|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 14, 2015 15:49:14 GMT
The law has been accepted in 24 states, including Oregon. When a person is terminal, there is no such thing as "false hope". You're lucky to have any hope at all. Terminal means dying, after all. And dying pretty soon. The drugs in question are experimental, just not fully approved by the FDA. That doesn't mean they'll work, or that they're useless. They are, however, someone's last hope. Personally, I think a person should be allowed just about anything in that condition. And as for marketing, experimental protocols are usually free because making promises about unproved drugs is illegal. They can, however, offer hope. I take this personally, as I have a friend that is currently unlikely to see the New Year, and it's pi$$ing me off. He's still got a chance with conventional treatment, but if they fail, why should anyone claim a moral right to deny him any alternatives? Especially a governor who just made it easier to kill yourself. We're from the government, and we're here to help? What? You're about to die, and you want something still being researched that might help? Tough luck. We government bureaucrats know better than you or your doctor. Your choice is to try to live; our choice is to let you die. We'll even make it easier for you! I am involved in an ongoing discussion of brain death and end of life care on another board, and this subject came up. the beginning of the group was a case, from over a year ago, wherein a juvenile bled out and suffered brain death after a complex oral surgery (reasons unknown because the body has been kept on somatic support, while a parade of quacks apply their miracle cures ever since - hence no autopsy) I suspect that may be a part of the reasoning. at last report, the body was still lodged in New Jersey, where it is alleged that medicaid is footing the majority of the bill, while the family lives large on donations solicited through crowdfunding sites. so yeah, you have something you think might be a miracle cure: if you are confident enough to take responsibility for the cost of treatment, including the cost of treating any adverse effects it may cause, then I can see the possibility of providing an allowance for a terminally ill patient to volunteer for clinical trials. Consider this: There is a perpetual battle over abortion between groups claiming the titles "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". The "Pro Life" side often states that the government has the responsibility to protect every person, including those unborn, to the best of their ability. The "Pro Choice" side often states that the government has no right to interfere in a health care decision between a woman and her doctor. Without the right to try every option, the government is being both "Anti Life" and "Anti Choice". Not only is it deciding that death will be made certain, it's denying the patient and their doctor the choice to change that, no matter what the patient may prefer as her choice. That's simply wrong, regardless of who pays for what. If we're going to carry on this discussion, should I move it to the "Trivial Moral Issues" thread? Maybe if it's a few more posts long, I will. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Oct 14, 2015 16:02:44 GMT
I am involved in an ongoing discussion of brain death and end of life care on another board, and this subject came up. the beginning of the group was a case, from over a year ago, wherein a juvenile bled out and suffered brain death after a complex oral surgery (reasons unknown because the body has been kept on somatic support, while a parade of quacks apply their miracle cures ever since - hence no autopsy) I suspect that may be a part of the reasoning. at last report, the body was still lodged in New Jersey, where it is alleged that medicaid is footing the majority of the bill, while the family lives large on donations solicited through crowdfunding sites. so yeah, you have something you think might be a miracle cure: if you are confident enough to take responsibility for the cost of treatment, including the cost of treating any adverse effects it may cause, then I can see the possibility of providing an allowance for a terminally ill patient to volunteer for clinical trials. Consider this: There is a perpetual battle over abortion between groups claiming the titles "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". The "Pro Life" side often states that the government has the responsibility to protect every person, including those unborn, to the best of their ability. The "Pro Choice" side often states that the government has no right to interfere in a health care decision between a woman and her doctor. Without the right to try every option, the government is being both "Anti Life" and "Anti Choice". Not only is it deciding that death will be made certain, it's denying the patient and their doctor the choice to change that, no matter what the patient may prefer as her choice. That's simply wrong, regardless of who pays for what. If we're going to carry on this discussion, should I move it to the "Trivial Moral Issues" thread? Maybe if it's a few more posts long, I will. There are three distinct intersections at which government tends to contradict itself: 1. Abortion 2. End of Life 3. Capital Punishment Fundamentally, all three of these issues concern whether a person is able to live or die, but they are viewed with widely different points of view. 1. Abortion/The pro-life argument This is a child who deserves a chance at life. The bearer of this child, the one who will be burdened with caring for it, should not be allowed to decide its fate. 2. End of Life/Dying with dignity argument A person or, if he/she is incapacitated, the loved ones should be able to make the person confortable up to and including death. 