Why can’t we discuss dying with dignity?

First off, let’s be clear about the facts: There are no “death panels” in any legislation being considered to reform health care. Instead, there is a proposal — very similar to something proposed by Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson in 2007 — to have Medicare pay for voluntary counseling about end-of-life choices, living wills, etc.

Isn’t that a perfectly reasonable proposal? Human beings, across all ages and cultures, have this in common: we’re all going to die. When my father died of cancer in 1984, there was this small mercy in the general misery: He didn’t linger long and suffer. After he found out his cancer had metastasized and he was terminal, he told my mother he didn’t want any extreme measures taken to extend his life.

He taught me a lot about dying with dignity. To the extent possible, I’d like to make my own choices about my final days. So I have assigned to my brother, a physician, medical power of attorney. My mother has given him her living will.

Why are we so squeamish about discussing something that will happen to each of us eventually? Would you rather your family be left with the kind of ugly controversy that engulfed the family of Terri Schivo?

60 comments Add your comment

jt

August 14th, 2009
8:02 am

“Why can’t we discuss dying with dignity?”

No one is stopping you from discussing this issue. You can even discuss it with a goverment bureaucrat or goverment lawyer if you like.

At the moment, you just can’t do it on my dime.

Bob

August 14th, 2009
8:03 am

People discuss this all the time, I just do not need a gov health plan that states this should be done every five years with me and my doctor.
And do doctors really want to counsel people on living wills ?

Denny

August 14th, 2009
8:24 am

Under any of these 4 Bills there will be, there has to be, Committees or Boards, or if you will, Panels that review all aspects of medical care. These Federal employees will make decisions about who gets what when and how. This is unavoidable.

I choose to not be at the mercy of some Federal Board set up like the IRS or worse the Postal Service. Thank you.

Michael H. Smith

August 14th, 2009
8:43 am

Why can’t “we” discuss dying with dignity?

We can, Ms. Tucker but our government can’t, and we should never allow government anywhere near this area. That includes making mandates as to what WE SHALL discuss as determined under HR 3200 Sec. 1233.

‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has

not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
consultation “shall” include the following:

I’ve noticed that you and Mr. Bookman avoid the House version in favor of using what Senator Isakson offered in the Senate’s version, where the wording is very different.

From Senator Isakson:

Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct “end-of-life counseling” with Medicare patients every five years. Isakson also strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions.

By contrast, Isakson took a very different approach in July during the Senate HELP Committee hearings on the Senate version of the health care bill. Isakson’s amendment to the Senate bill says that anyone who participates in the long-term care benefit provided in the bill – if they so choose – may use that benefit to obtain assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney.

jack

August 14th, 2009
8:54 am

If they are white republicans, they not only should be required a consultation about dying but should be actively encouraged to consider that as an option.If they are white republicans from the South, they should be required to have this done.

[...] Why can’t we discuss dying with dignity? [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] [...]

Pat

August 14th, 2009
9:13 am

Jt, Bob, Mike & Co:

I agree. Government certainly shouldn’t be in the business of requiring people to consider their
end-of-life options with their doctor (and wouldn’t be under this bill – it’s not mandated). Nor should government have to take on the job of explaining to kids that sexual intercourse has life-altering consequences, like pregnancy, disease, even death.

But here’s why government gets stuck having to do these things, and yes, on “your dime:”

Because too many of YOU (my apologies if you’re not one of them) simply refuse to have any difficult, painful or embarrassing discussions with loved ones on these topics -
and the consequences run up tabs of MILLIONS of dollars – costs paid by the taxpayers!

All over America, in hospitals, nursing homes and rehab centers, dying people lie helplessly by while their spouses, siblings and offspring battle tooth and nail over what’s to happen to Mom, with Mom unable to voice her wishes in the debate – and as expensive machines, treatments and interventions prolong her life at the cost of thousands per day. If Mom had expressed her desire to fight on, even with terminal pain, to prolong her days and said so in writing, spending those dollars would be a no-brainer. If she can’t express her wishes, continuing treatment is distasteful when it prolongs pain, but still perhaps the safer ethical default. But why can’t we say to the public, “You won’t discuss this issue? Well, fine – but every 5 years, your doctor’s going to remind you that counseling is important and available.”

