Jack Kevorkian, crusader for right to assisted suicide, dies aged 83 at Michigan hospital - The Washington Post
I think he had it right.
I say if we have a right to live in this world, we also have a right to not live in this world, especially those with a terminal disease process. If a person feels prohibited from ending his or her life because of a faith based reason, that's one thing. Government has no place, whatsoever in a terminally ill person who decides they've had enough.
There's quite a bit of talk these days about Government being too big and too intrusive. Currently, most Conservatives feel Progressives have expanded Government's reach to new levels. They're not entirely wrong.
I recall a young lady named Terri Schiavo who was terminally ill and our Government, which was led by a Republican President, George W. Bush saw the question and the case of her right to die in a different light. Mr. Bush signed legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tube place back in. Over a dozen failed court appeals later, her tube was removed and several days later, she passed away.
If we think about the debate on government death panels and the faux controversy about end of life directives, we obviously aren't comfortable with the idea of death. Someone who was totally in a vegetative state, was forced to stay alive longer than she perhaps needed to. An effort to see that Physicians are able to be compensated for their time spent with patients explaining end of life issues and options, was scuttled by an ignorant mob in the Affordable Care Act.
And in Dr. Kevorkian's case, a physician who was compelled to assist terminally ill people, to facilitate their choices and end their suffering, was ridiculed, imprisoned and turned into a punch line.
I guess that's one instance where many Conservatives had and have no problem with Government getting in between a patient and their doctor.
Funny, I just don't remember their outrage.
There's quite a bit of talk these days about Government being too big and too intrusive. Currently, most Conservatives feel Progressives have expanded Government's reach to new levels. They're not entirely wrong.
I recall a young lady named Terri Schiavo who was terminally ill and our Government, which was led by a Republican President, George W. Bush saw the question and the case of her right to die in a different light. Mr. Bush signed legislation to keep her alive and her feeding tube place back in. Over a dozen failed court appeals later, her tube was removed and several days later, she passed away.
If we think about the debate on government death panels and the faux controversy about end of life directives, we obviously aren't comfortable with the idea of death. Someone who was totally in a vegetative state, was forced to stay alive longer than she perhaps needed to. An effort to see that Physicians are able to be compensated for their time spent with patients explaining end of life issues and options, was scuttled by an ignorant mob in the Affordable Care Act.
And in Dr. Kevorkian's case, a physician who was compelled to assist terminally ill people, to facilitate their choices and end their suffering, was ridiculed, imprisoned and turned into a punch line.
I guess that's one instance where many Conservatives had and have no problem with Government getting in between a patient and their doctor.
Funny, I just don't remember their outrage.
I do believe the tea party gets downright dumb about this, however: I feel socialized medicine is not the answer. Hey Bill, post a link to the article I sent ya.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later as the boomers (I am one) age, we all face it. We can't afford long lingering deaths prolonged by expensive care. We need to figure out a solution.
ReplyDeleteThe Tea Party chaps are not real sensible to health care at all, but socialized medicine is not the answer either. We must find a sensible solution that allows us to live a good live to 75-80, but then die with dignity. I don't want to be 88, senile and in pain and brain to bitch about it.
Why isn't a socialized healthcare system the answer? Countries that use that approach cover everyone from cradle to grave, have comparable if not better outcomes and do so at a fraction of what we pay. They of course, fund much of this with higher taxes.
ReplyDelete