Re: un-triage

[Guest guest]

> Just heard on the radio that the doctors in Israel who are

> treating Sharon said (paraphrasing): If anyone else came in to

> the emergency room with that kind of brain hemorrhage, we

> wouldn't even have bothered to operate.

My take on that -- it would not be beneficial for the the well-

being of the patient. The office is more important than the

person. I disagree with that assessment, but that was their

decision. My take is that Arik Sharon's personal dignity should

take precedence over the (perceived) needs of the State, and

would have made the judgement accordingly.

My gut reaction is that the whole deal makes me uncomfortable.

If the man had a major catestropic stroke, he should be allowed

to die in peace.

I don't know to what extent medical care is rationed there, but

I would have heard of financial hardship cases (from private

medical care) if Kupat Holim (national medical care) refused

treatment. I hadn't heard that, but there are people who use

private doctors to bypass Kupat Holim. My presumption is that

Shiavo cases don't exist there because Jewish and Islamic

law treat end of life issues differently.

- s

[Guest guest]

> My gut reaction is that the whole deal makes me uncomfortable.

> If the man had a major catestropic stroke, he should be allowed

> to die in peace.

Do we know if he would feel the same way?

[Guest guest]

>

> > My gut reaction is that the whole deal makes me uncomfortable.

> > If the man had a major catestropic stroke, he should be allowed

> > to die in peace.

>

> Do we know if he would feel the same way?

>

Good point! I sure hope he pulls through. I also hope he had the

foresight to put his wishes about this type of situation in writing as

my mother did.

Jerry Newport

[Guest guest]

The office is more important

> than the

> person.

***

I think it more like: the office is more important

than other people.

Sharon is probably getting heroic medical attention

because he is his country's leader. Agree or disagree

with his policies; he is the leader.

When Kennedy Jr.'s airplane crashed into the sea,

navy operations and specialized equipment was used to

located his plane that would not have been used if any

one of us crashed our plane.

A public poll was taken resulting in majority approval

that everything should be done to find his plane.

I know people who are not an elitists and most do not

think certain people should have celebrity status, yet

they agreed that the search should continue until the

plane was found.

Kennedy held an office in which many people

thought extra attention should be given to him.

Maybe that's what the doctors meant when they said

anyone else would not have been operated on.

Also, in this kind of situation, the citizens need to

know everything necessary is being done. Arafat was

rushed off to France, leaving his followers wondering

whether he received sufficient medical care.

~Bonnie

- - -

the doctors in Israel

> who are

> > treating Sharon said (paraphrasing): If anyone

> else came in to

> > the emergency room with that kind of brain

> hemorrhage, we

> > wouldn't even have bothered to operate.

- - -

> My take on that -- it would not be beneficial for

> the the well-

> being of the patient. The office is more important

> than the

> person. I disagree with that assessment, but that

> was their

> decision. My take is that Arik Sharon's personal

> dignity should

> take precedence over the (perceived) needs of the

> State, and

> would have made the judgement accordingly.

__________________________________________

Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.

Just $16.99/mo. or less.

dsl.yahoo.com

[Guest guest]

>

> The office is more important

> > than the

> > person.

> ***

> I think it more like: the office is more important

> than other people.

>

> Sharon is probably getting heroic medical attention

> because he is his country's leader. Agree or disagree

> with his policies; he is the leader.

Ariel Sharon deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been a very

stable and courageouos influence in that region. It has meant a sea-

change from his original policies but he has been big enough to do

it. His death or incapacitation would be a real loss.

I certainly have no problem with extra measures taken if there

is a hope it can work out for him.

Jerry Newport

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

> Ariel Sharon deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been a very

> stable and courageouos influence in that region. It has meant a sea-

> change from his original policies but he has been big enough to do

> it. His death or incapacitation would be a real loss.

He hasn't shown any sign of wanting to stop the construction of the

Wall. He returned some occupied territories in exchange for the

occupation of others being ratified by the US. Last time I visited, the

segregation of different ethnic groups (not just Palestinians) was still

very noticeable, and from what I hear, it's not getting better. I could

go on, but I'm too sleepy right now, and I want to keep my details straight.

Yes, he did one difficult thing right. That's great. Taken together with

everything else he's doing and has done, I certainly don't consider him

Peace Prize material.

I also don't believe in safety by police state, and think many of his

policies are endangering those relatives of mine who live there.

---

Camilla

[Guest guest]

Camilla wrote:

>Yes, he did one difficult thing right. That's great. Taken together with

>everything else he's doing and has done, I certainly don't consider him

>Peace Prize material.