Same with actual sex education – not the abstinence-only fantasies we’re wasting money on now. Parents just aren’t doing their job at teaching it at home – and God forbid we let schools tell hormone-crazed teens that putting a piece of latex between male and female genitalia might actually keep them from destroying their lives and futures. I guess it’s more “moral” to just keep mass-producing tots without pops, shelling out the Aid to Dependent Families, and raise taxes to build more prisons.

It’s crazy to see the mouth-breathers getting their panties into a twist on this “death panel” nonsense. Wake up, whack-jobs: right now, your insurance company is having real “death panels” every day that condemn people to premature death by refusing cancer treatments, transplants and other necessary procedures. But if you’re a good Repub, guess it’s insurance “death panel” = good, government counseling = bad.

This isn’t about logic – it’s about an industry determined to win at any cost.

ctucker

August 14th, 2009
9:35 am

Jack,
I’d like this discussion to continue civilly without advocating the demise of those with whom we disagree. Thanks much.

Citizen of the World

August 14th, 2009
9:36 am

Isn’t it ironic that the original end-of-life counseling proposal came from a Republican, Johnny Isakson. But, of course, once the concept becomes part of any proposed health care reform by Democrats, it’s no longer a good idea and it’s twisted into a “death panel.”

I wish my mother’s doctor would talk to her about end of life issues and her wishes. I have a very hard time broaching the subject.

And, also, in our culture where so many people remain unmarried and childless, they may not even have a family member to discuss these issues with.

Michael H. Smith

August 14th, 2009
9:43 am

Yes Pat, YOU certainly could exclude ME from one of those, who as YOU say, have never faced making the very, very, very, difficult decisions.

Given the imperfections of human beings there are no perfect answers, Pat. Given the imperfections in government, combined with the powers government, as history has shown allowing government anywhere near end of life area has resulted in the most horrid events imaginable. This is a slippery slope we should never allow government to step upon, not even the suggestion of taking the first one in that direction which HR 3200 Sec 1233 does.

Think of people like Jack, then think of Germany Pat.

Perhaps YOU are willing to risk to that chance to save a few taxpayer bucks. I will stand with the Jews and say, never again!

jconservative

August 14th, 2009
10:12 am

I agree that the end of life discussions between a patient, doctor & the patients family is not an item that the taxpayer needs to fund.
This is none of the governments business, any government.

My father-in-law is 95 & dying very slowly. The family had a very long discussion with his doctor. The doctor never billed for the time he spent counseling us. Very few will.

This does not need to be in any bill.

jconservative

August 14th, 2009
10:24 am

Citizen of the World.
“And, also, in our culture where so many people remain unmarried and childless, they may not even have a family member to discuss these issues with.”
———–
Excellent point and entirely correct. I know several people who fit into this category including family members. I still say discussion
can take place with the doctor, minister or anyone in whom you have confidence. I just do not believe that this is something the taxpayer
should fund. As a society, we just cannot continue to rely on government as the savior of all our problems.

I guess you & I will continue to “agree to disagree”.

lovelyliz

August 14th, 2009
10:43 am

Funny thing is the GOP, Blue Dogs and their lobbyist supporters have no problem with insurance death panels. They aught to talk to Nataline Sarkisyan’s family

lovelyliz

August 14th, 2009
10:45 am

jack

I’m glad that I am not the only one who noticed how singularly caucasian these protesters/plants are.

Kayaker 71

August 14th, 2009
11:02 am

liz,

Did you ever stop to realize that the color of their skin makes absolutely no difference in the debate. The reason why black people, in large part, do not show up at these debates is that this would dis their wonder boy and we can’t have that, now can we? For the most part, these people are not plants. They are concerned citizens, not “brown shirt Nazis”, as Howard Dean called them. They don’t trust the system and the people who are running it, plain and simple. They have every right to yell, scream, rant and jump up and down if they want to. It’s call free speech, or maybe you haven’t heard of that.

lovelyliz

August 14th, 2009
11:03 am

What really gets me about the whole “death panel to kill Grandma & Down Syndrome children”, is they are easy sound bites that are out and out LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps that it of itself explains why the GOP has almost total failed to start any argument against these bills with any dispute of substance, let alone presented a plan of their own. Perhaps salacious gossip and lies are all it takes to get a certain portion of the electorate riles up. They certainly don’t require that any one read any portion of the proposed legislation let alone do any research.

