-made law that you may cite. The solution, as you have pointed
out, is if pain avoidance is so important, closely evaluate your doctors and
get agreements in advance. Indeed, in your DNR statement for paramedics, I
would include a passage that says, "do not take me to a hospital that will
do everything in its power to save my life." Or, better yet, under ICE in
your cellular phone, list the waste removal service number.
Steve Jordan
(Snip pointed observations on public ignorance)
> As a citizen, _I_ do not permit the Federal Government to add
> to the Constitution penumbra of emanations. Ergo, much of the 'body of law'
> is just so much more fraud. But, that's another topic for another forum.
Well enough, but neither Steve K nor Steve J nor anyone else has
the power to protect ourselves from the silly reasoning of
Associate Justice Douglas in _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 US
479 (1965). The case involved Connecticut's statute prohibiting
use of contraceptives.
Douglas, unable to find any law to support his conclusion that
the statute was unconstitutional, simply wandered off into
cloud-cuckoo land with this: "(cited cases) ...suggest that
specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed
by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and
substance." And on this mooncalf basis found the statute to be
indeed unconstitutional.
FWIW, I'd side with Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Black:
"Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids
the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an
uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously
unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case.
As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in
the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and
private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and
religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think
professional counsel about methods of birth control should be
available to all, so that each individual's choice can be
meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say
whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are
asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution.
And that I cannot do."
I apologize for wandering into cloud cuckoo land.
Regards,
Steve J
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never
shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of
our federal government is in the constitution of the federal
Judiciary;...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a
little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless
step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all
shall be usurped."
--Thomas Jefferson
I.P. Freely
>
> I am delighted you have chosen to finally read
Steve, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of
Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Ten Commandments all sit
3" from my keyboard all the time, and are dog-eared because I refer to
them quite often.
> Take out a phrase and some punctuation
I chose the phrase I did because that was the only phrase I could even
imagine being distorted enough to claim that religion trumps law.
> the appropriate sentence in this debate is
> "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of
> religion."
> The salient point to your thread is, the 1st Amendment allows Catholic
> doctors to practice their faith in lieu of your petty wishes and in
> lieu of any other man-made law that you may cite.
I suggest you read what a couple of dudes named Scalia and Frankfurter,
among others of comparable clout, have written about that clause. Their
decisions have most decidedly favored the law when law and religion
conflict. You might start with Employment Div. v. Smith of 1990, in
which Scalia quoted Frankfurter:
"The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the
relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen
from the discharge of political responsibilities. �To permit this would
be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the
law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law
unto himself."
I think that may have also been the basis of Sonny Curtis' 1959 song, "I
Fought the Law and the Law Won". '-)
> if pain avoidance is so important
You're still confusing the opposing concepts of assisted suicide and
unlimited artificial life support. The Pope expressly cited protesters
at the end of Terri Schiavo's 15-year ordeal as his basis for
artificially keeping comatose patients alive as long as medically
possible regardless of the pt's or family's legally documented preferences.
I.P.