3. Capital Punishment/The anti-CP argument It is not our job as morally righteous human beings to decide when a person should die. Regardless of what this person did in life, we should not be able to end a life. These are three debates that have been raging for years and will continue to rage for years to come. Your acceptance or disapproval of any of these does not make you any more or less of a human being, it just means that you hold certain beliefs about life and how life should be handled. But, keep this in mind, while politicians may want to ban abortion, end of life care, & capital punishment, they will continue to write orders declaring that thousands of men & women in the military will be sent abroad to face death everyday. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 14, 2015 16:08:52 GMT
Consider this: There is a perpetual battle over abortion between groups claiming the titles "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". The "Pro Life" side often states that the government has the responsibility to protect every person, including those unborn, to the best of their ability. The "Pro Choice" side often states that the government has no right to interfere in a health care decision between a woman and her doctor. Without the right to try every option, the government is being both "Anti Life" and "Anti Choice". Not only is it deciding that death will be made certain, it's denying the patient and their doctor the choice to change that, no matter what the patient may prefer as her choice. That's simply wrong, regardless of who pays for what. If we're going to carry on this discussion, should I move it to the "Trivial Moral Issues" thread? Maybe if it's a few more posts long, I will. I think that pro-life/pro-choice is an entirely different argument. As mostly a proponent of pro-life, I have a problem with the argument; "It's my body and it should be my choice." It's your choice NOT to get pregnant, but once you are, your choice affects more than just YOUR body. It affects the unborn baby as well as the emotional well being of the father. Except in the rare cases of the pregnancy jeopardizing the physical life of the mother, I believe society has not only a right, but an obligation to protect all involved. Especially those least able to protect themselves. And yes, I believe this topic should be moved to the "Moral Issues" thread as there is not anything "stupid" about it. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 14, 2015 23:11:21 GMT
And yes, I believe this topic should be moved to the "Moral Issues" thread as there is not anything "stupid" about it. Seconded |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2015 1:22:09 GMT
Consider this: There is a perpetual battle over abortion between groups claiming the titles "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". The "Pro Life" side often states that the government has the responsibility to protect every person, including those unborn, to the best of their ability. The "Pro Choice" side often states that the government has no right to interfere in a health care decision between a woman and her doctor. Without the right to try every option, the government is being both "Anti Life" and "Anti Choice". Not only is it deciding that death will be made certain, it's denying the patient and their doctor the choice to change that, no matter what the patient may prefer as her choice. That's simply wrong, regardless of who pays for what. If we're going to carry on this discussion, should I move it to the "Trivial Moral Issues" thread? Maybe if it's a few more posts long, I will. There are three distinct intersections at which government tends to contradict itself: 1. Abortion 2. End of Life 3. Capital Punishment Fundamentally, all three of these issues concern whether a person is able to live or die, but they are viewed with widely different points of view. 1. Abortion/The pro-life argument This is a child who deserves a chance at life. The bearer of this child, the one who will be burdened with caring for it, should not be allowed to decide its fate. 2. End of Life/Dying with dignity argument A person or, if he/she is incapacitated, the loved ones should be able to make the person confortable up to and including death. 3. Capital Punishment/The anti-CP argument It is not our job as morally righteous human beings to decide when a person should die. Regardless of what this person did in life, we should not be able to end a life. These are three debates that have been raging for years and will continue to rage for years to come. Your acceptance or disapproval of any of these does not make you any more or less of a human being, it just means that you hold certain beliefs about life and how life should be handled. But, keep this in mind, while politicians may want to ban abortion, end of life care, & capital punishment, they will continue to write orders declaring that thousands of men & women in the military will be sent abroad to face death everyday. it might better be said: 1: pro-life vs. pro-choice: the debate is about whether an unborn fetus is a human being and subject to all the same rights as one who has been born, or if it is simply a lump of tissue until it has been delivered. I also favor the interpretation that a fetus is a human being and we are obligated to try to give it a chance to live, if medically possible. in that I do accept that there are circumstances, where there is no favorable outcome, and we must save the life that can be saved even if it means losing another life. I also accept that there are circumstances where the emotional well being of the mother must be taken into consideration. 2: assisted suicide: I believe that committing suicide says that the person thinks they know better than God. however, I also believe that it is a person's right to believe in God or not, and while we must make every effort to preserve life, if a person makes an educated decision that they are better off ending theirs in the manner of their choosing, I can't, in good conscience, refuse them that option. 3: death penalty: the argument about whether we have the right to take a life in retaliation for murder, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 15, 2015 1:50:02 GMT
I didn't intend to stir up the abortion debate; just to point out the issue about "Right to Try to Live".
Why is it okay to commit certain suicide with a doctor's help, but not okay to try to avoid certain death not fully approved drugs?
Should Medicaid pay for the former but not the latter?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2015 2:12:22 GMT
I didn't intend to stir up the abortion debate; just to point out the issue about "Right to Try to Live". Why is it okay to commit certain suicide with a doctor's help, but not okay to try to avoid certain death not fully approved drugs? Should Medicaid pay for the former but not the latter? to me the test would be if there is a reasonable expectation it might be beneficial. the argument would be that FDA approval is an endorsement that there is a reasonable expectation it might work. as I said, if the person with the experimental therapy is confident that it will work, they should have no objection to paying the cost of the therapy in exchange for the opportunity for a clinical trial; and willing to take the risk of it going wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2015 8:22:11 GMT
Our version of the FDA has made rules.
In that any "New" drug must be approved.
It must be approved to stop "quack" medicines being "Invented" and sold without licence...
New stuff?..
It goes through several stages of getting the licence.
First and foremost is "Registration".
Once it is registered it can be investigated.
In the investigation, "First do no harm", as in, what are the side effects, and can those side effects harm, or can they be controlled with other drugs.
Then there is the approval to do certain limited "Human" testing.....
The above stages are in no way complete, they are a simplified version, but contain important steps I wish you to consider.
The laws in controversy in USA in the above posts are there to limit "Short cuts" and bogus treatments.
If the drug you wish to investigate is going to do any good at all, it must be registered and tested as "safe".
Or you can just go see a witch-doctor....
Par of this is to protect us from quacks selling false hope by drugs that have no benefit at all, but empty your bank account "In the hope".
If there are new experimental drugs on the market, they MUST go through type approval and strict "Do no harm" tests before they are tested on those near the end of life.
I think the laws you are discussing have just tightened up the loop holes in existing law to ensure that all drugs, experimental included, go through the right steps before they are even allowed to be tested.
This is not the law that will refuse "New" treatment to those desperate, its the law that will prevent them from being preyed upon by greedy drugs companies who think they can fleece us with stuff that they do not know for certain will do good or harm.
You will get your experimental new drugs being tested by those who sign up to do the tests.
You may have to sign more paperwork to allow yourself to be included, including the one signing away your rights to sue the backside off them if they dont work, you know the risks, you are hapy to be a human guinea pig, "Just so we all know whats going on here"...
But more importantly, the drugs you are testing, will be approved by your FDA for testing, in the hope that the drugs have already been passed as "Wont cause unnecessary suffering"
You have the choice.
The blue pill may help, we dont know for sure how much, because you are one of the first to try it, it has been tested for poisons by the FDA and they are happy to let us go ahead with the testing because they believe it may have some benefit.