Mac

August 14th, 2009
11:05 am

Then don’t, Denny. Pay for private health insurance and do what you want. As for me, I favor a healthcare plan like those in the other Western democracies. Sure, it’ll cut down the obscene profits of the drug companies and other healthcare-related companies to reasonable profits. But, most importantly, it’ll save citizens money and ensure their quality care, so matter where they stand financially at the moment they need it. A person I know had a major health emergency in Australia and he entire bill was less than $5,000, when it would have been tens of thousands of dollars here. And, don’t talk about rationed care. The NHS in Britain gives people the care they need. Insurance companies here work very hard to deny any claim they can. And, they are constantly changing codes, wording, etc. to be able to deny or delay paying claims over improperly filled out paperwork. Bring on a U.S. NHS.

Nerlman

August 14th, 2009
11:08 am

“They are concerned citizens, not “brown shirt Nazis”, as Howard Dean called them. They don’t trust the system and the people who are running it, plain and simple.”

Yes, and they are also willfully uninformed and responding to the manipulation of the right-wing crazies. Sad.

jack

August 14th, 2009
11:09 am

lovely liz, i am glad that you share my fondness for genocide.

lovelyliz

August 14th, 2009
11:10 am

Kayaker 71

It does make a difference when you are trying to present these folks as representative of America. Not that none of them aren’t GOP/corporate lobbyists plants who have more of a disagreement with the fact that President Obama is a black man, but they certainly aren’t your average-concerned, up on the fatcs, issue voter.

There are more of the non-homgenoues white persons in this country than there are white folks and I say this as a white person.

Citizen of the World

August 14th, 2009
11:17 am

Well, it seems to me that if the government is going to provide taxpayer-funded Medicare to seniors, then it’s not much of an overreach for the government to require and pay for some counseling for end-of-life issues — especially with the mixed blessing of modern medicine, which often prolongs suffering and dying as much as it prolongs life.

This requirement would ensure that senior citizens have communicated their wishes to their caregivers and, even though the government has paid for it, actually save taxpayer money in the long run.

Donnie

August 14th, 2009
11:45 am

Did you know insurance company employees are paid bonuses for denying claims? The system is broken. Let’s fix it.

Angie

August 14th, 2009
12:17 pm

Good Point Donnie. The healthcare system is broken. It is funny to me how critical we can become of change especially when the current healthcare system is ALL about profit. We should be outraged at the current healthcare system. How do we so blindly trust the current healthcare system when the only time they will make a profit is when we are sick? And, I am absolutely tired of insurance companies who collect insurance premiums and then deny claims to pre-existing conditions, especially when it is the SAME insurance company just because you change employment! A change is needed. We may not agree on how to go about doing it. However, we need to have a civil discussion about it. No one hears you when you are being rude, disrepectful, and nasty.

Jack

August 14th, 2009
1:09 pm

If folks would quit buying lotto, cigarettes & beer, they’d have enough money to buy their own health insurance: they wouldn’t have to depend on employers or the government.

Carter is a Fool

August 14th, 2009
1:19 pm

Loveyliz is prejudiced. The left cannot stand taht this is not what Americans want. Kayaker71 is correct. There is nothing about skin color in the debate about not wanting the government to control healthcare. Obama lied. He said he favored a single payer system and then later said he did not say he favored a single payer system. He flat out lied. Now I am a corporate brown shirt terrorist for reporting his lie.

What kind of country is this becoming when the White House sets up a site for the public to report others who are giving “scary stories” about healthcare reform. When I was in China, this is what I heard about Mao. Children would turn in their parents for any comment against the supreme leader and then the Parents would be sent to camp during the Cultural Revolution for re-education.

Seems like the first step on the same same road.

Michael H. Smith

August 14th, 2009
1:21 pm

I don’t trust the insurance companies, Angie. I don’t trust the government or drug companies or trial lawyers or these crummy unions that are getting involved and I don’t want the PUBLIC OPTION. I prefer the consumer mutual healthcare non-profit insurance cooperatives now being developed by a bipartisan group of six Senators, which Senator Conrad is mainly advocating. It will take government out of the equation and take other things like end of life, abortion, drug rehab and a host of other things many people object to being forced through their tax dollars to pay for which will be the case under any government ran system.