I agree. On the other hand, Henry Kissinger is a Nobel Peace Prize

laureate. (i.e., being someone worthy of respect is not a requirement)

Jane

[Guest guest]

> > Ariel Sharon deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been a very

> > stable and courageouos influence in that region. It has meant a

sea-

> > change from his original policies but he has been big enough to

do

> > it. His death or incapacitation would be a real loss.

>

> He hasn't shown any sign of wanting to stop the construction of the

> Wall.

Why should he? The wall is saving lives. The wall is necessary

because the Palestinians can't control the murderous fanatics in

their community. The settlements are another story. They never should

have been built.

He returned some occupied territories in exchange for the

> occupation of others being ratified by the US. Last time I visited,

the

> segregation of different ethnic groups (not just Palestinians) was

still

> very noticeable, and from what I hear, it's not getting better. I

could

> go on, but I'm too sleepy right now, and I want to keep my details

straight.

>

> Yes, he did one difficult thing right. That's great.

Remember too, how risky that was. Rabin was killed for less.

Taken together with

> everything else he's doing and has done, I certainly don't consider

him

> Peace Prize material.

Maybe not but he has been a lot more rational than what I

fear will occupy the void he is leaving.

>

> I also don't believe in safety by police state, and think many of

his

> policies are endangering those relatives of mine who live there.

>

> ---

> Camilla

>

Well, let's see if Israel is better off without him because

the latest news is that because of the medical issues, Sharon's

political career is finished.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

> Why should he? The wall is saving lives. The wall is necessary

> because the Palestinians can't control the murderous fanatics in

> their community. The settlements are another story. They never should

> have been built.

The wall is saving lives _now_. I certainly don't trust it to be a

permanent solution. I also don't believe in collective punishment. The

wall, together with roadblocks and much else is preventing a lot of

law-abiding Palestinians from seeking and/or retaining employment in

Israel. That isn't helping the rampant poverty that helps create

recruits for suicide bombings. I've visited the occupied territories,

and there's quite a difference between the conditions there and those in

Israel.

> Remember too, how risky that was. Rabin was killed for less.

True, but such risks sort of come with the job in that region.

> Maybe not but he has been a lot more rational than what I fear will

> occupy the void he is leaving.

I agree. J. Random Israeli always says xe wants peace, but considering

the way they vote, I have my doubts.

The whole situation feels like seeing my siblings and my cousins killing

each other with unmitigated glee, and I'm sick of it.

> Well, let's see if Israel is better off without him because the

> latest news is that because of the medical issues, Sharon's political

> career is finished.

Hmm, that would be truly bad timing. I've been perseverating on the

Debian NM process this past week, but perhaps I should read some news.

---

Camilla

[Guest guest]

> > Why should he? The wall is saving lives. The wall is necessary

> > because the Palestinians can't control the murderous fanatics in

> > their community. The settlements are another story. They never

should

> > have been built.

>

> The wall is saving lives _now_. I certainly don't trust it to be a

> permanent solution.

It would be far better to close all of the settlements which

could do a lot to pacify the other side but that is not likely. I

think such a move would cause a civil war in Israel; not that it

would be such a bad thing. Israel has been a nation without a soul

for a long time and maybe an all-out internal conflict is the only

way to fix it.

I also don't believe in collective punishment. \

That is true of the Israeli reprisals as well as the senseless

sucide bombing murders of random Isrealis. Can't single out either

side on that count. Both guilty, big time.

The

> wall, together with roadblocks and much else is preventing a lot of

> law-abiding Palestinians from seeking and/or retaining employment in

> Israel. That isn't helping the rampant poverty that helps create

> recruits for suicide bombings. I've visited the occupied

territories,

> and there's quite a difference between the conditions there and

those in

> Israel.

I am sure there is but it is not as if the Israelis have had

prosperity dumped in their lap. They are a more disciplined and just

society. And more intellectual. Not that Arabs are dumb at all but

none of their countries do well in education for science and other

stuff a modern world needs. Besides, does the rest of the Arab really

care about the Palestinians? Not at all. They just a pawn to help

make Isreal a scapegoat for the general corruption in the arab world.

When it's bad within, blame somebody outside.

I don't see Isralis, save for one idiot who invaded a mosque,

going over to the West Bank and creating mayhem. Israel has lots of

Zionist idiots but somehow maintains more balance than its neighbors

can ( or is it won't?) do. That is the real rub. One side seems

capable of negotiating in good faith.

I have to wonder if Arabs ever will be able to do that. I see the

same " to the last man " determination in Hamas that is in the IRA and

other militant cults. They have no issues. They just live to kill.

