Euthanasia

December 13, 2004

In a message dated 12/13/04 8:32:26 AM Mountain Standard Time,

SSRI medications writes:

> Pratt recommended that Chen place her dad in a nursing home but was told

> that he didn't understand the Chinese and that she couldn't do that to her

dad.

> Most galling, she explained that the Chinese respect their elders and that

> was why she was (allegedly) following his wishes. She also added that " quality

> of life is the only thing that matters. "

>

They're already killing people with lethal, human injections in the Holland,

including deformed babies. They're just trying to get us used to the idea

that killing someone is okay. IT " S PROPAGANDA!!!!!

" Blind Reason "

a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's

Unsafe At Any Dose

December 13, 2004

In a message dated 12/13/04 8:32:26 AM Mountain Standard Time,

SSRI medications writes:

> Pratt recommended that Chen place her dad in a nursing home but was told

> that he didn't understand the Chinese and that she couldn't do that to her

dad.

> Most galling, she explained that the Chinese respect their elders and that

> was why she was (allegedly) following his wishes. She also added that " quality

> of life is the only thing that matters. "

>

They're already killing people with lethal, human injections in the Holland,

including deformed babies. They're just trying to get us used to the idea

that killing someone is okay. IT " S PROPAGANDA!!!!!

" Blind Reason "

a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's

Unsafe At Any Dose

December 17, 2004

That's exactly right, Glitter ... for more information about this and how

even some segments of the hospice movement have been co-opted go to

http://www.hospicepatients.org Just as we have seen in our own case on this

list, you'll find that sadly there is this move within the hospice movement

to push drugs ... sound familiar? and if you look at their euthanasia page

you'll find a lot there that is extremely disturbing that doesn't get talked

about much in mainstream news. For more information about euthanasia too I

could recommend Wesley J. 's writings ... he's a columnist in, of all

things, the Wall Street Journal, and he does much to dispel the

pro-euthanasia propaganda.

This is, by the way, on-topic for this board because in my opinion whether

it's killing people, whether slowly or like they're doing in Holland, or

putting them on mind-altering drugs that slowly diminish their capacity to

think, it points to a larger trend in our medical profession to get rid of

the symptom rather than treat the condition and enlist the aid of family and

friends to support the patient. This was just what the author of " Medical

Science Under Dictatorship " who was a judge at the Nuremberg medical trials,

was most fearful of with regard to the medical profession.

February 10, 2009

List,

Conventional physicians seem so interested in

allowing patient autonomy in " right to die, " but

they disallow alternative treatment options.

_____________________________

Does Responsible Care Include Helping a Patient to Die?

R. Terry

Posted 01/30/2009

For 10 years, Oregon was the only state in which

physician-assisted suicide was legal. Recently, 2

more states have made the practice lawful. In

November 2008, Washington voters approved a

ballot initiative making it legal for a

physician, at the request of a terminally ill

patient, to prescribe a lethal dose of medication

for administration by the patient. In December

2008, Montana's first Judicial District Court

ruled that state homicide laws unconstitutionally

restricted terminally ill patients who seek a physician's help in dying.

In response to the growing legalization of

assisted suicide, a contributor to Medscape's

Physician Connect (MPC), a physician-only

discussion board, posed the following provocative

question: Would you consider writing a lethal

prescription for a terminally ill patient who

wants to die, if such an action was legal in your

state? The resulting discussion reveals assisted

suicide to be a polarizing issue for physicians.

" Killing is not within the purview of a

physician, " says one MPC contributor. " For those

of us who take our responsibility honestly and

seriously, euthanasia will never be acceptable. "

This view aligns with the position taken by the

American Medical Association, which considers

physician-assisted suicide as incompatible with a physician's role as healer.

Some physicians, however, find this view

simplistic. An emergency medicine doctor reasons,

" Modern American medical ethics is very concerned

about patient autonomy, the right of every

patient to determine his or her own medical care,

which, to be internally consistent, would include

voluntary termination of life. "

For many physicians, however, the issue of

assisted suicide is not so clear-cut. " If we

continue to let patients suffer when our pain

control measures have reached their limit, aren't

we causing harm? " asks an internist. " If we put a

patient on a morphine drip and continuously

increase the rate to maintain some degree of

comfort, we can produce respiratory arrest. Isn't

that euthanasia? ly, I don't know what I'd

do if I lived in a state where euthanasia was legal. "

Assisted Suicide and Palliative Sedation

Physician-assisted suicide (or statutory

euthanasia), as defined by S. Sandy Sanbar, MD,

JD,[1] in " Classification of Euthanasia, " allows

for competent, terminally ill patients to take

intentional measures to end their lives, assisted

by physicians, for the purpose of avoiding

continued pain and suffering caused by their illness.