When it comes to trust Angie, Ludlow Porch, gave the best advice anyone could ever use: Trust nobody but your mama, and you best keep one eye on her.

Carter is a Fool

August 14th, 2009
1:24 pm

Speaking of death counseling, has the liberal AJC received death counseling as it is dying a slow death from the once great paper to the rag it is now. It now resembles the Great Speckled Bird in the print size and thickness and has opinions and reporting dominated by the tree hugging looney left such as Tucker and Bookman. I would be remiss if I failed to include the poison pen scribblingss of cartoon boy – Looneyvitch. What a shame that it has come to this. The Journal was a great paper in its day and then lost its identity when the kooks took over and distorted the news.

Oh well thank goodness for other sources of information and the laughter I get from reading these silly opinion pages.

Kayaker 71

August 14th, 2009
1:51 pm

When the Americans with Disability Act was passed in 1990, the provision to include those who were HIV positive became a political hot potato that no one wanted to confront. It was shunned by most legislators and only included because no one wanted to vote against it for fear of being politically incorrect and being call homophobes. Being HIV positive or having contracted AIDS is no more disabling than someone with compromised heart disease or poorly controlled diabetes. But our lawmakers were afraid to confront this dilemma because of loosing the gay vote and being called names. What is to say that in the future, the same thing could not happen with changes in the health care bill that make it more “accommodating”. We just do not trust these elected officials to represent our interests… they are too busy representing their own. The health care debate goes much deeper than just this one issue. America is dissatisfied with having government intrude into their lives and make decisions for them that they are very capable of making themselves…. and we simply do not trust them, none of them.

bromack

August 14th, 2009
3:13 pm

We can talk about it…. but when the government gets involved thats when we get on that slippery slope that soon turns it into euthenasia.

I don’t wanna find myself in that position like the lady in Oregon who was told she couldn’t get any more medicine for her condition but was offered free pills for her death.

arnold

August 14th, 2009
4:29 pm

It seems to be the same right wingers who demonstrated concerning Terry Schiavo who also seem to be complaining and protesting the most.

Living wills should be re-evaluated periodically. Situations change, surrogates need to be re-valuated and a persons attitude and beliefs change.

I also don’t understand the fear of government also in the insurance business with private companies. Conservatives claim the government is inefficient, then government won’t be able to compete with private enterprise. However, look at fed Ex and UPS. Then compare them to the Post Office. Crying out loud, why fear the government. Medicare works fine if the politicians wouldn’t raid SS and Medicare funds.

lovelyliz

August 14th, 2009
4:42 pm

Ever notice how right-wingers who want to claim inclusion bristle at the mere identification of the lack of diversity? Or in this case the almost total lack of diversity coming from those arguing the case most violently?

Michael H. Smith

August 14th, 2009
5:29 pm

Guess I’ve been kicked out of the notorious right wing. I raised hell over the GOP getting involved in the Terry Schiavo case. The plan I support on healthcare would be far more inclusive than anything now offered in any of those Public Option plans and would accommodate the plurality of this nation with the least amount of divisiveness.

I can buy a claw hammer for less than $7, government has been known to spend a hundred times that amount for a claw hammer, I should trust government?
It was so good of the President to use the postal service to promote his Public Option.
Not exactly what most would call a cost efficiency success stories.

Of course those stories are not quite as good as the claim he used that the AARP endorsed his Public Option but close.

Oh and did any on the left see the “union muscle” that has been brought into these debates? Just saying…

Uncle Fester

August 14th, 2009
6:47 pm

Hey old farts against universal healthcare, I don’t see you lining up to cancel your govt. provided medicare, not one peep when G.W. was pushing thru Part D. or sending our troops to fight for oil-compassionate conservatism means I got mine turn of the faucet. Please do us all a favor and off yourselves…..

