DescentBB

I know some of you here are old enough to know who Jack Kervorkian is. I also know some of you thought Palins idea of a Death Panel as being just so much scare tactics. Before your thoughts go swimming with the fishes let us look at how subtle people can be when the state controls end of life decisions. Once again merry Ole England, champion of the socialistic health care that Barack \"Mengeles\" Obama would dearly love to copy, leads the way on terminating the unwell\"

\"In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.\"

So there you go ghouls and ghoulettes, as long as you appear to be on death's bed, the state will make sure you really are. Welcome to the once and future end of life care, coming to a government run hospital near you. Change we can live with eh?

Hmmm... Once again, no links to reinforce your conclusions. Once again you associate Obama with the item you're bringing up without (again) any info to actually connect him (or his policies) to it, and you mix in derogatory references to all the parties involved (except yourself, of course).

Lame, lame, lame. Go crawl in a corner and paranoia yourself.



Oh and don't even suggest that I love and praise Obama. You would be extremely wrong and you would be once again making claims without anything to back it up. .... though that is your established pattern.

well lets see if this works:

http://tinyurl.com/nyap8o

Oh and did you see the part in the quote \"In a letter to the UK Telegraph\"? Might of clued you in that there might be a link somewhere. Now why don't you go in a corner, suck your thumb and wonder how you could ever be so infantile.

Without providing any substance for your \"info\" ... anyone could have said/fabricated it (duh). That's why it's your job to provide the supporting data. (Thanks for providing a link to the article)

That article doesn't make any connection to Obama in any way that I can see. Where do you make the connection.

An observation ... seems to me lately you're being a Klaxon.

woodchip wrote:Before your thoughts go swimming with the fishes

Yea, yours doing that is more than enough.

Nice link Tech, somewhere I prolly have a ostrich, head in sand, pic that I could link...

The point of the thread is to show what happens when bureaucrats get placed in charge of something and the cleaver ways they can find to hide what they are doing. With Obama choosing nut jobs like Holdren and Van Jones, perhaps Tech, you should be showing me why I shouldn't be concerned about Obama voicing platitudes while stroking that garrote behind his back like a priest with a rosary.

here ya go Wood, on loan for ya

FYI this is just a pic I did not read the link in question

Don't need to show you. You already are ... and with all the derogatory commentary you can add in. My dislike for the way you've started this thread is not because of the material you have brought to others attention, my dislike is with the way you did it and filled it with all the imagined/supposed/offense-stirring references of others who happen to not be mentioned anywhere in the original material, obviously trying to stir others to hate and despise the target of your hate by adding these (not yet deserved) derogatory references. Essentially you're trying to poisen other people's opinions by spreading your own poisen mixed in with data you are concerned about. That's what I find extremely distasteful and not worthy of you.

How about you try to present the same material and concerns but without the derogatory/offensive references ... and let others make up their own minds while they discuss it with you?

Because he's full of hate. A disgruntled little troll whose sole purpose is to try to get others to hate with him and he's been successful at it.

Bee

Ok, it’s time for Foil…

lol .. thanks a lot Spidey ... I just spent a half hour on that site!

WTF?

Hey I had dinner with Jack and his family when I was a kid... literally. He was taking an... err sabbatical I guess... but before being invited to supper his then girlfriend and her son first probed me on my views on assisted suicide and terminal illnesses. I was 10 or 11 then. He had come up from California then as I recall and was painting some pretty funky pictures. He was particularly proud of a painting with a dark red/brown skewed cross on a hilltop surrounded by articles that he associated with family memories. It was a spooky dark painting, with spooky dark colours and themes to me.

such letters are a typical scare monger technique. You can forget any evidence for your points, just need a few big sounding names (get an emeritus for hire), a few sympathetic journalists and bingo! instant distribution.

TechPro wrote:Don't need to show you. You already are ... and with all the derogatory commentary you can add in. My dislike for the way you've started this thread is not because of the material you have brought to others attention, my dislike is with the way you did it and filled it with all the imagined/supposed/offense-stirring references of others who happen to not be mentioned anywhere in the original material, obviously trying to stir others to hate and despise the target of your hate by adding these (not yet deserved) derogatory references. Essentially you're trying to poisen other people's opinions by spreading your own poisen mixed in with data you are concerned about. That's what I find extremely distasteful and not worthy of you.

How about you try to present the same material and concerns but without the derogatory/offensive references ... and let others make up their own minds while they discuss it with you?

So in other words you would prefer a dry didactic presentation? I always find it interesting that those who can't argue the merits of what a post is about, instead vilify the poster. Perhaps if you are so uneducated as to the topic at hand, you should refrain from posting?

I take it from the lack of quality refutation, that my words ring true. Oh and Bee...you really are a terrible poaster.

Spidey wrote:Ok, it’s time for Foil…

LOL, nice.

I'm not jumping into the topic on this one, though. I've been burned enough times that I'm learning which threads should be left to die, and which flame-wars are impossible to quench.

woodchip wrote:I always find it interesting that those who can't argue the merits of what a post is about, instead vilify the poster.....
I take it from the lack of quality refutation, that my words ring true.

That's an interesting way to put it.

An alternative is that people think you're a little bit of a nutjob and don't think it's productive to argue with you. Whether or not they could give a quality refutation, they don't find your posts worthy of the effort.

At least Woody doesn’t twist posters words around, to win an argument. (well not as a general rule, anyway)

Lothar wrote:

woodchip wrote:I always find it interesting that those who can't argue the merits of what a post is about, instead vilify the poster.....
I take it from the lack of quality refutation, that my words ring true.

That's an interesting way to put it.

An alternative is that people think you're a little bit of a nutjob and don't think it's productive to argue with you. Whether or not they could give a quality refutation, they don't find your posts worthy of the effort.

While I'm sure certain posters here may applaud your delightfully phrased insight, considering you never take the time or effort to initiate a post of your own, I find your reply somewhat hollow and lacking.

I don't. He nails it pretty well IMHO. I for example learned a long time ago that arguing w/ fanatics is a total waste of time.

woodchip wrote:So in other words you would prefer a dry didactic presentation?

This is always the best way of raising a point without looking like you're one of those crazies writing a letter to the editor of a dodgy newspaper.

On the other hand, since this thread is about crazies writing a letter to the editor of a dodgy newspaper, maybe it's not so out of place to join in the alarmist mood.