A second form of euthanasia of concern to MPC

contributors is palliative sedation (or

legitimate medical euthanasia). According to Dr.

Sanbar, this refers to the unintentional death of

a terminally ill patient from a sedation dosing

administered to a competent, terminally ill

patient by a physician which, by its dual effect

hastens the patient's death. Legitimate medical

euthanasia is legal throughout the United States.

The Physician's Choice

For some physicians, patient autonomy clearly

outweighs the personal preferences of the

physician. " Our job is to do what is in the best

interest of our patients, " says a surgical

oncologist, whether we agree with it or not.

" What if " do no harm " means " let me end my life "

in a particular situation? One should have a

right to die in a dignified, honorable manner and

not after months of emaciation on a ventilator. "

One MPC contributor who opposes

physician-assisted suicide says, " In adhering to

the principle of primum non nocere (first do no

harm), I would not impose my personal beliefs on terminally ill patients. "

Many physicians advocate pain management over

assisted suicide. A family medicine physician

comments, " I dare suppose that most people who

express a wish to die are primarily communicating

a wish to end their suffering, but that death is

neither the sole nor best treatment option. "

However, some physicians cite inadequate

knowledge of pain management as a serious problem

in the care of terminally ill patients. One

contributor comments, " I had an acquaintance who

thought she would end her mother's suffering by

administering a large dose of morphine. Fact was

the patient was in pain, and when an adequate

dose was supplied, she slept for 8 hours. No need

for euthanasia, just adequate pain management. "

Other contributors point out that if patients

want to end their lives they need not involve a

physician. " Their lethal medication is right in

their medicine cabinet or on the over-the-counter

shelves at their pharmacy. Why should they

involve their docs? " A psychiatrist comments, " I

just don't want my name on the bottle or

referral. I trust they will have the ingenuity to

figure it out by themselves. " Another

psychiatrist takes issue with this view, saying,

" We already are entrusted to hold their lives in

our hands. How is this different? It is a

contrived and artificial standard to expect

patients to kill themselves -- and hope they do

it properly -- so the physician will not need to

sully his or her hands with a personally distasteful matter. "

The Oregon Experience

Some physicians are concerned that legal assisted

suicide might prompt large numbers of terminally

ill patients to take this option. However,

Oregon's 10-year experience with legalized

physician-assisted suicide does not bear this

out. Statistics from the Eighth Annual Report on

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act,

(<http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/>http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/)

show that the annual number of terminally ill

patients who have ingested legal medication under

the Act ranges from 16 in 1998 (the first year

patients could opt for physician-assisted

suicide) to 68 in 2003. In 2005, physicians wrote

64 prescriptions for lethal dosing, and 6 of the

patients who died in that year had received lethal prescriptions in 2004.

" The physician writes a script, the pharmacy

fills it, and the patient makes the decision

whether to take it or not, " says an internist.

" Many choose not to take the prescribed

life-ending meds. I think it gives them a sense

of control to have the medication that they may

take if they choose to, if things get bad. "

A Change in the Practice of Medicine?

As additional states consider legalizing assisted

suicide, medical practice will be more greatly

affected. " To redefine a profession is not

inherently dangerous, " comments a psychiatrist.

" I am certain that physicians not wishing to

participate will not do so, regardless of

regulation, and patients not wishing to

participate will not find themselves at the mercy

of whimsical physicians without recourse and due process. "

Assisted suicide, however, will require

physicians to gain expertise in understanding

patients' motivations, assessing mental status,

diagnosing and treating depression, and

maximizing palliative interventions. A

psychiatrist suggests that the medical community

focus on developing standards and oversight

protocols for assisting the final needs of

patients to avoid inappropriate application of

unrestricted right-to-die laws. The psychiatrist

concludes, " I would welcome a peer-review process

to ensure consensus and protect our patients and

ourselves from making marginal or regretful decisions. "

View these and other discussions in Physician

Connect (physicians only;

<http://www.medscape.com/connect>click here to learn more).

