BREAKING: AARP supports euthanasia, wants to kill off its members


Conservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die. These concerns appear to be unfounded.

AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.”

Another conspiracy theory bites the dust? Who are you going to believe, Dallas the Busdriver or AARP?


Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999

Link here to one article

If family and doctors in Texas can't come to terms on end of life care, an "ethics panel" gets to decide.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Death and dying

What the crazies don't seem to understand is that how we manage death and dying is THE central issue in health care ... and will be for years to come.

What's the point of linking to this case study?

Aside from a "Which family member gets to decide the level of treatment" question, there's some interesting notes on the history of the Hippocratic treatises that undergird Western medicine.

Are we to make the Terri Schiavo case the basis for discussion of overhaul of the health insurance cluster&^%* we call health care access in this country?

We already have laws that govern next-of-kin relationships and recognize medical power of attorney.

Unless you're gay and some state doesn't recognize your relationship, why bring medical directives to the general health care debate?


The link ...

.. is intended to point out that the government in Texas can override a family's decision to maintain extraordinary measures, according to the 1999 Texas statute signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush.

It is in fact government-decided euthanasia.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Government Decided Euthanasia

Thank God we don't have that law here! When my daughter was in a coma due to lung failure - she has CF, they told us to "make preparations" because they didn't think that she would live and we said no, that they were not God and had no right to do anything other than provide the best care and do all that was humanly possible to save her. When they told me that they were going to try to take her off of life support at noon, I let them know that I was going to go outside and call my husband, I was back in less than 10 minutes and they had lied to me and tried to take her off the machines, thankfully she was able to breath on her own and survive. I promptly let them know of my disapproval of their lie and what would have happened if they had been wrong or done anything to hurt her worse.

We don't need a law that allows Euthanasia because I have encountered more than my fair share of medical professionals that will do whatever they want to do, we need laws that allow patient/family rights to supercede anyone elses. We need laws that actually hold medical professionals accountable for their actions, words, and mis-diagnosis even in state funded hospitals. Yes, a medical professional can be sued, but the patient and or family has to have the money to sue them and they have to have a iron clad case of intentional misconduct.

If I could have sued ........ for far TOO many medical mistakes that we have experienced, I would be filthy rich, instead I have learned not to trust medical professionals and I can't afford insurance, heck, I can barely afford to live.

Laws or no laws, there is no substitute

for a patient having an advocate. Trusted family or friend is one of the most critical pieces in an individual's care at critical times.

Patient advocacy

I completely agree! But there is still the hard part of getting a doctor to listen and do what they are told by that advocate/family member. When a medical emergency occurs, the family/friend is overwhelmed with fear and grief and yet they still have to be able to think clearly enough and be a strong enough advocate to fight for their loved one. It isn't easy, and it is most definately a fight. I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "oh no, not the mom again" when my daughter was in the hospital because I was the biggest pain in the ass. I faced consequences because I had to stay strong for her and had to ensure that she was taken care of correctly. Regardless of what I did though, they still waited until I was out of the room to do whatever they wanted.

Insurance companies do it every day

I have a friend who is now spending more than $1000 a month on chemotherapy that her insurance company will not cover. Euthanasia by spread sheet to preserve the company's profits.

This is one seriously fucked up world we live in.

Couldn't agree more!

My 3 kids with CF have Medicaid. For just 1 child, 2 of her meds cost more than $11 thousand per month and she is on about a dozen meds total. But they don't want to pay for special CF vitamins that cost $136.00 per month per child! Few people understand how screwed the current system is until they live the life or they know someone who does.

I finally got a doctor at a free clinic to agree to see me even though I don't qualify financially. I need a MRI and CT of my brain to look for lesions or a tumor and now have to find some way to pay for that, which isn't going to happen right now unless I go back through the E.R. and that hell and run up more bills I can't afford to pay.

Our current system tells patients who can't pay to either die or give up any hope of having a decent life and providing for their family.

missing link

You are misrepresenting the law. The Texas Advanced Care Directive applies when doctors have already decided to discontinue life sustaining treatment. It gives families certain rights to challenge the doctors' decisions and gives them an opportunity to move the patient to a provider that is willing to give treatment.

Wrong on so many levels

Greg already said it and James drove home the "death by Blue Cross spreadsheet" world we already live in, but I'll weigh in too.

The case study you linked to specifically said that it was the DOCTOR's suggestion to give only comfort care and the WIFE agreed but didn't want to upset the DAUGHTER.

The only place the GOVERNMENT got involved was to make certain that the patient receive "extraordinatory" treatment against the DOCTOR's advice until another acceptable facility could be found.

In this very case study, it's the GOVERNMENT that allowed the continued care, even though the WIFE could have ended care all along.

How did this turn out (if you didn't read the link)? The patient died while the WIFE, the DAUGHTER, and DOCTORS were arguing. The government didn't end anybody's care.


patient's rights

I actually had a conversation about this issue with a few doctors last night. Even when the patient has a living will with clear instructions, family members sometimes can't accept the terms of the living will and challenge the actions doctors may be taking in accordance with the will. A typical response to this scenario is to disregard the living will until there's another legal resolution to the next-of-kin filibuster or the patient eventually passes away.

My next of kin have explicit orders

to let me die quickly, gracefully and painlessly ... under threat that I will come back to haunt them.

