Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you go to the hospital, you will be asked if you want to be resuscitated. If you can't express your wishes, your family will be asked. It helps to have had these discussions in the past. It helps to have a living will, which many "grandmas" do not have. If you can't/don't say "no", the hospital is legally obligated to do everything possible to keep you alive, even when the last shred of hope is gone.
I gave a talk on this at my church and many of the people, some seniors themselves, said "I don't want what happened to my (mother/father) to happen to me". If you've seen a prolongation of life beyond all hope, you never want it to happen to you.
It depends on how you go into the hospital you can go in upright but you can also go in feet first on your back with a pair of EMTs pushing you into the ER. 4 years ago that was me on the verge of death and they didn't waste a second working on me. I not elderly and that convinced me I needed a number of legal documents (Living Will, Medical Power of Attorney, Financial Power of Attorney and a decent Will). Now I live alone and my nearest relatives are about 200 miles away in a different state. I live in a city (Washington DC) that has some of the nations best hospitals (the reason is obvious) and even better lawyers. Apart from a close relative the documents put my lawyer in the driver seat if my relatve can't be contacted soon enough. Tommorow never knows.
I have enjoyed reading this thread. However, if the Harry Reid bill had been passed in 2001 I don't think I would have been able to read it. I am sure that Medicare would have been wiped out by the time I had my heart attack in 2005 and they would have just sent me back home to die which I would have done soon. The attack was not sever, at all. Almost no pain and that only for about 5 seconds in my upper arms. My local hospital did all they could to keep me quiet and get me past the original dangers and then sent me to a heart hospital. There I got a heart cath the next day and they found me with three heart arteries 85% plugged and three more 95% plugged. I had a 6 bypass surgery the third day there and survived. With that much plugging I would have gone out to do some hard work, people of 72 can do that, you know. I would have had one of those big ones and gone from this Earth.
Anyway they didn't send me home and I am back after 5 years able to do anything I could at 72. In fact, I am lifting heavier weights at unbelievable numbers of reps than I could at 72. Yep, at 77 I still work and do all kinds of exercise to keep all those people from having failed me.
Folks, if this bill had been in effect back then I wouldn't be here enjoying all your writing. I am sure glad I got this far and so are my family members.
Don't think that Living Wills are the answer to anything. My father had all the necessary papers on file at the hospital but when he passed on from pneumonia and a nurse's aide who didn't know about that resuscitated him he was not happy but had no choice. He died at 94 and then had to finish the job at 97. All the papers in the world wouldn't keep that from happening if a young lady walked in and found you dead and then brought you back. Luckily he had enough money to exist the next three years in a nursing home at over $3000 per month. It is cheaper out here in the sticks, you know.
I don't think there is anything in any of the bills out there that would deny treatment to a 72 year old with a heart attack, or even a 92 year old, if that is what the patient wants.
This thread is about doing what the pt. wants. I know how living wills can be ignored. My dad had one, and yet they did some agressive respiratory therapy on him when he had pneumonia, which only prolonged his life by about 5 weeks.
No, actually the term "death panel" is just a term coined by Republican propagandists.
What makes it worse, is that the very same Republicans, such as Grassley who tried to scare people "death panels" multiple times in his town-halls, actually VOTED FOR THEM in 2003. First they want them, and then they oppose them????? What's up with that???? And then Grassley goes on TV to admit that "death panels" were not even on the bill. Sheeesh...
All they need to do at the most is remind people there are living wills and let people decide for themselves. No government needed.
Don't think that Living Wills are the answer to anything. My father had all the necessary papers on file at the hospital but when he passed on from pneumonia and a nurse's aide who didn't know about that resuscitated him he was not happy but had no choice. He died at 94 and then had to finish the job at 97. All the papers in the world wouldn't keep that from happening if a young lady walked in and found you dead and then brought you back. Luckily he had enough money to exist the next three years in a nursing home at over $3000 per month. It is cheaper out here in the sticks, you know.
If they can make a mistake on a Living Will and save someone's life, then they can make a mistake on the Death Panels and end someone's life when that one wanted to live. It's better to have the error going to the side of life than to death.