References

* Sanbar SS. Classification of euthanasia.

American Board of Legal Medicine Web site.

Available at: http://www.ablminc.org/Editorial_Classification_of_

* Euthanasia_SSS_06.pdf Accessed January 27, 2009.

R. Terry, medical writer and editor, Heights, New York

Disclosure: R. Terry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

August 18, 2009

I feel obliged to speak up. I do not believe that President Obama in any way

wishes to see anyone, whether newborn, elderly, and/or disabled by any illness,

euthanized rather than given appropriate medical care. Oregon has sanctioned

euthanasia, under a doctor's care, and perhaps one or two other states have--I'm

not sure. As a retired physician, I believe that is appropriate in certain very

specific circumstances, such as when a patient is terminally ill, near death,

and suffering intractable pain, and it is the patient's wish to proceed. It is

such a difficult and drastic decision, I would prefer to see it made by a panel

of three physicians, rather than one.

Of course many people, some on this list, have religious objections to the

ending of a life, whether by euthanasia, or abortion, and I respect their

feelings, and understand that they would never choose this option for themselves

or a family member. Many of these same people believe it is murder, and that

the state should not be allowed to sanction abortion or euthanasia. I respect

their religious beliefs, but differ with them. I could elaborate, but because it

is unlikely I would change anyone's belief in doing so, will not, at this time.

I have digressed. To get back to Obama and health care, I believe he is

sincerely attempting to see that every US citizen has affordable health care. I

personally favor universal health care coverage, for all of its faults, because

it would cut out the insurance companies and save a lot of money that is being

spent unneccessarily in overhead in the billing process, and in profits to

corporations.

However, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon because I think

corporate medicine and corporate insurance interests and drug companies have

bought off too many of our US Representatives and Senators, whether Republican

or Democrat.

I do feel optimistic that the day will come that HBOT is approved for treatment

of TBI, by the FDA and Medicare, thus opening the door for reimbursement from

other insurance coverage, and I think that treatment for other indications,

including autism, stroke, and cerebral palsy, among others, will follow. It is

not happening fast enough.

I feel a sense of urgency, and a feeling of agony whenever I am with some of my

many friends who have had a TBI or other anoxic brain injury, because I know

they could be so much more functional, and the quality of their lives so greatly

improved, if they had access to hyperbaric oxygen treatment. My own father has

had two strokes, and bravely struggles to walk with a walker--his biggest

problem being his balance. I believe he would still be living independently,

instead of in assisted living, if he had access to HBOT. It breaks my heart, for

him, and for the millions who are losing out due to the ignorance of government

and organized medicine.

respectfully submitted,

, MD

TBI surviver

From: Freels <dfreels@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: True: Obama's death panels. NY Times: False

medicaid

Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 2:21 PM

Mr. Mogavero,

I appreciate your efforts at pretending you're a bright guy who never misses any

details, but I need to point out a couple of details you've missed.

1. My name is Freels, not Freel.

2. Your reply post below should be addressed to Mr. Ed Nemeth, who replied to

your initial post, not me. I consider Mr. Nemeth an expert in this area as he

was advised to end his daughter's life at birth. God had a different plan, as He

usually does whenever man attempts to take over a role reserved only for God.

Thus Mr. Nemeth's expert reply to your naive and Kool-Aid laced post.

A couple of other relevant facts.

Government euthanasia is already implemented and official policy among the

elderly, specifically regarding Medicare coverage policy of HBOT. Please see

http://wwww. hbotdenied. com . Here you'll see denial of HBOT for 22

indications, a policy in place some 35+ years--despite HBOT efficacy documented

thousands of times in peer-reviewed literature for all 22 indications- -and in

complete contradiction to Federal civil rights law, the ADA, and the policy of

the United States Dept. Of Health and Human Services. See http://www.hhs.

gov/ocr .

Why euthanasia?

At some point, the question has to be asked, is it better for the health of the

system if beneficiaries live longer or shorter lives?

Without HBOT, will Medicare beneficiaries live longer or shorter lives?

For a history of how these 22 indications came to be denied see http://wwww.

oxyhealth. com/images/ noncovered. pdf

This official euthanasia policy has been successfully carried out nearly 40

years. Obama is just trying to broaden it.