Just because

August 14th, 2009
7:40 pm

Excuse me if I want to continue my life and it “cost” to do so . . . so be it! I’ve lived my life and and for many years paid for health care when I had none and paid for health care even when I had health insurance (the premiums, the deductibles, the co-insurance, the co-pays and the non-covered). I’ve paid for health care for others through my taxes (i.e., Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Disability, SSI, etc.) and for all those uninsured who go to the ER. To provide in federal legislation for end-of-life counseling is absurd. Most doctors tell patients and family members what their options are already. There is absolutely no need nor any place for provisions in a federal legislation for this. And, I and my family members should determine if and when we need to confer with our doctor in this regard. My life is as valuable as anyone else’s. Anyway for are seniors the only ones who targeted in this regard . . . why would this counseling not be available to younger people who are terminally ill. It is because there are those who want to eliminate the senior population who by the way pay a great portion of taxes. So, if seniors are eliminated I guess those young . . sit-on-thier butts would have to get out and go to work!

Michael H. Smith

August 14th, 2009
8:01 pm

This is getting all too depressing. I can’t even get into the old farts club. Too young for Medicare, I support non-government owned, controlled and administered universal healthcare for every U.S. citizen and tried to get Georgia’s Senators at the time shortly before Part D was passed to vote against it becoming law, though, admitting I’d likely be one who would probably need it eventually. Shucks I don’t even have a lousy oil-compassion!

What an Obumer. :lol:

Ah but there is still hope if the Senate six can get sound reason to prevail on non-government consumer non-profit mutual healthcare insurance cooperatives; perhaps I’ll never need Medicare or part D. That would be nice not to put all those entitlement debts onto the backs generations of Americans. :)

Michael H. Smith

August 14th, 2009
8:43 pm

OMG, Rev. Al Sharpton and Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, to push cities to fix failing schools. The dignity of discuss has set a new record. Hopefully it will not require a mandated end of life consultation.

From the AP…

“I think that he has it exactly right, that education has to be the No. 1 civil right of the 21st century and I’ve been passionate about reforming education,” Gingrich said. “And we can’t get it done as a partisan issue.”

Sharpton said the time has come to “change the conversation … to say we need to put everybody’s hands on the table.”

He said he believes that “if there’s anything Americans should be mature enough about to have a decent conversation, it’s the education of their children.”

~

Amazing how in America, ordinary people do the most extraordinary things.

Laura Antoniou

August 14th, 2009
9:52 pm

Funny how the right wing that so often demands that abortion providers “shall be required” to talk about all sorts of things before they can actually do what the patient came in for suddenly doesn’t want health care providers to do the SAME THING – talk about *options* without leaving out the ones that are uncomfortable to talk about. If the argument is that the government shouldn’t place guidelines on what a doctor needs to tell a patient, I will be eagerly looking for all of these people to back off their bills requiring just that.

Craig Spinks /Augusta

August 14th, 2009
11:52 pm

THANKS, Cynthia, for confronting us with our inevitable fate and for challenging us to plan accordingly.

Micahel H. Smith

August 15th, 2009
7:40 am

The argument for most on the right is no government Public Option, period. All the opposition to side issues written therein remain basically the same: No government funded abortion and no government imposed euthanasia.

Oops forgot one…. no healthcare for illegal aliens.

The left wing remains looking eagerly disingenuous and equally disappointed. :cry:

Question

August 15th, 2009
10:37 am

Take a look at the following two items

1) Asked whether he would have handled his verbal confrontation in Douglasville differently, [David] Scott is quick to answer. “Absolutely not,” he said.
2) the video of Sheila Jackson-Lee’s interview with Greta Van Susternen.

Both support the public’s view of the dems as arrogant and pompous. Who do these people think they work for????

Sherl

August 15th, 2009
11:03 am

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now–or they’re lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it?

Jeff in Roswell

August 15th, 2009
11:16 am

You can’t please everyone, but you do have to determine what the MAJORITY would like. I am not for this healthcare plan. I would agree though, that there should be changes to the system. The largest concern for me about this debate is CHOICE. I want a choice. I want the FREEDOM to choose what healthcare I need. Do you consider that selfish? Maybe, but at what point do you have to concern yourself with what everybody else needs? I think the problem starts at the top. First of all Obama is ramrodding this thing to get it passed. People do not have a clear view of what this bill entails. Why can’t the government be consistent? Why can’t they all be on the same page? Our representatives cannot answer the questions presented to them – and if they do, they give their interpretations. If Obama wants this thing to come to light, he has to be completely open on the subject. They have to CONVINCE the American people that this is a good thing. Evidenced by the town hall meetings, they are not doing it. Come on Obama, gather everyone up. Get them together on the key issues. Present it to the people. Don’t try to hide any facts about your proposal and SELL us on your idea. You need to figure out if the people want this. You need to figure out if this really is a good thing for our people? In current proposal, I would vote NO.

