Response to "The Death Book for Veterans"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/21/92219/5432

Kevin:

The first thing I would note is it’s not an “article” it’s an op-ed, as Kos notes. The second thing I would note is that the author of the op-ed is not that important because the pamphlet in question is available on the internet for anyone to read themselves. If we had to take his word for what it said then I would agree his political persuasion is relevant. My response to Kos:

They tried with Death Panels. It fizzled.

Really, it “fizzled”? If that’s the conclusion they draw from dems agreeing to pull that portion out of the bill then this is a rough start for poor Second Gen.

Of course, if they can't get you pissed by telling you President Obama wants to kill grandma, now they want you to believe he wants to kill off our soldiers.

These are Obama’s words – maybe you just want to take the pain pill instead of getting a pacemaker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

“Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated [this book]” (last year =/= President Obama, that would be Bush)

And this establishes what exactly? We all know that bureaucrats are career professionals, not part of an administration. Anyone who lived through the “controversy” of Bush firing the U.S. attorneys (although Clinton did the same thing at a time when a case was pending in which he had a significant interest) knows this. A rather pointless point from Second Gen.

You're making preparations about what happens IF. And IF you're there, you want THIS done. That is a living will.

Not exactly. Since there are plenty of attorneys on this list please show me an example of a living will someone has prepared or filled out that includes a questionnaire. More honestly, it is a how-to on deciding what to put in a living will. That is a distinction with a huge difference.

Towey uses the politically charged term “push poll” to cause anger, when in fact, if you go to the page in question, it is a series of questions that you score in order to come up with a picture of what you would deem acceptable circumstance.

“Push poll” is a loaded term. Hey, it’s an op-ed, go figure. I think his point is valid though – the questions are so overly broad. “I live in a nursing home” – 5% of people over 65 living in nursing homes. Should we ask them all whether life is still worth living? Surely we’d save a few bucks if some said no. “I can no longer control my bladder.” Shall we send out this pamphlet with every prescription of Flomax? Living wills are established to provide for what level of life-sustaining care is provided in the event of an accident. Living wills are not about deciding to kill yourself if you piss your pants.

The thing is, this is a mish mash of two diffrent [sic] sections. The "Section that provacatively [sic] asks 'Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?' is NOT in the question and answer scoring section. It is a completely different section. It is in the scenarios section, and it is used to illustrate how two different people can say that same statement, and mean completely different things.

True, but so what? The op-ed doesn’t conflate a point in stating that “there is a section that provocatively asks…”

And where he states: “There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as ‘I can no longer contribute to my family's well being…Those aren’t "scenarios”…If it's difficult, but acceptable to you to cause a severe emotional burden on your family, then that is your choice, GO FOR IT. That's why you score it first, and make your decisions based on the worksheet.

Okay, first a creepy worksheet gets creepier when reading a liberal so casually write, “Hey, if being a burden on your family is fine with you then go ahead and live. Hey, whatever.” And to say that’s why you “score it” – you know, because that is how we make life and death decisions. This is a great demonstration why the fears of conservatives are valid. True, this is a voluntary “scoring” but Europe has slouched to the involuntary variety (which could less charitably be called state-sanctioned murder). One of the first studies on involuntary euthanasia, including through withholding life-saving treatment, is from the early 1990s. Interestingly, euthanasia was only “legalized” in 2002. The state-run health care system is, of course, far older. What’s more, since that law covered people 12 and over, in 2005 the government established guidelines to follow for euthanizing infants. As you may suspect, they did not fill out a questionnaire in advance. Last year Belgium broadened their laws to include infants, teenagers, and people with Alzheimer’s (it’s probably cheaper than researching a cure).

Lets [sic] stop here for a moment and discuss who Jim Towey was and is.

Again, I find this irrelevant. If I had to trust him for what the pamphlet actually said I would care about his biases, but I can (and did) read it myself. I encourage all of you to do the same. Again: http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf That notwithstanding, I do think it is wise for Second Gen to spend space on a personal attack since the facts are not on his side.

I’m sorry this is so long and involved, but you know by now, it takes 5 minutes for these as*holes to take something good and tear it apart and nail it right on President Obama’s as*.

The presidential posterior aside, I don’t think Second Gen has made the case that the pamphlet in question is “good”.

Get a hold of the booklet. It’s not that hard to read. It’s not subversive. It’s actually a good read. It’s the same stuff you’ll see in your doctor’s office.

Way to end the column on a fantastical statement. Perhaps I’m too young to have seen this but I’d like to see an example of a pamphlet from a doctor’s office which includes things like “I am a financial burden” or “I can no longer control my bladder”. First the president wanted pills instead of pacemakers, now the answer for an enlarged prostate is something cheaper than pills?!

Anders