DF

[abin-pa] NYT: False " Death Panel " Rumor

>> > > >

>> > > >NOTE: Those with brain injury will not be denied care under health

>> > > care reform.

>> > > >

>> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

>> > > >

>> > > >August 14, 2009

>> > > >False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

>> > > >By JIM RUTENBERG and JACKIE CALMES

>> > > >WASHINGTON - The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's

>> > > health care proposals would create government-sponsore d " death panels "

>> > > to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from

>> > > nowhere in recent weeks.

>> > > >

>> > > >Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the

>> > > party's last vice-presidential nominee, Palin, and E.

>> > > Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion

>> > > nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet

>> > > campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a

>> > > Muslim and questioning his nationality.

>> > > >

>> > > >But the rumor - which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style

>> > > meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why

>> > > it was false - was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers

>> > > or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

>> > > >

>> > > >Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating

>> > > months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media

>> > > outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton's health

>> > > care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The

>> > > Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey,

>> > > whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative

>> > > movement (and ultimately, New York's lieutenant governor).

>> > > >

>> > > >There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call

>> > > for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that

>> > > would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.

>> > > But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from

>> > > anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-

>> > > abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of

>> > > actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional

>> > > consultations with doctors about hospice care and other " end of life "

>> > > services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

>> > > >

>> > > >On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in

>> > > the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care

>> > > plan had dropped any " end of life " proposals from consideration.

>> > > >

>> > > >A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance

>> > > beneficiaries' consultations with professionals on whether to

>> > > authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later

>> > > in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar

>> > > provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr.

>> > > Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate " because of the way

>> > > they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly. "

>> > > >

>> > > >The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted

>> > > in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings

>> > > but also by Ms. Palin - who popularized the " death panel " phrase - has

>> > > surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

>> > > >

>> > > > " I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it's much stronger than

>> > > I expected, " said Rother, the executive vice president of AARP,

>> > > which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly

>> > > declared the " death panel " rumors false. " It's people who are

>> > > ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to

>> > > weaken the president. "

>> > > >

>> > > >The specter of government-sponsore d, forced euthanasia was raised as

>> > > early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any

>> > > legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr.

>> > > Obama, The Washington Times.

>> > > >

>> > > >In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4

>> > > program of Nazi Germany in which " children and adults with

>> > > disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to

>> > > execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any

>> > > significant neurological condition. "

>> > > >

>> > > >Noting the " administrative predilections " of the new team at the

>> > > White House, it urged " anyone who sees the current climate as a

>> > > budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers. "

>> > > >

>> > > >The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama's abortion

>> > > rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans who did

>> > > not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to

>> > > health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

>> > > >

>> > > >When the Democrats included money for family planning in a proposed

>> > > version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative

>> > > Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: " Euthanasia is

>> > > another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing

>> > > health care costs under Obama's plan, after all, counts as economic

>> > > stimulus, too - controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs. "

>> > > >

>> > > >Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton's plan was hotly

>> > > disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in around

>> > > the same time.

>> > > >

>> > > >She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a

>> > > bureaucracy to " monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing

>> > > what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective, " was

>> > > carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained

>> > > resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush

>> > > Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

>> > > >

>> > > >The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors'

>> > > treatments. A separate part of the law - regarding a council set up to

>> > > coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments - states

>> > > that the council's recommendations cannot " be construed as mandates or

>> > > clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. "

>> > > >

>> > > >But Ms. McCaughey's article provided another opportunity for others

>> > > to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. " Sometimes for the common

>> > > good, you just have to say, 'Hey, Grandpa, you've had a good life,' "

>> > > Mr. Beck said.

>> > > >

>> > > >The syndicated conservative columnist Cal wrote, " No one

>> > > should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia. " The

>> > > Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the Nazis,

>> > > quoting the Aktion T4 program: " It must be made clear to anyone

>> > > suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of

>> > > costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified. "

>> > > >

>> > > >The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but still,

>> > > as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did

>> > > not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota,

>> > > an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally

>> > > confronted with the " forced euthanasia " accusation at forums on the

>> > > plans, but came to see it as an advantage. " Almost automatically you

>> > > have most of the audience on your side, " Mr. Daschle said. " Any

>> > > rational normal person isn't going to believe that assertion. "

>> > > >

>> > > >But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics

>> > > seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for " end of life "

>> > > consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To Brock, a former

>> > > conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now runs a

>> > > group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the

>> > > uproar is a reminder of what has changed - the creation of groups like

>> > > his - and what has not.

