GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label euthanization of the elderly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label euthanization of the elderly. Show all posts

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Holland Takes Euthanasia to the Extreme


Holland proposes giving over-70s the right to die if they 'consider their lives complete'


By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 10th March 2010
Senior Woman Sitting in Wheelchair
World first: Holland will consider assisted suicide for over 70s

Assisted suicide for anyone over 70 who has simply had enough of life is being considered in Holland.
Non-doctors would be trained to administer a lethal potion to elderly people who 'consider their lives complete'.

The radical move would be a world first and push the boundaries even further in the country that first legalised euthanasia.

The Dutch parliament is to debate the measure after campaigners for assisted suicide collected 112,500 signatures in a month.

Euthanasia has been available for the terminally ill in Holland since 2002 in cases of 'hopeless and unbearable suffering' certified by two doctors, but this would be a far bigger step.

Supporters say it would offer a dignified way to die for those over 70 who just want to give up living, without having to resort to difficult or unreliable solitary suicide methods.

They might include widows and widowers overwhelmed by grief, those unwilling to face the frailties of extreme old age or people determined to ‘get out while they’re ahead’ and meet death on their own terms.
The assistants who administered the deadly cocktail of sedatives would need to be certified, campaigners said.
And they would have to make sure that patients were not acting on a whim or due to a temporary depression, but from a heartfelt and enduring desire to die.

But critics say there is scope for the elderly to come under untoward pressure from unscrupulous relatives.
Many religious groups oppose any form of suicide on principle.

And the Royal Dutch Medical Association - which played a key role in supporting the nation's euthanasia law - fears patients would use the policy as a way of getting around their own doctors.

Although Switzerland allows assisted suicide in cases where someone is not terminally ill, the Dutch measure would go further.

Renowned British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together in the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas in Zurich
'Own choosing': Renowned British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together in the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas in Zurich

In July 2009, British conductor Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, died together at the Dignitas suicide clinic outside Zürich 'under circumstances of their own choosing,' in the words of a family statement.
Sir Edward was not terminally ill, but virtually blind and deaf, while his wife was diagnosed with rapidly developing cancer.

In 2008 former rugby player Daniel James, 23, died at Dignitas. He had been paralysed from the waist down when his spine was dislocated in a training accident.

But Swiss law required Sir Edward and Mr James to hold and drink a lethal draught themselves, while in Holland the dose could be administered by a non-medical assistant.

Marie-Jose Grotenhuis of the Dutch 'Of Free Will' campaign said: 'We've been overwhelmed by the amount of reactions, especially because people took it so seriously and reactions were mostly positive.'

Several European countries allow some assistance to terminally ill people who wish to die. Belgium has followed the Dutch euthanasia model, while Britain and France allow terminally ill people to refuse treatment but stop short of allowing active euthanasia.

Around 2,500 euthanasia cases were reported in the Netherlands in 2009, rising gradually in the past decade as doctors have become more willing to disclose the practice.

Campaigners for the over-70s assisted suicide measure needed 40,000 signatures to force a debate in parliament and will do so after national elections on June 9.

The plan is certain to face resistance and if approved would still need to go through a lengthy process before becoming law.

The legalisation of euthanasia for the terminally ill was preceded by decades of discussion and quiet negotiation that attached stringent conditions and medical supervision.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256670/Holland-proposes-giving-70s-consider-lives-complete-right-die.html#ixzz0hu6lCgjM

This should be an eye opener for all those pro-ObamaCare people who haven't read the bill or can't read between the lines...  Is there really anybody out there that thinks this is okay??  Or that 70 is that old??  Or that healthy people are every useless?? 


This is what we should be celebrating and shooting for:

2 of oldest people in US die: in NH 114, Mich. 113


Mon Mar 8, 9:34 pm ET


WESTMORELAND, N.H. – Two of the oldest people in the world have died on the same day.  Mary Josephine Ray, who was certified as the oldest person living in the United States, died Sunday at age 114 years, 294 days. She died at a nursing home in Westmoreland but was active until about two weeks before her death, her granddaughter Katherine Ray said.

"She just enjoyed life. She never thought of dying at all," Katherine Ray said. "She was planning for her birthday party."

Ray died just hours before Daisey Bailey, who was 113 years, 342 days, said L. Stephen Coles, a director of the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks and studies old people and certifies those 110 or older, called supercentenarians.

"It's very rare that two of our supercentenarians die on the same day," Coles said.

Bailey, who was born March 30, 1896, died in Detroit, he said. She had suffered from dementia, said her family, which claimed she was born in 1895.

Ray, even with her recent decline, managed an interview with a reporter last week, her granddaughter said.
Ray was the oldest person in the United States and the second-oldest in the world, the Gerontology Research Group said. She also was recorded as the oldest person ever to live in New Hampshire.

The oldest living American is now Neva Morris, of Ames, Iowa, at age 114 years, 216 days. The oldest person in the world is Japan's Kama Chinen at age 114 years, 301 days.

Ray was born May 17, 1895, in Bloomfield, Prince Edward Island, Canada. She moved to the United States at age 3.

She lived for 60 years in Anson, Maine. She lived in Florida, Massachusetts and elsewhere in New Hampshire before she moved to Westmoreland in 2002 to be near her children.

