Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Posted Image
Welcome to Nexus Trek

We are a message board community filled with members from several different Star Trek
sites. Come talk about Trek, other Sci Fi or whatever interests you!

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board
and cannot join in on the fun. Registering will only take a minute and once approved you can

  • customize your profile
  • Send personal messages
  • Vote in polls
  • Start and post in topics

Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!
If you have any trouble registering please email us @ nexustrek@yahoo.com


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Bioethicism
Topic Started: Oct 23 2013, 02:26 PM (194 Views)
Luxa
Member Avatar


This is one of the most upsetting and immoral topics I have heard of. Bioethicism (think Nazi Germany) is the idea that the old, mentally or physically disabled do not deserve treatment and that essentially these undesirable types should not be treated. Here is a link to an article that explains a bit more.

Bioethicism

The truly frightening thing is that this idea has gained mainstream acceptance and is actually being taught in American Universities and has been dicussed in health care issues by the fedreal government.

Now this is unconfirmed but it is my understanding that Obamacare does not allow for the treatment of cancer victims over the age of 65. This reeks of this type of thinking (bioethicism) and for me is just one of the many ideas that is eroding the moral fiber of our country. :frust:
"Hey dad, I just remembered something from when I was a baby." "Really son? What was it?" "I just remembered I wanted to punch you in the face."

"He was a thief, and a terrorist."On the other hand he had a tremendous singing voice."
"Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades."
"Mom's just worried they're gonna rip my heart out."
Offline
 
Cruervo
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Yeah, it's expensive. Americans don't like expensive things that aren't toys.
Every Republic has its sins, but communism is a joke that is not funny. Get fluoride out of the water!
We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
Offline
 
wissaboo
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Chain email
Says "At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment" under Affordable Care Act.



According to a chain email making the rounds, people over 75 years old will be denied cancer treatment under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, after President Barack Obama.

.......

Here’s a portion of the chain email, which a reader in Northeast Portland forwarded to PolitiFact Oregon, with a plea for more information. She said it came from a friend:

"Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014! … (ellipses)

Please for the sake of many good people, please... pass this on. We all need to be informed.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment page 272."

The email goes on with a long list of other claims as assessed by a Judge David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas. PolitiFact Oregon hopped to it.

And we learned very quickly -- through the power of the Internet -- that a version of this chain email has been kicking around since 2009, based on H.R. 3200, a 2009 bill that did not become law. Many of the claims have been debunked. In fact, FactCheck.org found just four of the 48 claims in the original email to be accurate. PolitiFact ruled two statements to be Pants on Fire. The chain email has morphed over the years, with new assertions added.

As for the cancer-related statement, the email cites page 272 of H.R. 3200 to back up its assertion that seniors at 76 are not eligible for cancer treatment. Later, the email specifies that under Section 1145 of H.R. 3200, "cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age."

Neither statement is accurate. There is no rationing, based on age or otherwise, on cancer treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010. Likewise, there is no rationing or cut-off age in 2009’s H.R. 3200.


http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2013/jun/08/chain-email/will-seniors-be-denied-cancer-treatment-under-obam/


more here

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
Posted Image
Offline
 
JustJoy
Member Avatar
All about the fish tacos

I'm pro choice on this issue. I think it's the patient's right to choose, not the governments or the doctors or the insurance companies.

My mom was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and died 6 weeks later. She did not want any radical treatment. She could have been put on a ventilator to prolong her life, but didn't want that. The doctors respected her wishes and made her comfortable. They did try a small dose of chemo, just not to totally give up on her, but that launched her into cardiac arrest.

My girlfriend's mom was also diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. She and my girlfriend insisted on any treatment available, no matter how cutting edge. They got in touch with a doctor who was a Harvard Graduate. He said he would infuse her with such powerful drugs and radiation that if they didn't kill her they would cure her. That was over 10 years ago and she's been healthy ever since.

Lighten up, Francis
Offline
 
Luxa
Member Avatar


Bioethicism is a real issue and it's not about a patient's right to choose but about medical professionals choice to deny care based on the desire of a medical professional to refuse to treat "undesireable" candidates.
"Hey dad, I just remembered something from when I was a baby." "Really son? What was it?" "I just remembered I wanted to punch you in the face."

"He was a thief, and a terrorist."On the other hand he had a tremendous singing voice."
"Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades."
"Mom's just worried they're gonna rip my heart out."
Offline
 
JustJoy
Member Avatar
All about the fish tacos

Luxa
Oct 25 2013, 01:03 PM
Bioethicism is a real issue and it's not about a patient's right to choose but about medical professionals choice to deny care based on the desire of a medical professional to refuse to treat "undesireable" candidates.
I understand that. I don't think doctors or the government should have the right to refuse treatment.
Lighten up, Francis
Offline
 
Cruervo
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
JustJoy
Oct 25 2013, 03:13 PM
Luxa
Oct 25 2013, 01:03 PM
Bioethicism is a real issue and it's not about a patient's right to choose but about medical professionals choice to deny care based on the desire of a medical professional to refuse to treat "undesireable" candidates.
I understand that. I don't think doctors or the government should have the right to refuse treatment.
The government begins to be able to claim right though when they are supporting it. The government claimed it could force the BSA to change policy because of tax credit and the lending of federal resources. Now that insurance is being subsidized and with medicaid expanded, the government can claim authority.
Every Republic has its sins, but communism is a joke that is not funny. Get fluoride out of the water!
We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
Offline
 
JustJoy
Member Avatar
All about the fish tacos

Cruervo
Oct 25 2013, 08:28 PM
JustJoy
Oct 25 2013, 03:13 PM
Luxa
Oct 25 2013, 01:03 PM
Bioethicism is a real issue and it's not about a patient's right to choose but about medical professionals choice to deny care based on the desire of a medical professional to refuse to treat "undesireable" candidates.
I understand that. I don't think doctors or the government should have the right to refuse treatment.
The government begins to be able to claim right though when they are supporting it. The government claimed it could force the BSA to change policy because of tax credit and the lending of federal resources. Now that insurance is being subsidized and with medicaid expanded, the government can claim authority.
I agree. They can totally withhold the funds at that point. You just have to hope that there will be doctors who will listen and work something out with the patients. My mom's doctors did totally right by us at the time.
Lighten up, Francis
Offline
 
Luxa
Member Avatar


I for one will help people any way I can when I become a nurse.
"Hey dad, I just remembered something from when I was a baby." "Really son? What was it?" "I just remembered I wanted to punch you in the face."

"He was a thief, and a terrorist."On the other hand he had a tremendous singing voice."
"Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades."
"Mom's just worried they're gonna rip my heart out."
Offline
 
wissaboo
Member Avatar
Admiral
Actually I do think doctors have a right to refuse treatment to someone. If they think the treatment will cause more harm than good.
Posted Image
Offline
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Ten-Forward · Next Topic »

Today's New Posts