>

> > Remember too, how risky that was. Rabin was killed for less.

>

> True, but such risks sort of come with the job in that region.

But the irrationality of Israel gets much less attention in the

USA than that of the Arabs. Thanks to media people like Rupert

Murdoch and a very effective Zionist lobbying effort in Washington.

>

> > Maybe not but he has been a lot more rational than what I fear

will

> > occupy the void he is leaving.

>

> I agree. J. Random Israeli always says xe wants peace, but

considering

> the way they vote, I have my doubts.

When in doubt, they seem to go the right just as we did in 2004.

They may want peace but they want security first. I can sympathize,

living forty miles from Mexico. Security is a BIG issue in my area.

One of my neighbors came home from a vacation to find five illegal

aliens living in his house, after breaking in!

>

> The whole situation feels like seeing my siblings and my cousins

killing

> each other with unmitigated glee, and I'm sick of it.

Me too though its not relatives but fellow humans.

>

> > Well, let's see if Israel is better off without him because the

> > latest news is that because of the medical issues, Sharon's

political

> > career is finished.

>

> Hmm, that would be truly bad timing. I've been perseverating on the

> Debian NM process this past week, but perhaps I should read some

news.

>

> ---

> Camilla

>

It definitely appears Sharon's career is done and the elections

are in two months, giving Netanyehu of Likud a huge advantage.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

Gerald Newport wrote:

> Israel has been a nation without a soul for a long time and maybe an

> all-out internal conflict is the only way to fix it.

I hope not. Something needs to happen, though, and a wall isn't it.

> That is true of the Israeli reprisals as well as the senseless sucide

> bombing murders of random Isrealis. Can't single out either side on

> that count. Both guilty, big time.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply anything else. There's plenty of

blame (and blood) to go around. If anything I write seems to say

otherwise, it's because I don't mention both sides in every paragraph.

> And more intellectual. Not that Arabs are dumb at all but none of

> their countries do well in education for science and other stuff a

> modern world needs.

They're getting there, and not all of what we have is necessarily

superior. A lot of it is useful, though, and given a chance they'll

adopt it, where a chance is defined as peace and relief from extremist

rule (not the current US-supported " stability " ).

> Besides, does the rest of the Arab really care about the

> Palestinians? Not at all. They just a pawn to help make Isreal a

> scapegoat for the general corruption in the arab world. When it's bad

> within, blame somebody outside.

Yes, and that's awful. That doesn't mean it's right not to care about

them, and I think Israel (and the rest of the world, by all means)

should do so. As a parallel to the point you made, Israel blaming and

punishing all Palestinians won't make Hamas go away, and won't do

anything positive for the segregation within Israel, either.

> That is the real rub. One side seems capable of negotiating in good

> faith. [...] I don't see Isralis, save for one idiot who invaded a

> mosque, going over to the West Bank and creating mayhem.

I do. They wear uniforms. Some ride helicopters or tanks. Those items

don't excuse civilian casualties, in my view. It's called different

things, done with different tools, but the end result is the same on

both sides.

> Israel has lots of Zionist idiots but somehow maintains more balance

> than its neighbors can ( or is it won't?) do.

Because Israel has a much higher standard of living, from which

Palestinians living outside the wall have a very hard time of taking any

part of. The desperation required isn't present in Israel, not even if

you're a Russian immigrant who can only get jobs cleaning toilets. I

know that the wall was created out of a desire for safety, but I think

true safety will be achieved with integration, not segregation, since

then there wouldn't be any desperate people to put bombs on.

I grew up in a low-intensity version of that, living in the most clearly

and violently segregated city in Sweden, in the borderland between the

parts where only Swedes lived and those where only immigrants lived.

People on either side feared and hated those on the other side. Those

who lived in the middle, however, got along just fine, regardless of

country of origin. Familiarity kills fear and hate, in my experience.

> I have to wonder if Arabs ever will be able to do that. I see the

> same " to the last man " determination in Hamas that is in the IRA and

> other militant cults. They have no issues. They just live to kill.

Don't overgeneralise. Last time I checked, most Palestinians were not

members of Hamas, although many do benefit from their aid programs. I

also think the extremists do have issues. People tend to have reasons

for the things they do, even if they are really dumb, selfish or

unconscious reasons.

> When in doubt, they seem to go the right just as we did in 2004.

> They may want peace but they want security first. I can sympathize,

> living forty miles from Mexico. Security is a BIG issue in my area.

> One of my neighbors came home from a vacation to find five illegal

> aliens living in his house, after breaking in!

No wall, no matter how high or well-guarded, will eliminate the

desperation of those shut out by it.

