Let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says Japanese minister

[^_^ 5,021]

assisted in that measures aren't taken to prolong life. you don't think that would be the terminology used by insurance companies?

The Patriot is correct. The answer is no.

[decocker 7,198]

No.

why not? japan is trying to relieve costs to the state - in america we'd be taking money away from insurance companies. they'd spin it toward the prolife crowd for support and the easiest way to do that is to call it assisted death.

[^_^ 5,021]

I recognize that. But take your average American through a hospital or hospice to see how the last days, weeks, months or even years look for many of our elderly and the majority reaction you will get is - I don't want to end up that way. So why can't we make that choice via the insurance coverage we do or don't buy? That way, it's not the insurance making the call but the person making the call when they're still in a situation to do so.

You can make the call by creating a... document of some kind. The Patriot probably knows what it's called. Some kind of will. End of life will? Basically stating you don't want extraordinary measures.

why not? japan is trying to relieve costs to the state - in america we'd be taking money away from insurance companies. they'd spin it toward the prolife crowd for support and the easiest way to do that is to call it assisted death.

New York Life paid my mom. The Patriot is correct.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

assisted in that measures aren't taken to prolong life. you don't think that would be the terminology used by insurance companies?

No. Just because a person has a DNR order in place preventing a hospital from taking measures to prolong life doesn't mean that a person has committed suicide.

[quote name=' timestamp='1358881374' post='5935638]You can make the call by creating a... document of some kind. The Patriot probably knows what it's called. Some kind of will. End of life will? Basically stating you don't want extraordinary measures.

Yes, that is possible. Too many don't take that action. How about you reverse the approach - i.e. you must act to ensure that extraordinary measures are taken at end of life. Short of that, none will be taken.

[decocker 7,198]

No. Just because a person has a DNR order in place preventing a hospital from taking measures to prolong life doesn't mean that a person has committed suicide.

i know that. well aware. personal experience.

[^_^ 5,021]

No. Just because a person has a DNR order in place preventing a hospital from taking measures to prolong life doesn't mean that a person has committed suicide.

Yes, that is possible. Too many don't take that action. How about you reverse the approach - i.e. you must act to ensure that extraordinary measures are taken at end of life. Short of that, none will be taken.

That would put too much power in the hands of the very professionals lay people suspect. It's better off if you let patients make the call.

How many people think doctors and surgeons and pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are eeeeevil? Too many deluded fools out there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358881623' post='5935647]That would put too much power in the hands of the very professionals lay people suspect. It's better off if you let patients make the call.

How so? Today, you must act if you want to die with dignity when the time comes. You must file legal orders that will prevent hospitals from squeezing every last penny out of your insurance company and estate by engaging in ultimately futile extraordinary measures to keep your vital signs going for a few more hours, days or weeks. You don't get to make the call unless you acted ahead of time. All I am saying is turn that around.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

why not? japan is trying to relieve costs to the state - in america we'd be taking money away from insurance companies. they'd spin it toward the prolife crowd for support and the easiest way to do that is to call it assisted death.

My HMO does everything but make it mandatory that all members fill out an advance directive. If you ever go to surgery, they will offer to help you fill one out several times. I think insurance companies, from a purely economic view, would prefer the end to be abrupt.

Edited January 22, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358881374' post='5935638]

You can make the call by creating a... document of some kind. The Patriot probably knows what it's called. Some kind of will. End of life will? Basically stating you don't want extraordinary measures.

Here is an example, for California:

http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pdf/44618.pdf

[decocker 7,198]

My HMO does everything but make it mandatory that all members fill out a final directive. If you ever go to surgery, they will offer to help you fill one out several times. I think insurance companies, from a purely economic view, would prefer the end to be abrupt.

i was commenting in relation to the article, death panel comment, not status quo. i have experience with DNRs and terminally ill family. i wasn't talking about DNRs as they exist today.

if people were allowed to commence with a final directive when they choose (say, i'm ready to go when i have to start wearing diapers)..

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

i was commenting in relation to the article, death panel comment, not status quo. i have experience with DNRs and terminally ill family. i wasn't talking about DNRs as they exist today.

if people were allowed to commence with a final directive when they choose (say, i'm ready to go when i have to start wearing diapers)..

Depends are not extraordinary lifesaving measures!

[james&olya 1,121]

I don't know why people continue to defend this insane process of artificially keeping the vital signs of essentially dead people going as if they were still alive? Doesn't there come a point where the human thing to do is to let go? Why is it that every time someone says that we need to find a way to make passing away a dignified process again - this is what most everyone supports and what certainly everyone wants for themselves - some get up in arms and scream euthanasia. It's not euthanasia if we let people that have lived a full live pass. It's the course of nature.

Modern medicine seems to have this mentality that if you can keep the heart beating by whatever artificial or invasive means possible you must do it. There seems to be almost no consideration of whether that 'person' is aware enough of their own continued existence and if so, wanting to continue the treatment that postpones the natural process of death. Many people have already indicated in the form of 'living wills' and 'advanced directives' what their wishes are when it comes to these end of life decisions. Unfortunately, these often get ignored.

Early in my career in health care I witnessed something that has affected my thinking ever since. An elderly lady was hospitalized with advanced pancreatic cancer. She was beyond being able to benefit further from surgery or chemotherapy. The day came when her heart finally stopped from the ravages of the disease. Because there was no directive otherwise the 'resuscitation team' descended on her and proceeded to whip her tired, failing body back into life. They were on top of her, compressing her chest and ramming a tube into her airway to breathe for her. Her ribs were snapping like brittle twigs, clearly audible to everyone there. And they were 'successful', they got her heart going and she woke up for a few minutes! AND WAS IN SHEER AGONY!! Shortly after her heart stopped again as everyone knew it would and she was finally allowed exit from the hellacious experience of dying with modern health care. Why was she subjected to this brutal and inhumane exercise in futility? It is neither humane or cost conscious to engage in such futile care! It may be good for a hospital's bottom line if they can bill and get paid for this but nobody else benefits.

Sarah Palin was very wrong when she accused the architects of the affordable care act (Obamacare) of having 'death panels'. But the idea is not necessarily a bad one and actually already exists in many institutions in the form of ethics panels. She was grotesquely wrong when she tried to affix a caricature of this idea to plans for universal access to health-care since care is already denied on a regular basis in this country if you have no insurance and cannot pay cash! The reality is that Obamacare will bring needed life-saving treatment to many that cannot otherwise afford it. But it is not in anybody's best interest (except perhaps providers in a fee-for-service system) to expend precious resources in delivering 'care' that is futile and inhumane!

[decocker 7,198]

Depends are not extraordinary lifesaving measures!

guess i am dwelling too much on the article and the japanese minister's comments and the death panel comment. i was never referring to how things currently go down.

"I see people aged 67 or 68 at class reunions who dodder around and are constantly going to the doctor," he said at a meeting of economists. "Why should I have to pay for people who just eat and drink and make no effort? I walk every day and do other things, but I'm paying more in taxes."

i mean if you can still eat and drink but just make no effort - where are the extraordinary measures..?