>> > > >

>> > > > " In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about

>> > > the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back, " he

>> > > said. " Now, there is that capacity. "

>> > > >

>> > > >Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr, said he

>> > > saw no reason to stop making the claim.

>> > > >

>> > > > " I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians

>> > > and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to reflect

>> > > that view, " he said, " and I don't think that's a crazy leap. "

>> > > >

>> > > > Pear contributed reporting.

>> > > >

>> > > >*********** ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ******

>> > > >Acquired Brain Injury Network of Pennsylvania, Inc.

>> > > >1-800-516-8052, 215-699-2139, info@

>> > > >A Pennsylvania 501©(3) nonprofit corporation of

>> > > >survivors and families. Provides information, support,

>> > > >presentations, peer-to-peer training, monthly newsletter.

>> > > >See www.abin-pa. org for Support Groups, Services, etc.

>> > > >For disability topics from a variety of viewpoints, join the

>> > > >ABIN-PA e-list at: www.groups.. com/group/ abin-pa.

>> > > >

>> > > >Additional resources:

>> > > >ABIN-PA Brain Injury InfoLine 1-800-516-8052

>> > > >BIAPA Brain Injury Resource Line 1-866-635-7097

>> > > >DOH Brain Injury Help Line 1-866-412-4755

>> > > >DOH Head Injury Program 1-866-412-4755

>> > > >DPW CommCare Waiver 1-800-757-5042

>> > > >Disability Rights Network 1-800-692-7443

>> > > >PA Health Law Project 1-800-274-3258

>> > > >PDE Special Education Consult 1-800-879-2301

>> > > >Pittsburgh Brain Injury Alliance 1-412-761-9870

>> > > >

>> > > >Charitable Solicitation Registration

>> > > >The official registration and financial information of the

>> > > >Acquired Brain Injury Network of Pennsylvania, Inc., may

>> > > >be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State

>> > > >by calling toll free, within Pennsylvania, 1-(800) 732-0999.

>> > > >Registration does not imply endorsement.

>> > > >*********** ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ******

>> > >

>> >

>>

>> --

>> J. Nemeth, President, CEO

>> 1955 36th Street

>> Sacramento, CA 95816

>>

>> 916-856-7044 x339

>> 916-856-7040 Fax

>>

>> www.SpectrumEvents. com

>>

August 18, 2009

Hi Dr ,

You are correct that such actions are an individuals right.

in fact, as a very devote Christian, i did remove my daughter from life

support to end her life because she had a flat EEG, and no hope for

survival... and, I truly needed her to die in my arms, with my love and

not alone some night while I was sleeping. (she had died for 35 minutes

and was resuscitated)

Thus, these things are possible.

Now, my daughter did pass again, in my arms, in the 10 minutes of time

she was expected to die.

I cannot tell you the feelings I felt at that moment, but I can say that

there is not a moment of a single day, where I do not go over that

decision and action. Despite my faith that I did the right thing, at

the right moment for the right reasons.

Miraculously, my daughter did start breathing again and later awoke from

her deep coma.

The issue with Oregon is this, these are very personal decisions, for

very very personal reasons. Oregon does this simply to control costs.

For ex. at 60+ yeares of age, a man with stage 2 (I think) prostate

cancer was disallowed from receiving curative medical care and instead

was given suicide pills.

He did fight the system, got an emergency injunction and was quickly

given chemo therapy with was curative.

Now, what about all the others who did not have the legal savvy?

The fact is we do not kill heinous serial child rapist killers like

this. Why should we kill Grandma and gramps this way? It IS murder.

Now, if they want to avoid chemo, and die with dignity, that is

available now. It simply is. And, it is entirely their decision with no

governmental involvement.

now, there are many, many legal issues with this proposition. First and

foremost, it is illegal under 17 international treaties that America has

signed designating medical discrimination as a " Crime against Humanity "

which has been personally clarified to me by Cherif Bassiounni.

It is what it is.

Second, it is entirely illegal by many, many Federal laws and regs.

can detail them... I am too tired right now.