It's so important

to have the "what will happen when" conversation with next of kin BEFORE the decisions have to be made. When my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer (stage VI pancreatic), he decided that he did not want chemotherapy that would prolong his life by a few months but ultimately not be effective. We had a family meeting that included my mom, children, spouses and significant others of children, and even the two grandchildren who were old enough to understand. Dad explained what he wanted. Although none of us wanted him to die, we agreed that his wishes were paramount, and that a few extra months of life with no quality were not worth the pain it would put him through. We were able to care for him right up to his last breath. We had hospice care (the people who do that are worth their weight in gold), and he died at home while I was holding his hand. This stands out as one of most sacred moment of my life, right up there with the birth of my son.

But the key was that every single one of us understood what was going to happen, how it would likely happen, and what to do in order to keep Dad as comfortable as possible. And because we all understood Dad's wishes, and had been able to express our own, we didn't have any last minute panicking when he was near the very end.

I encourage every family to have the "what I want and what will happen if" discussion now - before they're dealing with the high emotions of a terminal illness or injury, and make decisions. Then have the paperwork done. It will give everyone a sense of peace. Trust me on this.

I did read the study

And have read the Texas statute.

If the panel of doctors says that the patient should not receive further treatment beyond palliative care, the panel of doctors (established in the statute) can end such care, despite the family's wishes.

To wit: "If after 10 days, no such provider can be found, the hospital and physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw the therapy that has been determined to be futile."

It is actually THE GOVERNMENT that has decided BY STATUTE to end care AFTER 10 DAYS.

Point being, this is EXACTLY the situation that former Governor Palin and others on the RIGHT WING are calling "GOVERNMENT DEATH PANELS."


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

I think we're reading the same thing

(and my "if you didn't read the link" comment was intended for lurkers, not the author).

My point in all CAPsing the was not to insult but to emphasize the actors in the situation.

Again, as you note, the actors are not the government, but doctors (the "physician" below).

To wit: "If after 10 days, no such provider can be found, the hospital and physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw the therapy that has been determined to be futile."

My point is that there is not some appointed bureaucrat (either government or insurance agent), but a DOCTOR making this call.

In the Texas statute, the government (statute) actually forces the DOCTOR to wait before ending care. Then, in certain cases, the DOCTOR is allowed to end care without liability.

This is a tort reform argument. Wonder what the teabaggers with the tort reform signs think about this statute?

Where is Dallas Woodhouse when you need him to comment on George W. Bush's idea of medical tort reform?


The Puritan Party

of Family Values Greed and the 1 Commandment continue to lie about everything in order to serve their God, whom we call Mammon. The one commandment? I've got mine and you ain't gettin' any.

FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

Living Wills

I have to believe what the President has said time and again, this is about the ability to afford to create a Living Will. I fully support the provision. I can tell you, as a mother of 4 kids with special health care needs - 3 of them with an incurable terminal disease, and my own deteriorating condition, the ability to afford to create a Living Will is a serious concern and a necessity. I am so tired of Palin, the GOP, their supporters, and the Republican talking heads twisting the truth on this provision. It doesn't support Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, or "Death Squads" as Palin put it! It doesn't say anything at all like that! It does, however, give patients the right to speak to professionals about creating a Living Will, and receive assistance in doing so, and have that cost covered by Insurance.

You can create your own living will

or advance directive. It has to be specific to your state, be properly signed, notarized and distributed but it's not hard to do and costs virtually nothing. And it's a good idea for everyone regardless of your age.

This link tells more about it.

I'm not sure what the bill in Congress means by "ability to afford to create a Living Will" perhaps that those with less internet savvy can hire a lawyer to do it.

Living Will Expenses and Loopholes

The main problem with the do it yourself Living Wills is that without having an attorney and or a medical professional discuss all options with you and ensuring that there are no loopholes in it, then when it comes time to enact that Living Will it can too easily lead to a fight within the families, partners, and medical professionals and very few people can actually plan for any and all things that may happen. I am very internet savvy and I am very good at creating and filling out paperwork. But even with my expertise, I would rather consult an attorney and a trusted medical professional to ensure that there are no loopholes that anyone can use to not follow my wishes and that I have covered all the bases. Plus, when a family is struggling to afford to just pay normal living expenses and even $10.00 would mean the difference in going without a meal for a family member or paying a notary let alone any additional costs, well, any assistance in paying for something as important as a Living Will is needed.

Thanks for that

It is just the kind of explanation I was hoping for.

I know the do-it-yourself route is not for everyone, but is useful for some. Better too to have something in place than nothing if it comes to that.

Here is a site we might want to put on the front page so all can

visit and have a place go to get debunking points.

From The Washington Post:

The Democratic political machine is firing back against what it says are "Republican lies on health insurance reform." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which supports House Democratic candidates, unveiled a new website Thursday "dedicated to exposing the truth-twisting attack by Republicans and their fringe right-wing groups."

As House Democrats returned to their home districts this week, many have been confronted by sharp criticism of the health-reform bill approved in three committees. In some cases, the attacks have been spearheaded by conservative groups, such as Freedom Works, an advocacy organization headed by former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.). The result has been a tense early August for lawmakers, activists and the political parties.

The Democrats' "Health Care Fact Check" web site features photos of prominent Republicans such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ge.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) with a phrase attributed to each and "FALSE" in large red print.

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

Not not

Very funny.

AARP learned a lesson when they supported

the prescription plan during the Bush administration.
They lost thousands of members and new membership has not kept up with the surge of baby boomers reaching retirement age.

The important aspect of this story is AARP reaches the very seniors that the Rt Wing is trying to confuse. The fact that they joined the fight on Obama's side is big news.

Some day...

...I might rethink my decision to ignore the almost weekly mailings from AARP wanting my money.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR