Beware the "end of life" discussions with your

[Guest]

doctor is back. This time it is being proposed as a "regulation"(?).
It will not be mandatory....hence it is voluntary(?).
If you do have these discussions ON AN ANNUAL basis, there will be a form of compensation(?).
So the incentive is to accomplish what? And if one does not do it, then what?

It is also being reported to keep this subject under the radar so to speak!!! Why? It has significant opportunity to be mis-understood :1rotfl:!!!

You don't think it could be because there was so much controversy about it last year, that it was removed from the bill.....really?

The death panel will be back in play again. So how many feel Washington is learning from the past election?

Ittsa joke.

btk

[Guest]

doctor is back. This time it is being proposed as a "regulation"(?).
It will not be mandatory....hence it is voluntary(?).
If you do have these discussions ON AN ANNUAL basis, there will be a form of compensation(?).
So the incentive is to accomplish what? And if one does not do it, then what?

It is also being reported to keep this subject under the radar so to speak!!! Why? It has significant opportunity to be mis-understood :1rotfl:!!!

You don't think it could be because there was so much controversy about it last year, that it was removed from the bill.....really?

The death panel will be back in play again. So how many feel Washington is learning from the past election?

Ittsa joke.btk


No no no Billie; you got to see the difference between this and the original "death panels". This is simply "counseling" and gentle "persuasion" to make you see that the cost of prolonging your life is not financially "moral" and is instead "selfish" and then, hopefully, you will see that for the good of the "community" you should let you life come to a dignified end.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicare-regulation-revives-end-life-pla

[Guest]

If my Dr. has an end of life discussion with me, I will have an end of relationship discussion with him.

Yoda

[Guest]

Richie,

If you had a loved one in a perstistive vegetative coma (God forbid that you ever would have), would you not want counseling by a social worker, minister, and doctor as to the best thing for the patient? Is it better to have them in the vegetative coma for 20 years in pain with no hope of recovery or better to have them sent peacefully off to Heaven?

Patients with incurable disease or conditions and their families will usually speak to a doctor and minister about end of life decisions and whether or not to take actions to prolong life.

This is nothing new. It is common sense. It is not death panels. Sometimes, it is the hardest act of love a person will ever make.

[Guest]

Yeah, forget any counseling. After all your family should be the ones to have to GUESS what you wanted should you lapse into a coma. Never mind having a discussion where a doctor could give you some education on the subject.

Wake up and smell the damn roses. There's another topic on here about how 'cruel' Medicare is for not being able to afford a particular procedure for someone who will die without it. Well, quite frankly, I do NOT want to be a burden to my family and I've let them know it. I watched my grandmother waste away from progressive strokes for fove years after doctors disobeyed her DNR orders after a heart attack.

It just seems to always come down to "who's ox is being gored?" because of our attitudes and taboos concerning death.

[Guest]

Richie,

If you had a loved one in a perstistive vegetative coma (God forbid that you ever would have), would you not want counseling by a social worker, minister, and doctor as to the best thing for the patient? Is it better to have them in the vegetative coma for 20 years in pain with no hope of recovery or better to have them sent peacefully off to Heaven?

Patients with incurable disease or conditions and their families will usually speak to a doctor and minister about end of life decisions and whether or not to take actions to prolong life.

This is nothing new. It is common sense. It is not death panels. Sometimes, it is the hardest act of love a person will ever make.

I have been in that position and didn't;t need the fracking government to help me make a decision.

The next step is they will make the decision. Do you want the RMV telling you when to "OFF" granny?

[Guest]

If my Dr. has an end of life discussion with me, I will have an end of relationship discussion with him.

Yoda

Dont move to Arizona then Yoda.

[Guest]

Dont move to Arizona then Yoda.

Tell me about Arizona - don't know about it.

[Guest]

I'm interested to islandgal, but I bet it's the funding cuts by the Arizona State Senate for Medicaid payments for several types of transplants to close the state's budget gap.

djplong, please don't take this the wrong way. Talking about our loved ones is so personal and I don't want to offend you, but what makes you think these same doctors will do any better with an end of life request than they did with your grandmother's written orders of Do Not Resuscitate?

Life isn't all black and white. I've watched friends and family members die painful prolonged deaths. Their attitudes and our attitudes changed with the days and weeks as things got better and worse in the situations. It isn't cut and dry. I certainly don't won't the government involved in my medical care or life and death decisions. That is between me and my family and my doctor. But folks, I'm afraid we've let things go too far. I'm very distressed, mad and saddened at the shape this country is in now. Not just the Obamacare.

People arguing and justifying cuts to Medicare to let more people have access to Medicaid. What has happened to the people in this great nation? People saying they don't won't to be a burden to their families and seeming to indicate the government should get involved in our end of life decisions to see that our wishes are carried out? Sad, sad, sad.

[Guest]

at our age have been in a position to either witness or participate in end of days planning and at times difficult decision making.
And I would also venture a guess that many of us (I am tempted to say most of us) have done our home work with living wills, wills and estate plans.

And most of us, without intervention or coaxing from some number of un-involved bureaucratic un-involved, hidden agenda politicians, partisan lemmings.

To have a premise that these discussions should be undertaken in ones forties is an insult to real thinking, responsible Americans.

How can anybody buy into the charade that this phony shell game is in the best interest of we the people's most private and family focused event of our lives.

It is pure and simple a move toward the most invasive of invasions of privacy with the sole purpose of documenting and hiding a methodology to reduce services.

How in the :cus: did we make it this far in our lives and evolution of this country manage to make to where we are today.

And please spare me the BS rhetoric about the isolated incidents that make good fodder for the kool aid dispensers.

A disgusting charade.

btk

[Guest]

Gee, I really love reading all the extreme worse case scenarios one can come up with to try to convince someone to agree with a crap idea for their own good. I think all someone needs is a doctor to advise them of their treatment options for their illness and then that person can decide to do something or get another opinion or whatever.

But to try to come up with a hypothetical story, or even a personal story, where you feel you need a doctor trained in governmental directed "death acceptance" is just unbelievable, and, frankly, a little shocking.

I understand why "for the better good" bureaucrats would be promoting this, but for any free thinking American to agree is beyond me.

[Guest]

Gee, I really love reading all the extreme worse case scenarios one can come up with to try to convince someone to agree with a crap idea for their own good. I think all someone needs is a doctor to advise them of their treatment options for their illness and then that person can decide to do something or get another opinion or whatever.

But to try to come up with a hypothetical story, or even a personal story, where you feel you need a doctor trained in governmental directed "death acceptance" is just unbelievable, and, frankly, a little shocking.

I understand why "for the better good" bureaucrats would be promoting this, but for any free thinking American to agree is beyond me.

Ok....I will try. My end of life decisions have been made and are contained in the appropriate, notorized and required legal documents. My great niece and her husband have them along with my will and they are on file at my hospital of choice. I will not give you a made up horrible story as to why at 60 years old I have them but only that these come as a result of 40 years of working in hospitals. The things of I seen!!!! Truthfully I don't want them happening to me. Hence the paperwork......

[Guest]

I have been trying to stay out of political and I admit that I speed read the above so my post may not be on topic.

The discussion about your plans for end of life is a routine thing that has been going on for a long time in medical offices. Nothing new...at least in Ohio. I don't know if this sort of thing has been different in different areas of our country.

They ask this as an intake question when you visit our oncologist for the first time in Ohio.

Helene answered this question 15 years ago when she was diagnosed with cancer and I discussed it five years ago. Our regular GP asked this of both Sweetie and I a couple of years ago.

When you think about it, it is good to think what you might do if you were unable to speak and in terrible pain.

You don't have to answer this question.

It is something none of us can avoid, death. None of us are getting out of here alive.

[Guest]

Grace and cologal, you are missing the point and proving the point all at once. It should be up to individuals to make these decisions and have these discussions with their physicians. Families and individuals have been doing it for years without the government's intervention.

But should the governement dictate and regulate this? "Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment."

When the final version of the health care bill was signed into law by Obama in March it did not include the regulation for advance directives. Now it has been written back into the bill with Medicare regulations...and supporters are being told to not broadcast their accomplishment.

US Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, said in an email to people like John Rockefeller, who were working with him on adding this back into the already approved bill, "While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth," Blumenauer said in the hush-hush email.

“We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded. Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

If it is such a wonderful thing, why keep it quiet?



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=3&hp

[Guest]

As a nurse who has seen way to much suffering due to family members not being able to "let go" and also as a hospice nurse who has seen people "pass" as comfortable and with as much love as possible, I see a real need for people to be aware of their options.

However, IMHO, the government has absolutely no business sticking its nose in the most private and personal decisions one will ever make. That is heading down a very frightening path.

[Guest]

As a nurse who has seen way to much suffering due to family members not being able to "let go" and also as a hospice nurse who has seen people "pass" as comfortable and with as much love as possible, I see a real need for people to be aware of their options.

However, IMHO, the government has absolutely no business sticking its nose in the most private and personal decisions one will ever make. That is heading down a very frightening path.

Amen. :sigh:

[Guest]

If you believe it is good that families and their doctors talk about advance directives, living wills, DNR orders, etc., what is the arguement you have with the doctor getting paid for the discussion?

[Guest]

That's what I'm wondering. I mean, if a doctor was to be asked about this by a patient and they said "sorry, I can't talk to you because I can't bill for this time", people would be outraged at how short-sighted Medicare would be.

[Guest]

I don't think that "mandatory discussions" will be the end of government interference in my health care decisions. What else will Doctors be forced to discuss, or God forbid do in the future? This is the beginning of a slippery slope.

It is government control that I am against. Plain and simple! What my Doctor and I choose to discuss is none of their business!!

[Guest]

That's what I'm wondering. I mean, if a doctor was to be asked about this by a patient and they said "sorry, I can't talk to you because I can't bill for this time", people would be outraged at how short-sighted Medicare would be.

This has got to be one of your most mind blowing comments. You mean to tell me that a doctor bills his patients for SPECIFIC information now? I've got to see one of your doctor bills to see this for myself. I've been to the doctor plenty of times in my life and I've never been billed separately for specific pieces of information he gave me.

We're talking about doctor's instructing their patients about the efficacy of ending their lives, FOR THE DOCTOR'S FINANCIAL GAIN, at the behest of the GOVERNMENT.

You really defend this outrageous dictate?

BK, as usual, had the most thought out reasonable rebuttal to any of your's or Tbug's comments and was completely ignored by you.

We're going down a dangerous road here dj, and I don't want to travel it with you.

[Guest]

As a nurse who has seen way to much suffering due to family members not being able to "let go" and also as a hospice nurse who has seen people "pass" as comfortable and with as much love as possible, I see a real need for people to be aware of their options.

However, IMHO, the government has absolutely no business sticking its nose in the most private and personal decisions one will ever make. That is heading down a very frightening path.

KyWoman and bkcunningham.

As you see I did speed read and you both have redirected me without malice and with wisdom. I have obviously not been paying attention to the details again. Thank you for your intelligent information and how you presented it.

Hugs to both.

[Guest]

this congress and this president regarding what they say they intend and what actually happens. Check out Nancy's acceptance speech as speaker to hear what she intends for the future America...paraphrasing....no new deficit spending...pay as you go...we will not create a debt burden for our future families....
Then read today's article regarding the debt level created by this congress and president is has increased the debt level more than all, ALL prior sessions in history.

Now apply that lack of credibility to their intentions end of life discussions.
So, supporters of the current administration, from whence comes your comfort?

btk

[Guest]

this congress and this president regarding what they say they intend and what actually happens. Check out Nancy's acceptance speech as speaker to hear what she intends for the future America...paraphrasing....no new deficit spending...pay as you go...we will not create a debt burden for our future families....
Then read today's article regarding the debt level created by this congress and president is has increased the debt level more than all, ALL prior sessions in history.

Now apply that lack of credibility to their intentions end of life discussions.
So, supporters of the current administration, from whence comes your comfort?

btk

I think you read the article wrong. The 111th congress created more debt than the first 100 congresses, not all prior sessions.

[Guest]

That's what I'm wondering. I mean, if a doctor was to be asked about this by a patient and they said "sorry, I can't talk to you because I can't bill for this time", people would be outraged at how short-sighted Medicare would be.

He can still bill for consultation. At a higher rate, I bet.

Yoda

[Guest]

Grace and cologal, you are missing the point and proving the point all at once. It should be up to individuals to make these decisions and have these discussions with their physicians. Families and individuals have been doing it for years without the government's intervention.

But should the government dictate and regulate this? "Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment."