As for sympathy... I lived in Jerusalem for a while, a few years ago,

and arrived at the site of what would have been the biggest Hamas

bombing so far if it hadn't been stopped in the nick of time (a lorry

loaded with explosives), just a few minutes after it was supposed to

have gone off. I had another close call in the Golan Heights, and

several family members have had others. It's not a theoretical issue to

me, and I still don't think walls and military is the answer.

---

Camilla

[Guest guest]

>

> Just heard on the radio that the doctors in Israel who are treating

> Sharon said (paraphrasing): If anyone else came in to the emergency

> room with that kind of brain hemorrhage, we wouldn't even have

> bothered to operate.

>

> Jane

>

> They do not know how to operate on the commonfolk but they do know how to

> cover their asses.

K

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > My gut reaction is that the whole deal makes me uncomfortable.

> > If the man had a major catestropic stroke, he should be allowed

> > to die in peace.

>

> Do we know if he would feel the same way?

I don't, but he had a non-hemmorage stroke 2 weeks ago, and

could have told his family and caretakers. These decisions are

supposed to be taken by the patient through the family (if the

patient is unable to speak), but too often the decision is made

by doctors.

In the case of the comment about Sharon, the idea was that they

wouldn't normally want to perform the surgeries on this kind of

case, but the doctoers perceived that the man was so much loved

by his constituents, that there was an obligation to keep him

alive.

That comment strongly suggests that he will not recover from the

stroke.

- s

[Guest guest]

> I don't, but he had a non-hemmorage stroke 2 weeks ago, and

> could have told his family and caretakers. These decisions are

> supposed to be taken by the patient through the family (if the

> patient is unable to speak), but too often the decision is made

> by doctors.

I agree that too often the decision is made by doctors (that's one of

the reasons I'm not for any law which serves primarily to excuse

doctors from lawsuits when the patient dies, such as most euthanasia

laws).

> In the case of the comment about Sharon, the idea was that they

> wouldn't normally want to perform the surgeries on this kind of

> case, but the doctoers perceived that the man was so much loved

> by his constituents, that there was an obligation to keep him

> alive.

>

> That comment strongly suggests that he will not recover from the

> stroke.

I get very nervous when the presumption is that someone would want to

die.

I also get very nervous when " functioning level " or " quality of life "

enters into these decisions, as someone who appears to have a lower

functioning level than normal and a lower quality of life than

others, at least in the eyes of people without disabilities - I don't

want to be in a situation where less is required to decide to kill me

than if I had a " higher " quality of life and/or functioning level.

[Guest guest]

>

- I don't

> want to be in a situation where less is required to decide to kill

me

> than if I had a " higher " quality of life and/or functioning level.

>

Well, , you can do something about that now, while you are

healthy. I am sure glad my mother did.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

> I also get very nervous when " functioning level " or " quality of

> life " enters into these decisions, as someone who appears to

> have a lower functioning level than normal and a lower quality

> of life than others, at least in the eyes of people without

> disabilities - I don't want to be in a situation where less is

> required to decide to kill me than if I had a " higher " quality

> of life and/or functioning level.

If the only issue is to permit people to decide to live vs. a

bureaucratic apparatus making the decision, then it would be

easy -- we just decide at what level society will pay for that.

Presumably that would be a fairly high fiscal value. If there's

a decision to be made, it becomes important to err on the side

of caution, because the primary question is, " What if the person

would have decided to live? "

The problem is that there is a significant number of people who

would opt for the right to " die in peace " .

So there's a balance to be taken here. It's also, " What if the

person wouldn't want to be put through that procedure. "

Another issue is at what level someone considers life

satisfactory. There are NTs who would not want to live if they

were like me. The meaningfulness of their life is in social

communication (at an NT level). There are disabled people who

enjoy life at a level I would not enjoy as well. There are also

the issues of misjudging what the prognosis of recovery are, as

you suggested in your earlier posts.

That being the case, the way to address these issues is to

(1) recognize the issues; and

(2) come up with the best possible way to resolve those issues.

One example of this is in the Oregon End of Life ( " Assisted

Suicide " ) law, which has various criteria for allowing a doctor

to provide the Rx.

In any case, it's a matter of recognizing the issues and finding

the best way to prevent forced euthanasia, or forced

" extraordinary means " .

(I was discussing this with a RC Deacon (a RC lay clergyman),

who related the Church doctrine on this. " If Terry Shiavo were

to gain cognizance and say, 'Do not reinsert the tube,' what

should be done? "

" 'Nourishment' is considered 'ordinary medical care'. Not

inserting the tube would be euthanasia. "

Well, that's what the RC Church doctrine says. What the

discussion didn't address was what the Deacon would have decided

for himself.)