And, so the question we have to ask, are we a nation of thugs? Or a

nation where the rule of law rules?

I have pushed hard for 8 years to see to it that we are a nation which

obeys the rule of law for my daughter. you can vote for a nation of

thugary, but I have to warn you, it will bring tremendous tragedy to our

nation and costs far beyond any potential savings.

Liberals like Obama like to cite the First Amendment as they amended it,

but remember it does say " Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, OR THE PROHIBTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; "

There is no greater religious decision than how a person, or loved one

shall die.

In closing, hospice, and denial of care, and removal from life support

are all available. An imposition into religious beliefs in the greatest

human issue, death, can only bring horrific governmental strife. that

this nation has not seen in 150 years. It is tyranny that is far too

much for very peaceful people to bare lightly.

Blessings

On 8/18/2009 1:45 PM, wrote:

>

> I feel obliged to speak up. I do not believe that President Obama in

> any way wishes to see anyone, whether newborn, elderly, and/or

> disabled by any illness, euthanized rather than given appropriate

> medical care. Oregon has sanctioned euthanasia, under a doctor's care,

> and perhaps one or two other states have--I'm not sure. As a retired

> physician, I believe that is appropriate in certain very specific

> circumstances, such as when a patient is terminally ill, near death,

> and suffering intractable pain, and it is the patient's wish to

> proceed. It is such a difficult and drastic decision, I would prefer

> to see it made by a panel of three physicians, rather than one.

>

> Of course many people, some on this list, have religious objections to

> the ending of a life, whether by euthanasia, or abortion, and I

> respect their feelings, and understand that they would never choose

> this option for themselves or a family member. Many of these same

> people believe it is murder, and that the state should not be allowed

> to sanction abortion or euthanasia. I respect their religious

> beliefs, but differ with them. I could elaborate, but because it is

> unlikely I would change anyone's belief in doing so, will not, at this

> time.

>

> I have digressed. To get back to Obama and health care, I believe he

> is sincerely attempting to see that every US citizen has affordable

> health care. I personally favor universal health care coverage, for

> all of its faults, because it would cut out the insurance companies

> and save a lot of money that is being spent unneccessarily in overhead

> in the billing process, and in profits to corporations.

>

> However, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon because I

> think corporate medicine and corporate insurance interests and drug

> companies have bought off too many of our US Representatives and

> Senators, whether Republican or Democrat.

>

> I do feel optimistic that the day will come that HBOT is approved for

> treatment of TBI, by the FDA and Medicare, thus opening the door for

> reimbursement from other insurance coverage, and I think that

> treatment for other indications, including autism, stroke, and

> cerebral palsy, among others, will follow. It is not happening fast

> enough.

>

> I feel a sense of urgency, and a feeling of agony whenever I am with

> some of my many friends who have had a TBI or other anoxic brain

> injury, because I know they could be so much more functional, and the

> quality of their lives so greatly improved, if they had access to

> hyperbaric oxygen treatment. My own father has had two strokes, and

> bravely struggles to walk with a walker--his biggest problem being his

> balance. I believe he would still be living independently, instead of

> in assisted living, if he had access to HBOT. It breaks my heart, for

> him, and for the millions who are losing out due to the ignorance of

> government and organized medicine.

>

> respectfully submitted,

> , MD

> TBI surviver

>

> From: Freels <dfreels@...

> <mailto:dfreels%40mindspring.com>>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: True: Obama's death panels. NY

> Times: False

> medicaid

> <mailto:medicaid%40>

> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 2:21 PM

>

> Mr. Mogavero,

>

> I appreciate your efforts at pretending you're a bright guy who never

> misses any details, but I need to point out a couple of details you've

> missed.

>

> 1. My name is Freels, not Freel.

>

> 2. Your reply post below should be addressed to Mr. Ed Nemeth, who

> replied to your initial post, not me. I consider Mr. Nemeth an expert

> in this area as he was advised to end his daughter's life at birth.

> God had a different plan, as He usually does whenever man attempts to

> take over a role reserved only for God. Thus Mr. Nemeth's expert reply

> to your naive and Kool-Aid laced post.

>

> A couple of other relevant facts.

>

> Government euthanasia is already implemented and official policy among

> the elderly, specifically regarding Medicare coverage policy of HBOT.