When the final version of the health care bill was signed into law by Obama in March it did not include the regulation for advance directives. Now it has been written back into the bill with Medicare regulations...and supporters are being told to not broadcast their accomplishment.

US Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, said in an email to people like John Rockefeller, who were working with him on adding this back into the already approved bill, "While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth," Blumenauer said in the hush-hush email.

“We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded. Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

If it is such a wonderful thing, why keep it quiet?



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=3&hp

I really wasn't trying to make any point other than I already have them and no one forced me to do so.

This statement concerns me.....

But should the government dictate and regulate this? "Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.


With all do respect this regulation allows for payment of a consultation for what you the patient wants at the end of life. No where does it indicate that the government will, at this time nor any time in the future, make you select options you don't want. If you can provide any written proof otherwise I would surely like to see it.


And who turned off the heat it is warmer in Colorado than here. :cold:

[Guest]

I really wasn't trying to make any point other than I already have them and no one forced me to do so.

This statement concerns me.....

But should the government dictate and regulate this? "Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.


With all do respect this regulation allows for payment of a consultation for what you the patient wants at the end of life. No where does it indicate that the government will, at this time nor any time in the future, make you select options you don't want. If you can provide any written proof otherwise I would surely like to see it.


And who turned off the heat it is warmer in Colorado than here. :cold:


Explain this to me cologal. You said, "I already have them and no one forced me to do so." And your doctor talked to you and discussed the process for the directive. Fine. I agree. No big deal. Happens every day a thousand times a day in this country.

So why all of a sudden is the government offering payment for something that is obviously already being done between patients and physicians? Why are they using a regulation writing procedure to put it into Medicare regs and why are they acting so weird about doing it and wanting it kept on the downlow?

As for proof that the government is making you select options you don't want. Yeah, I know that is unrealistic. There is no way the government would force something on you. No wait. There is something I'm remembering. Yeah, I've got it. Remember, there are about twenty states with lawsuits right now concerning the Constitutionality of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance!

You should look into Dr. Donald M. Berwick agenda and beliefs.

[Guest]

BK...... Actually no I never discussed any of this with a doctor.
No need to do so. My family is very Catholic, I was taught from a very early age that we need not invoke extraordinary means to save a life. I watched as the medical and clergy in my family decided what should be done. Add to that 40 years in hospitals and I know what I want.

On a general note I try to not live in fear...I take things at face value. To me this regulation is a good thing because it gets the discussion going on these issues. Trust me you will not be in control at the end .... sometimes even if these papers are available. I have seen it....

Still your concern should be addressed....

[Guest]

We're talking about doctor's instructing their patients about the efficacy of ending their lives, FOR THE DOCTOR'S FINANCIAL GAIN, at the behest of the GOVERNMENT.

You really defend this outrageous dictate?


Yoda mentioned about billing for a 'consultation'. Now, I'm not 100% up on everything you can or can't bill for - I'm most personally familiar with the disgusting practice of DRG days.

But while not billing for specific information, I *have* seen bills for *time* - much as Yoda mentioned about consultations.

And, yeah, *to a degree* I defend the idea. If someone is going to ask the government to pay the bills they, yeah, the DAMN WELL *SHOULD* be educated on some of the trade-offs, the consequences and, yes, the expenses. Many families do this as a matter of course - like you said, no harm, no foul. But what about the willfully ignorant? The people who (and I'll put this politely) may very well be wrapped up (justifiably) in their own stressed emotions concerning a family member?

Sometimes you HAVE to face that which is unpleasant (you can apply that to just about any of the political topics here).

Screaming "death panels" like a demogogue as if these consultation are something new doesn't change the fact that private insurers have been doing this for quite some time.

[Guest]

Screaming "death panels" like a demogogue as if these consultation are something new doesn't change the fact that private insurers have been doing this for quite some time.


First, I haven't been screaming "death panels", but if the government health care bureaucrats are paying doctors to convince you that for everyone's benefit it would be great for you to die; what would you call it?

Also, AND A GREAT BIG ALSO!!!, I can hire a lawyer and take my private insurer to court to compel them to authorize treatment or SUE THEM IF THEY TRY TO SCREW ME. No matter the right or wrong of it, you cannot take the government to court over this. I'll take the private sector over government administration anytime, warts and all.