When you go to the hospital, you will be asked if you want to be resuscitated. If you can't express your wishes, your family will be asked. It helps to have had these discussions in the past. It helps to have a living will, which many "grandmas" do not have. If you can't/don't say "no", the hospital is legally obligated to do everything possible to keep you alive, even when the last shred of hope is gone.
I gave a talk on this at my church and many of the people, some seniors themselves, said "I don't want what happened to my (mother/father) to happen to me". If you've seen a prolongation of life beyond all hope, you never want it to happen to you.
Living wills have been around for some time now and so if many "grandmas" don't have them, that's because they didn't really want to have them.
I suppose this is the purpose of the death panels then... to get those people who refused to sign the living will so they can just die. This administration wouldn't like to see anyone refusing the living will after all and using resources the government doesn't want to give "useless eaters".
Health care is getting into very dangerous territory when it's all about making sure people die if the government thinks they should die. What kind of health care is that? Health care is supposed to prolong our lives so to be honest, the government needs to admit it's more about getting people gone than anything else.
If they can make a mistake on a Living Will and save someone's life, then they can make a mistake on the Death Panels and end someone's life when that one wanted to live. It's better to have the error going to the side of life than to death.
When will you sit down and watch the 60 Minutes episode anyway?
Living wills have been around for some time now and so if many "grandmas" don't have them, that's because they didn't really want to have them.
I suppose this is the purpose of the death panels then... to get those people who refused to sign the living will so they can just die. This administration wouldn't like to see anyone refusing the living will after all and using resources the government doesn't want to give "useless eaters".
Health care is getting into very dangerous territory when it's all about making sure people die if the government thinks they should die. What kind of health care is that? Health care is supposed to prolong our lives so to be honest, the government needs to admit it's more about getting people gone than anything else.
Many grandmas don't have living wills b/c they have no idea what it means not to have one. My in-laws had absolutely no idea what end of life care meant, even though my FIL was 97 when he went into the hospital for the last time (and subsequently died). When the hospital asked, by law, what they wanted to have done re: end of life care, at first, my MIL said "everything". My sister-in-law was with them and she was shocked. She had a little talk with MIL about just what this meant, and they changed him to a DNR (do not resuscitate). When you get right down to it, many people don't even have a legal will stating what to do with their estate, yet there is plenty of "common knowledge" about this document. Some think they don't need it b/c they don't have enough assets, some think it is "bad luck" to write one, and some just don't think death is ever going to happen to them, it's something that happens to other people.
You are incorrect that the purpose of end of life counseling is to get people to just die or makesure they die if the government thinks they should die. It is to get what the patient wants. You must have missed my earlier post where I quoted numerous senior citizens who said, "I don't want what happened to my mother (father) to happen to me.
It is a logical fallacy to a*s*s*ume that if someone's life is "saved" against their wishes that the opposite could happen as well. In the absence of a living will, the hospital/nursing home is OBLIGATED to do everything it can. In my father's case, it was a matter of judgement if he really was terminal.
When will you sit down and watch the 60 Minutes episode anyway?
Isn't it funny how people will have such opinions on a show, feeling very self assured as to the basis of their opinions, yet obviously never watched it?
Yes, every insurance company has their bean counters, and if you have pre-existing condition, then I'd recommend you never change your job because if you do, you'll never have medical insurance again. That's the way it works today.
I agree, so can we just fix what needs fixing everything that is responsible for high health care costs? I do not want to keep the status quo, and let the federal government simply swallow those high costs; forcing us to pay for it under threat of imprisonment and heavy fines?
Use the state commerce clause to allow more competition, and allow insurance companies to offer health care policies across state lines. If the employer offers health insurance, allow people to keep their health care insurance while on unemployment compensation.
To deny someone health insurance simply because they were sick before, or are sick now, is assuming that people don't get sick, and those who do are somehow curious exceptions. So, modify the regulations for preexisting medical conditions.
Enact an aggressive medical litigation reform, TORT reform, to stop the greedy lawyers from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Your local hospital spends millions of dollars a year on medical malpractice insurance, and we pick up the tab.
There are many ways we can bring down the costs of health care, and not one of the ideas I mentioned would cost taxpayers one penny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