> ... I'm not for any law which serves primarily to

> excuse doctors from lawsuits when the patient dies, such as most

> euthanasia laws).

I agree. The only reason to make some group immune from a

lawsuit, is if the possiblity of lawsuit does more than make

people responsible. An example would be " Good Samaritan " laws

which grant tort immunity to people assisting in an emergency.

- s

[Guest guest]

> If the only issue is to permit people to decide to live vs. a

> bureaucratic apparatus making the decision, then it would be

> easy -- we just decide at what level society will pay for that.

> Presumably that would be a fairly high fiscal value. If there's

> a decision to be made, it becomes important to err on the side

> of caution, because the primary question is, " What if the person

> would have decided to live? "

I don't like deciding what society will pay. We already have that

with HMOs. It's not good.

> So there's a balance to be taken here. It's also, " What if the

> person wouldn't want to be put through that procedure. "

I think it depends on the procedure. It's one thing to refuse water,

it's quite another to refuse an organ transplant.

> Another issue is at what level someone considers life

> satisfactory. There are NTs who would not want to live if they

> were like me. The meaningfulness of their life is in social

> communication (at an NT level). There are disabled people who

> enjoy life at a level I would not enjoy as well. There are also

> the issues of misjudging what the prognosis of recovery are, as

> you suggested in your earlier posts.

I suggest that most of these feelings are based on prejudice and/or

ignorance. If I was not autistic, would I want to be autistic? I

seriously doubt it. I seriously doubt I'd expect to be able to want

to live with the stereotypes that surround someone with my disabilities.

In a perfect world, if that prejudice/ignorance was confronted and

eliminated, then I may even agree with you. We do not live in such a

world right now.

In addition, by saying that there are classes of people who would

more likely not want to live than " normal " people (we already do that

without euthanasia - look at the sentences people who murder disabled

people out of " pity " without knowing the desires of that disabled

person receive), which is a result of saying " it's okay to kill

yourself if you are disabled/sick, but if you are normal you need

treatment... " you are simply reinforcing the medical model of

disability - one which society holds little responsibility. For

example, it's not the lack of accessible employment for autistics

which causes an autistic who would be a great professor to not be

able to teach - rather, it's the autism that does this. Same with

education, independent living, etc. It removes the responsibility

from society to ensure everyone has a place in society.

" If you don't like it, leave. "

> That being the case, the way to address these issues is to

> (1) recognize the issues; and

> (2) come up with the best possible way to resolve those issues.

> One example of this is in the Oregon End of Life ( " Assisted

> Suicide " ) law, which has various criteria for allowing a doctor

> to provide the Rx.

I'll disagree with you on the Oregon law.

I'll also disagree with your faith in the legal and medical systems

when it comes to disabled people - particularly the medical system.

After all, no HMO would ever bend or break a rule to save millions of

dollars...(sarcasm)...and everyone knows that dead patients are

cheaper than some patients.

It's also been studied - and documented in journals - that HOW a

doctor presents things in confidence to a patient can make huge

determinations upon outcome.

It's also well documented that it can take years for someone who was

able-bodied to overcome the desire to die when faced with a

disability, yet most people who do become disabled do change their

mind years later, that despite spending a year or more wanting to

die, very sincerely.

> In any case, it's a matter of recognizing the issues and finding

> the best way to prevent forced euthanasia, or forced

> " extraordinary means " .

I agree it is a matter of recognizing the issue.

The ability to deny medical treatment (not food and water, not basic

hygene) is a recognized right. You don't need euthansia laws for that.

> (I was discussing this with a RC Deacon (a RC lay clergyman),

> who related the Church doctrine on this. " If Terry Shiavo were

> to gain cognizance and say, 'Do not reinsert the tube,' what

> should be done? "

How about someone that needs someone to feed them, but chews and

swallows? What if they say " I want to starve? "

Personally, if it was a friend, I would do anything I could to

persuade them not to do that. I sure as hell wish that my eating

problems were dealt with prior to me causing myself serious harm.

> " 'Nourishment' is considered 'ordinary medical care'. Not

> inserting the tube would be euthanasia. "

I actually call it either murder or suicide depending on the

circumstances.

That said, it's certainly not a way I can think even a suicidal

person would want to choose. I've experienced some of what not

eating is like (fortunately not dehydration), and I assure you it is

anything but pleasent. If you haven't smelled a body in that state,

I'm not sure how much you can say about it (I have - mine).