Ray's husband, Walter Ray, died in 1967. Survivors include two sons, eight grandchildren, 13 great-grandchildren and five great-great-grandchildren.

Morris, the Iowa woman now believed to be the oldest U.S. resident, lives at a care center. Only one of her four children, a son in Sioux City, is still alive.

"She has some hearing deficiencies and a visual deficiency, but mentally she is quite alert and will respond when she feels like it and isn't too tired," said her 90-year-old son-in-law, Tom Wickersham, who lives in the same care center.

Wickersham said he visits his mother-in-law — who plays bingo and enjoys singing "You Are My Sunshine" — nearly every day.

Related:
Time to wake up America and Time to take the gloves off!!

Sunday, August 2, 2009

The Ultimate Resting Place of Socialized Medicine?

My wife and I disagree about some of the key end-of-life issues. When such morbid subjects arise, as they must and as they have with increasing frequency as the debate over medical care rages on, she remains adamant that she does not want to linger in pain, holding on to those final months, weeks, days or moments through any extraordinary medical intervention.

On the other hand, I want to live for every additional second modern medicine or Providence might permit. Dylan Thomas summed up my feelings in his most famous poem:

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

As President Barack Obama and Congress discuss health care legislation, and we citizens worry over the ramifications of possible policy outcomes, there arises the haunting specter of euthanasia. My wife and I may disagree on what end-of-life decision to make, but we agree that it should be our decision, not the government's.

A proposal to cover millions more Americans with medical insurance predicated on spending less on medical care in the process perplexes enough. But for those who care about freedom -- not having government tell you how to live -- and those who wish to live as long as they can -- by definition, not having the government tell you to hang it up and die -- there is even more to fear.

It's not that Obamacare is a one-step federal government takeover of medicine. But it does qualify as another giant step in that same frightening direction.

We've known for years that the more the government picks up the tab for our doctors, nurses, and drugs, the more the government will tell us how to live our lives. What to eat. What not to eat. What not to smoke or drink. What recreations not to engage in (too dangerous), and that we need to do more leg-lifts and jumping jacks with more gusto -- like a scene I recall from 1984.

Already cities have banned trans fat. The poor, who happen to smoke or drink alcohol in larger percentages than those more well off, are increasingly crushed under sin taxes. There's talk of hiking taxes on Dr. Pepper -- and candy.

We can hope that the power of police unions can keep donuts on the market at relatively low expense.

But expect much worse. And though the excuse for ever greater nannying will always be to protect the taxpayers (forced by politicians to pay the medical bills of everyone else), it will be government experts, not taxpayers, dictating dietary and exercise mandates to the population.

Still, the issue of euthanasia is even more frightening. Older people, as their bodies deteriorate, cost more money. Putting hospitals under increased government budgetary oversight and command will not miraculously increase government budgets for hospitals. Cutting costs will become a draconian theme, never ending . . . until death.

Even now, "death by waiting" is a common rationing procedure in Britain and Canada. If you are young and living under socialized medicine, getting dialysis from government-run hospitals is fairly easy; if you are old, wait. The system's limited medical facilities, doctors and nurses practice a kind of triage. The aged are the hopeless, in this common scenario, and give up their lives for the good of the hospital budget.

This is hardly an "easy death" or "good killing" ("euthanasia" comes from euthanos or “good death”). It is death by bureaucracy. Bureaucrats love their queues,need their queues. And the impetus is clear: Saving "the taxpayers" -- not the patients.

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm addressed this issue decades ago when he philosophized, "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

Mr. Obama and the congressional architects of their new medical regime are promising to cut the overall cost of care. Are we really to believe there will be no pressure to deny expensive treatments in order to save money?

Many opponents of Obamacare are jumping on a provision in one version of this legislative work-in-progress, a directive to pay doctors to counsel the elderly -- and terminally ill patients -- on various end-of-life issues. In the New York Post, Betsy McCaughey said this mandate "invites abuse" and that "seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care."

A front-page Washington Post article, headlined "Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors," reported that this controversy "undercuts what many say is the fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers."

Not getting a pacemaker at 75 years old may mean a person dies at 77 or 78, instead of at 83. What are five years of life worth? Who should decide? (And for many it means 10 ,15 or 20 additional years, and often productive years or years valued by their families.)

With the federal government in the medical care business through the so-called Public Plan, folks in Washington will have the power to decide.

If you don't like your health insurance company, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Paul Jacob :: Townhall.com Columnist by Paul Jacob – Townhall - The ultimate resting place of socialized medicine?

Related Resources:

Additional related information in Dick Morris’s Catastrophe

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

O’s Broken Healthcare Promises

PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in co-pays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

All doctors will be forced to do abortions, no matter what their convictions.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance. But this plan will ultimately evolve into a single-payer government-run healthcare system, with healthcare personal shortages, revenue shortages, long waits for care and rationing, unnecessary suffering and even death from lack of care, refusal of services for the elderly, while many still won’t be covered and the cost for this inefficient service will be astronomical.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

By: Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org

Even the Mayo Clinic says this is a bad plan… will add costs and will reduce care.

Source: New York Post

Call, email and write your congressperson, your Senator and Nancy Pelosi daily and say “no” to this program

1-202-224-3121- Congress Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Congress Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi


Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact or http://www.speaker.gov/contact

Senators from your State.

Related Resources:

British Healthcare: Don't Treat the Old!