The yellow one, well, we have no idea, but some [man with a while lab coat]"scientist" said if we pass it through the digestive system of a Civet cat first it would "Concentrate the goodness".
Or you can wait a week, and the green one being tested by the FDA right now will be approved, for human testing, and we have had even better results in the testing with that than we did with the blue one.
The RED one?... yesh, it looked to surpass everything we ever thought possible....but the FDA found that after a week, the kidneys of the lab mice packed up.
Cured them of the skin cancer, but they will be on dialysis for life and need a kidney transplant ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 16, 2015 20:26:38 GMT
I get that drugs need to be approved, so unscrupulous drug peddlers can't fleece people looking for hope, or do more harm to them than good. Seems like a good idea. But when someone is desperate - literally on their death bed - why not just make a law that says drug companies can't take advantage of that?
If they have a new drug that hasn't been approved yet and they need to do further testing, let them do the testing on these desperate people. Just don't let them charge for it. It has to be free for the patients. That's win/win. The patients get to try something as a last resort without being bled dry of funds and the drug companies get to field test their drugs, which might eventually lead to them getting the drugs approved for sale.
What would be so awful about that?
If I was dying of cancer or something similar and my choises were to wait until my body gave out, or have some potential side effects of an unproven drug, I'd take my chances with the side effects. I mean, I'm dying anyway. It's probably not going to be pleasant. What's a few days or weeks less, as long as my family isn't going to be bankrupted by the experiment?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2015 4:41:04 GMT
I get that drugs need to be approved, so unscrupulous drug peddlers can't fleece people looking for hope, or do more harm to them than good. Seems like a good idea. But when someone is desperate - literally on their death bed - why not just make a law that says drug companies can't take advantage of that? If they have a new drug that hasn't been approved yet and they need to do further testing, let them do the testing on these desperate people. Just don't let them charge for it. It has to be free for the patients. That's win/win. The patients get to try something as a last resort without being bled dry of funds and the drug companies get to field test their drugs, which might eventually lead to them getting the drugs approved for sale. What would be so awful about that? If I was dying of cancer or something similar and my choises were to wait until my body gave out, or have some potential side effects of an unproven drug, I'd take my chances with the side effects. I mean, I'm dying anyway. It's probably not going to be pleasant. What's a few days or weeks less, as long as my family isn't going to be bankrupted by the experiment? right, that's my thought. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 17, 2015 9:23:34 GMT
This is exactly what happens already, and my Father did those type of tests when he had the cancer, willingly.
The law just states that it has to be an "extra month" whilst the paperwork gets done?.. no, not exactly, its the extra couple of months to check and see if the lab rats keel over sideways first that is important....
"Due diligence", and Thalidomide. Yeah, that nasty drug that caused birth defects in the 60's in UK....
We dont want that again.
Due diligence that you DID do all the tests, and it does no harm, and that there are no lasting side effects that pop up a few months later that you didnt expect...
This only delays the drug by six months or so from the usual procedures that came before, but in those six moths, it will count out all the bogus ones that have no benefit and may be harmful.
This will stop the rush to bring new stuff to the market?..
Yes.
Rush in Haste, Repent at leisure....
All this will do is effectively delay the human trials until they know for SURE that the Lab Rats did not die of something else that was created by that drug that just took a couple of months to develop... like having the kidneys fail.
Trust me on this, there are worse things than dying.....
A less dangerous experience, There was a time when I was given a certain drug that had the side effects of spacing me out.
This is how I know I am hypersensitive to Morphine.
They had to investigate me for epilepsy.
I had full "Grand-mall" experiences of fits as my body fought the effects of Morphine... and I was concious throughout.
Soon as they replaced the Codine high strength with a NSAID of NOT Morphine base?.. the fits ceased, and my mental health improved by an unmeasurable quantity being from a shell of my former self to "Normal".
(Define normal... pass the cheese and stop the squirrel chasing that bear will you?..)