[Guest]

Ok, so how did we go from "consultation on end-of-life options" to "paying doctors to convinve you that (it) would be great for you to die"?

[Guest]

I will die when God wishes or I wish. Obi-Wan is not either.

Yoda

[Guest]

Ok, so how did we go from "consultation on end-of-life options" to "paying doctors to convinve you that (it) would be great for you to die"?

Just trying to shake you up a bit so that you see what's in front of you. That is exactly what this is about. You can discuss with me what treatment options I have and let me decide if I want them or not, or I can get another professional's opinion, OR you can discuss "end of life options" with me, in which case you discussing my DEATH OPTION. It's kind of self explanatory DJ.

[Guest]

Richie, BK, or Yoda (or anyone else who wishes to chip in for a par)-

Do you personally believe that Mary Jo Schiavo's husband had the right to terminate his wife's life since she had been in a vegetative coma for about 20 years and no chance of returning to "life"?

Part 2 of the question is: Do you think that is an area that Congress was way out of their boundaries in taking up the issue?

Part 3 - Do you believe the method used for terminating her existence (removal of the feeding tube) was better or worse than a doctor being able to legally inject a high dosage of morphine?

Thanks for your answers.

[Guest]

Richie, BK, or Yoda (or anyone else who wishes to chip in for a par)-

Do you personally believe that Mary Jo Schiavo's husband had the right to terminate his wife's life since she had been in a vegetative coma for about 20 years and no chance of returning to "life"?

Part 2 of the question is: Do you think that is an area that Congress was way out of their boundaries in taking up the issue?

Part 3 - Do you believe the method used for terminating her existence (removal of the feeding tube) was better or worse than a doctor being able to legally inject a high dosage of morphine?


Thanks for your answers.

1. No, I do not and did not. Her husband had nothing but his changing story of his wife's wishes and her parents would have cared for her. She did not need extraordinary measures to maintain life, but only needed basic human sustenance. All she couldn't do to maintain her life is feed herself. If you argue that point, you condemn all paraplegics.

People have come out of lengthy comas, and there was no definitive evidence that Ms. Shiavo was not brain aware, only conjecture.

2. The Constitution guaranties us LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Congress has no jurisdiction to rule for the termination of life of an innocent. This was criminal overreach and a case of government authorization of the murder of a handicapped citizen, pure and simple.

3. I you have the conviction that you have the right to murder a person who cannot speak for themselves and is just, simply alive and not bound to a mechanical device to keep them alive, than you should be brave enough to end that life as humanely as possible. I would have preferred the outright execution of this helpless woman than the cowardly deprivation of her sustenance, which is the cruelest way to kill someone I can think of.

Terry Shiavo was murdered. She was killed. She was exterminated. She was NOT just "Allowed to die"

That's my opinion. I know ad infinitum the arguments of those who disagree with me and expect I'll see them here from those who still try to make peace with their view. But I, and many others who believe in absolute sanctity of life will never change our view on this.

[Guest]

Richie:

1) If memory serves, the husband's story didn't change. What DID change was, after 8years of trying everything under the sun from being wheeled through parks (in hopes of sparking some kind of recovery) to highly experimental treatments, Michael basically came to the belief that he'd tried everything. The parents said that because Terry was a practicing Roman Catholic, she would not approve of violating the Church's teachings on euthanasia. The parent's, however, did NOT know everything that had gone on in Terry's life, such as her bulimia (Michael won a malpractice case against the doctor treating Terry for infertility because the doctor failed to properly diagnose the bulimia as the cause of the infertility).

2) Umm. That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

3) In a manner of speaking, I agree with you. It's well known to my family what my wishes are should I be in a Persistent Vegetative State. I would hope that someone would be merciful enough to me to do something like a morpheine overdose.

The "sanctity of life" argument, though, puzzles me at times. This woman was found DEAD. She was brought back to life at the hospital after suffering severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation. From a purely Christian standpoint, it can be argued that she was wrenched out of paradise (heaven) to be forced to undergo 10 years of being trapped in a body that could not communicate.

I mean, for crying out loud, we treat ANIMALS more humanely than humans in circumstances like that.

Michael did everything he could to bring Terry back. It wasn't until he had exhausted every practical possibility that he started to face what many would have said was the obvious or inevitable.