> Please see http://wwww. hbotdenied. com . Here you'll see denial of

> HBOT for 22 indications, a policy in place some 35+ years--despite

> HBOT efficacy documented thousands of times in peer-reviewed

> literature for all 22 indications- -and in complete contradiction to

> Federal civil rights law, the ADA, and the policy of the United States

> Dept. Of Health and Human Services. See http://www.hhs. gov/ocr .

>

> Why euthanasia?

>

> At some point, the question has to be asked, is it better for the

> health of the system if beneficiaries live longer or shorter lives?

>

> Without HBOT, will Medicare beneficiaries live longer or shorter lives?

>

> For a history of how these 22 indications came to be denied see

> http://wwww. oxyhealth. com/images/ noncovered. pdf

>

> This official euthanasia policy has been successfully carried out

> nearly 40 years. Obama is just trying to broaden it.

>

> DF

>

> [abin-pa] NYT: False " Death Panel " Rumor

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >NOTE: Those with brain injury will not be denied care under health

>

> >> > > care reform.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >August 14, 2009

>

> >> > > >False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

>

> >> > > >By JIM RUTENBERG and JACKIE CALMES

>

> >> > > >WASHINGTON - The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's

>

> >> > > health care proposals would create government-sponsore d " death

> panels "

>

> >> > > to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from

>

> >> > > nowhere in recent weeks.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the

>

> >> > > party's last vice-presidential nominee, Palin, and E.

>

> >> > > Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion

>

> >> > > nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet

>

> >> > > campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a

>

> >> > > Muslim and questioning his nationality.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >But the rumor - which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style

>

> >> > > meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying

> out why

>

> >> > > it was false - was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan

> bloggers

>

> >> > > or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating

>

> >> > > months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media

>

> >> > > outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton's

> health

>

> >> > > care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The

>

> >> > > Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy

> McCaughey,

>

> >> > > whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative

>

> >> > > movement (and ultimately, New York's lieutenant governor).

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that

> would call

>

> >> > > for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body

> that

>

> >> > > would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting

> measure.

>

> >> > > But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears

> from

>

> >> > > anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-

>

> >> > > abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of

>

> >> > > actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for

> optional

>

> >> > > consultations with doctors about hospice care and other " end of

> life "

>

> >> > > services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and

> others in

>

> >> > > the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a

> health care

>

> >> > > plan had dropped any " end of life " proposals from consideration.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance

>

> >> > > beneficiaries' consultations with professionals on whether to

>

> >> > > authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions

> later

>

> >> > > in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar

>

> >> > > provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr.

>

> >> > > Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate " because of

> the way

>

> >> > > they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >The extent to which it and other provisions have been

> misinterpreted

>

> >> > > in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall

> meetings

>

> >> > > but also by Ms. Palin - who popularized the " death panel "

> phrase - has

>

> >> > > surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > > " I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it's much stronger

> than

>

> >> > > I expected, " said Rother, the executive vice president of

> AARP,

>

> >> > > which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly

>

> >> > > declared the " death panel " rumors false. " It's people who are

>

> >> > > ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to

>

> >> > > weaken the president. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >The specter of government-sponsore d, forced euthanasia was

> raised as

>

> >> > > early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any

>

> >> > > legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr.

>

> >> > > Obama, The Washington Times.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the

> Aktion T4

>

> >> > > program of Nazi Germany in which " children and adults with

>

> >> > > disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to

>

> >> > > execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any

>

> >> > > significant neurological condition. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Noting the " administrative predilections " of the new team at the

>

> >> > > White House, it urged " anyone who sees the current climate as a

>

> >> > > budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama's abortion

>

> >> > > rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans

> who did

>

> >> > > not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to

>

> >> > > health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in

> Congress.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >When the Democrats included money for family planning in a

> proposed

>

> >> > > version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative

>

> >> > > Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: " Euthanasia is

>

> >> > > another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states.