Wouldn’t it have been smarter to have our representatives have Town Hall meetings before a bill was written up? Wouldn’t it have been smarter to ask us – the American people, the ones that pay for this government to operate, what we thought? Ask us what our concerns about healthcare are and what we would like to see changed. Gather the data and gives us a bill that reflects our needs?

It’s all just a big friggen, disgusting mess. More of the same from these idiots – both sides of the aisle.

Uncle Fester

August 15th, 2009
11:42 am

I’m all for euthanasia for senior citizens. Next time the old farts want to start a war for oil-lets send them to blow up babies. The oldest generation needs to go-they have done enough damage in the name of God, Country, and Religion. We could bury them in their Lincoln Town Cars, think of the savings. Geezers and Clunkers begone.

Michael H. Smith

August 15th, 2009
12:06 pm

Can you say…. Ding Dong! Ding Dong! Where is the government mandate in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill that would impose end of life counseling parallel to what is found in HR 3200 Sec. 1233?

david wayne osedach

August 15th, 2009
2:18 pm

Those who want to can discuss dying with dignity. It should not be amajor tenet of the proposed national health care program. There are much more important facets to be addressed.

Michael H. Smith

August 16th, 2009
6:27 am

Let us simplify things for the President and the Democrats over this end of life consultation provision: Remove the mandate found in HR 3200 Sec. 1233 and there no longer be a reason or rhyme to oppose end of life consultations being offered pursuant to the individual’s free choosing.

Let us simplify things for the President and the Democrats over this end of life consultation provision: Remove the mandate found in HR 3200 Sec. 1233 and there no longer be a reason or rhyme to oppose end of life consultations being offered pursuant to the individual’s free choosing.

“Advance Care Planning Consultation
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has

not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
consultation “shall” “MAY” include the following:

There you have it Ms. Tucker, now you or anyone else can talk however long, as dignified or indignant as anyone “MAY” prefer, on any decisions concerning the end of life – Controversy over on end of life.

However, beyond the present scope of this blog topic remains a great deal of controversy in resolving the two fundamental parts of what should be the national healthcare system of our country. The first part is healthcare insurance reform. The second part is reforming the entire healthcare system. The plan Mr. Obama and the Democrats offer fails miserably in achieving that goal, even in so much as another acceptable imperfect government plan.
Presently government owns controls and administers outright Medicare, TRICARE, Medicaid and SCHIP. The only remaining part of healthcare government does not own, control and administers outright is the healthcare of the remaining general population. Like it or not Ms. Tucker for all practical intents and purposes we already have a socialized healthcare system. Should any such Public Option or single payer system or called by any other name government healthcare program be enacted into law, all doubts shall be removed: Healthcare in American will be in the domain of SOCIALISM and as a consequence solely germane to the government.

Michael H. Smith

August 16th, 2009
6:33 am

My apologies for the editing error, though, for the liberal left wingers my errant duplication really does merit the use of vain repetition.

Bob

August 16th, 2009
7:46 am

Pat, what world do you live in to think that these 16 year olds don’t know what sex is and what will happen if they do it.

I Report/ I Am The Mob :-) You Whine :-(

August 16th, 2009
7:49 am

Actually, it’s Terri Schiavo, but whatever.

Considering that she died a horrible and brutal death, prolonged for political purposes by the liberals, of course, I can’t blame you for hoping that you avoid a personal demise such as that.

Seems as though I remember you having no issues with wishing it on her, though.

But the big question is, what business is it of yours or the federal government to usher people along to the afterlife?

There are those that fight for life. And there are those who fight for death.

Think about that for a moment.

Mary Davidson

August 16th, 2009
8:18 am

I’m utterly baffled at people’s attitudes. This new health measure says you CAN have death counseling every 5 years, not that you MUST. And NO ONE is going to tell you if, when, or how you must die. Can’t folks read? Please read the bill before believing what the republican scare machine says.