I don't mean this as a slam, but sometimes people just can't let go. Right, wrong or indifferent, it's a VERY emotional thing. I mean, for the parents, this was their daughter that they were trying to hold on to.

No, Terry was not murdered. That's the illegal or unlawful taking of a life. This thing wound it's way through the courts for a LONG time. It was 8 years before THAT when Terry really died. Remember, Terry was revived and intubated immediately. She never once regained consciousness. All the doctors involved in her treatment agreed on her state - but you had politicians who had the gall to look at edited videotape and make long-distance diagnosis that did nothing mroe than infmae an already volatile situation.

[Guest]

1. 3. I you have the conviction that you have the right to murder a person who cannot speak for themselves and is just, simply alive and not bound to a mechanical device to keep them alive, than you should be brave enough to end that life as humanely as possible. I would have preferred the outright execution of this helpless woman than the cowardly deprivation of her sustenance, which is the cruelest way to kill someone I can think of.

Terry Shiavo was murdered. She was killed. She was exterminated. She was NOT just "Allowed to die"

That's my opinion. I know ad infinitum the arguments of those who disagree with me and expect I'll see them here from those who still try to make peace with their view. But I, and many others who believe in absolute sanctity of life will never change our view on this.

36 years ago my mom fell into a coma. She was 53 years old, the same as me now. Long story short: She was a diabetic, having a stroke, my dad rushed her to the ER, it was "diagnosed" as bursitis, she was given a pain shot and with all the complications, this shot put her in a coma.

She laid in that hospital bed for 2 months, on a heart machine with a tracheotomy. She could only stare at the ceiling and never responded to our voices or touch. It was heart-wrenching and heart-breaking for all of us.
The only thing keeping her alive was that trach that was doing her breathing for her.

My twin brother and I were 17 years old. We were still in school as well as working. My dad worked his butt off as a bread delivery man and had one day off a week. Yet, we were there every day for 2 months straight.

My father left the decision up to me whether or not to remove her breathing tube, since I was the only girl and the housework and cooking would fall to me if my mom died. It already had anyway while she was there.

It was the HARDEST decision I have ever had to make in my whole life.

When I finally decided that it would be best all around to let her go, they removed the trach tube. My mom's heart was very strong and she lingered for a couple of days. I was by her side the whole time. I would stroke her forehead and talk to her about everything....I laughed, I cried, I just wanted her to wake up. The moment I will never forget is when she actually opened her eyes and looked me straight in mine. I was so excited that I ran to get the nurses to tell them that she was waking up. They came running in the room, checked her machines and informed me that it was just a reaction. She died 3 hours later. My mom literally suffocated to death.

I have lived with that for my whole life. Was my mom looking at me, asking me why I pulled the plug? Or was she looking at me, thanking me, for pulling that plug? I will never know...for years I believed that I truly killed my mom. As I have grown older, I have become more content with the situation, praying that I made the right decision and coming to believe that I had. I know that I would never want to go on like that and have informed my family of my wishes.

Your statement:
I would have preferred the outright execution of this helpless woman than the cowardly deprivation of her sustenance, which is the cruelest way to kill someone I can think of.

Terry Shiavo was murdered. She was killed. She was exterminated. She was NOT just "Allowed to die"

You have brought back a flood of memories, unknowingly. I know it was not meant in a cruel or mean way, that it is your opinion. And normally, I respect your opinions. However, this is one opinion that I have to disagree with...for my own sanity.

What would you have done at 17 years old?

[Guest]

If the Republicans succeed in repealing obamacare, will the earmarks that were added onto the bill also be repealed?

[Guest]

You have brought back a flood of memories, unknowingly. I know it was not meant in a cruel or mean way, that it is your opinion. And normally, I respect your opinions. However, this is one opinion that I have to disagree with...for my own sanity.

What would you have done at 17 years old?

I'm sorry for your loss, but Terry Shiavo was a different situation. When you and your family opted to pull the breathing tube, your mother, as you said, could not survive without the machine to do her breathing.

Ms. Shiavo needed no such machine to live. All she needed to live was a little food and a little water. She was denied these basic human needs.

For Ms. Shiavo to die, she had to be killed. She was not "allowed" to die, There is a big difference; no matter how many words some posters have written to justify it.

Again, I apologize for opening an old wound, and I wish you all the best.