> Reducing

>

> >> > > health care costs under Obama's plan, after all, counts as economic

>

> >> > > stimulus, too - controlling life, controlling death,

> controlling costs. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton's plan was hotly

>

> >> > > disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in

> around

>

> >> > > the same time.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a

>

> >> > > bureaucracy to " monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is

> doing

>

> >> > > what the federal government deems appropriate and

> cost-effective, " was

>

> >> > > carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained

>

> >> > > resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush

>

> >> > > Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors'

>

> >> > > treatments. A separate part of the law - regarding a council

> set up to

>

> >> > > coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments -

> states

>

> >> > > that the council's recommendations cannot " be construed as

> mandates or

>

> >> > > clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >But Ms. McCaughey's article provided another opportunity for

> others

>

> >> > > to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. " Sometimes for the

> common

>

> >> > > good, you just have to say, 'Hey, Grandpa, you've had a good

> life,' "

>

> >> > > Mr. Beck said.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >The syndicated conservative columnist Cal wrote, " No one

>

> >> > > should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia. " The

>

> >> > > Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the

> Nazis,

>

> >> > > quoting the Aktion T4 program: " It must be made clear to anyone

>

> >> > > suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of

>

> >> > > costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be

> justified. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but

> still,

>

> >> > > as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did

>

> >> > > not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South

> Dakota,

>

> >> > > an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally

>

> >> > > confronted with the " forced euthanasia " accusation at forums on the

>

> >> > > plans, but came to see it as an advantage. " Almost

> automatically you

>

> >> > > have most of the audience on your side, " Mr. Daschle said. " Any

>

> >> > > rational normal person isn't going to believe that assertion. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics

>

> >> > > seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for " end of life "

>

> >> > > consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To Brock, a

> former

>

> >> > > conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now

> runs a

>

> >> > > group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the

>

> >> > > uproar is a reminder of what has changed - the creation of

> groups like

>

> >> > > his - and what has not.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > > " In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about

>

> >> > > the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back, " he

>

> >> > > said. " Now, there is that capacity. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr,

> said he

>

> >> > > saw no reason to stop making the claim.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > > " I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians

>

> >> > > and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to

> reflect

>

> >> > > that view, " he said, " and I don't think that's a crazy leap. "

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > > Pear contributed reporting.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >*********** ********* ********* ********* ********* *********

> ******

>

> >> > > >Acquired Brain Injury Network of Pennsylvania, Inc.

>

> >> > > >1-800-516-8052, 215-699-2139, info@

>

> >> > > >A Pennsylvania 501©(3) nonprofit corporation of

>

> >> > > >survivors and families. Provides information, support,

>

> >> > > >presentations, peer-to-peer training, monthly newsletter.

>

> >> > > >See www.abin-pa. org for Support Groups, Services, etc.

>

> >> > > >For disability topics from a variety of viewpoints, join the

>

> >> > > >ABIN-PA e-list at: www.groups.. com/group/ abin-pa.

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Additional resources:

>

> >> > > >ABIN-PA Brain Injury InfoLine 1-800-516-8052

>

> >> > > >BIAPA Brain Injury Resource Line 1-866-635-7097

>

> >> > > >DOH Brain Injury Help Line 1-866-412-4755

>

> >> > > >DOH Head Injury Program 1-866-412-4755

>

> >> > > >DPW CommCare Waiver 1-800-757-5042

>

> >> > > >Disability Rights Network 1-800-692-7443

>

> >> > > >PA Health Law Project 1-800-274-3258

>

> >> > > >PDE Special Education Consult 1-800-879-2301

>

> >> > > >Pittsburgh Brain Injury Alliance 1-412-761-9870

>

> >> > > >

>

> >> > > >Charitable Solicitation Registration

>

> >> > > >The official registration and financial information of the

>

> >> > > >Acquired Brain Injury Network of Pennsylvania, Inc., may

>

> >> > > >be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State

>

> >> > > >by calling toll free, within Pennsylvania, 1-(800) 732-0999.

>

> >> > > >Registration does not imply endorsement.

>

> >> > > >*********** ********* ********* ********* ********* *********

> ******

>

> >> > >

>

> >> >

>

> >> >

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >> --

>

> >> J. Nemeth, President, CEO

>

> >> 1955 36th Street

>

> >> Sacramento, CA 95816

>

> >>

>

> >> 916-856-7044 x339

>

> >> 916-856-7040 Fax

>

> >>

>

> >> www.SpectrumEvents. com

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

>

> >>

August 18, 2009

Fully agreed, Ed. Thank you for your courage - this country needs more men like

you.

medicaid

From: nemeth@...

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:45:27 -0700

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: euthanasia