flipper wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:14:31 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:51:04 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:50:16 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:07:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:03:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:47:29 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:
Fascism at its finest...

Repeat After Me: There Are No Death Panels in Socialized
Heathcare...

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/291725.php

==quote==
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can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put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.

"As a result a national wave of discontent is building up,
as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and
food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the
Patients Association estimated that up to one million
patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
==quote==

A few years ago Florida had a case of "denial of fluids and
food" to a patient who was not even near death. I still
think you, Jim, were on the wrong side of that one.

While the courts ended up playing referee on which private
citizen would prevail at least that case was a dispute
between family members on what to do

...Until the righties insisted the government take over that
decision. lol


In the first place, 'the government', in the form of the
courts, was already involved but, more to the point,
'righties', as you call them, think the Congress has no
business in the matter then, or now, whether Republican,
Democrat, or the current loony tunes.

Righties insisted Congress take up the issue.


Obama is going to put you in his 'fishy' list if you don't stop
calling him a 'rightie'.

"Fishy list", lol

cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo

Obama agrees with me.

In which fantasy land do you live where Obama is a 'rightie'?

Fact.

You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it hit you in the face.

Another pathetic lie.

Hell, you don't even recognize your own words, much less have any
concept of opinion and fact.


What they wanted was for the case to be heard in a higher court
and the 'subpoena was to keep her alive till it could because
dead people don't have standing.

Tell Pat Mahoney.

Rev. Pat Mahoney was formerly with the anti-abortion group
Operation Rescue and is now executive director of the Christian
Defense Coalition, "an informal but growing network of
conservative, religious and disability organizations who, with
the click of a computer mouse, are enlisting hundreds of
thousands of people in Bob and Mary Schindler's fight to keep
their daughter Terri Schiavo alive."

"The first goal of the campaign, Mahoney said, is to save Terri
Schiavo's life. But he and others also hope to roll back the laws
and ethical and medical guidelines that have evolved since 1990,
when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized artificial sustenance and
hydration as medical treatment." Knight Ridder, March 14, 2005.


Tell John Sternberger.

John Stemberger, president of the Orlando, FL,-based Florida
Family Policy Council, says that "Food and water is not medical
treatment. It's ordinary care, ... Our primary interest is what
the law should be, not what the law is, and this will be one of
our top priorities: to create new public policy." Bradenton
Herald, March 14, 2005


"You wouldn't recognize a fact if it hit you in the face",
right? =)

In what fantasy world do you live where Mahoney and Stemberger
serve in Congress?

Serve in Congress? Not to my knowledge. What are you whining
about about now, redefining sad sack?

The topic was what "the government" did, stupid.


More pathetic redefinition, to cover your lie.

So now you don't know what 'the government' is.


flipper wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:07:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:

In the first place, 'the government', in the form of the courts,
was already involved but, more to the point, 'righties', as you
call them, think the Congress has no business in the matter then,
or now, whether Republican, Democrat, or the current loony tunes.

Righties insisted Congress take up the issue.


Obama is going to put you in his 'fishy' list if you don't stop
calling him a 'rightie'.

Fact.

You wouldn't recognize a 'fact' if it hit you in the face.

What they wanted was for the case to be heard in a higher court and
the 'subpoena was to keep her alive till it could because dead
people don't have standing.


Pretending you have to be in Congress to be known as a "rightie" is
your dumbest redefinition yet.

Your strawman is, indeed, the dumbest redefinition yet.

People are free to espouse any view they want but that isn't the
government and as for your pathetic attempts to 'define' so called
'righties', Obama voted to keep her alive.


You ar a puerile intellectaul coward.


Your safe from a forced lobotomy because there's nothing to remove.

So, your failure to refute my statements is unbroken. Have a nice life!