That is MINOR to some of the effects some drugs have on you?..
My father lost three quarters of his body weight and went bald.
He was still alive, but by how much?.
The drug he trailed extends your life by maybe two months.... but if that time is bed ridden on a morphine drip, is it worth it?.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2015 10:54:16 GMT
This is exactly what happens already, and my Father did those type of tests when he had the cancer, willingly. The law just states that it has to be an "extra month" whilst the paperwork gets done?.. no, not exactly, its the extra couple of months to check and see if the lab rats keel over sideways first that is important.... "Due diligence", and Thalidomide. Yeah, that nasty drug that caused birth defects in the 60's in UK.... We dont want that again. Due diligence that you DID do all the tests, and it does no harm, and that there are no lasting side effects that pop up a few months later that you didnt expect... This only delays the drug by six months or so from the usual procedures that came before, but in those six moths, it will count out all the bogus ones that have no benefit and may be harmful. This will stop the rush to bring new stuff to the market?.. Yes. Rush in Haste, Repent at leisure.... All this will do is effectively delay the human trials until they know for SURE that the Lab Rats did not die of something else that was created by that drug that just took a couple of months to develop... like having the kidneys fail. Trust me on this, there are worse things than dying..... A less dangerous experience, There was a time when I was given a certain drug that had the side effects of spacing me out. This is how I know I am hypersensitive to Morphine. They had to investigate me for epilepsy. I had full "Grand-mall" experiences of fits as my body fought the effects of Morphine... and I was concious throughout. Soon as they replaced the Codine high strength with a NSAID of NOT Morphine base?.. the fits ceased, and my mental health improved by an unmeasurable quantity being from a shell of my former self to "Normal". (Define normal... pass the cheese and stop the squirrel chasing that bear will you?..) That is MINOR to some of the effects some drugs have on you?.. My father lost three quarters of his body weight and went bald. He was still alive, but by how much?. The drug he trailed extends your life by maybe two months.... but if that time is bed ridden on a morphine drip, is it worth it?. that is the principle behind Oregon'e End Of Life planning laws. - let the patient decide in advance what is worth it and what is not. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 31, 2016 19:18:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 31, 2016 22:27:32 GMT
And what exactly was that supposed to accomplish? People truly are idiots... |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 1, 2016 4:01:01 GMT
And what exactly was that supposed to accomplish? People truly are idiots... The article waffles on whether or not this should be considered as part of a larger wave of actions against movements that are seen as too "progressive" or "Western". |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 1, 2016 7:24:29 GMT
If you are going to open a cafe in a HIGH population of say Catholic that has signs on it that are Anti-Catholic, are you not going to expect some resistance?.. If you open a Pork Butchers shop in a Jewish "Enclave", do you not expect some complaints?. If you start a poster campaign in a high LGBT population "Dont be stupid gay is not right", in the way that those anti-omnivores are blasting posters about veganisim being the only right way, they expect some criticism... I say maybe they are a bit out of time on this one. Maybe they should have picked a better area to open. If the locals are ganging up and saying "You are not welcome", then maybe its time to rethink the business model. Do not alienate your neighbours....?... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 1, 2016 7:42:55 GMT
And what exactly was that supposed to accomplish? People truly are idiots... The article waffles on whether or not this should be considered as part of a larger wave of actions against movements that are seen as too "progressive" or "Western". On reading of the article, I believe it is exactly that point. Russians, and Georgians, have not had time to adjust to life after the iron curtain. If say you had a HUGE influx of the Japanese culture suddenly pop up in the centre of a Redneck town that has been chanting USA USA USA silently with every breath for the last 100 yrs, dont you think they may be a bit "upset" when the very appearance of the place starts challenging their own lifestyle and encourages all to follow a different lifestyle?... Take any place you know that is 100% dyed in the wool has USA stamped on its very genetics town in mid-west central USA and "Introduce" say lederhosen garbed peoples playing Germanic music and Germanic food with a poster campaign saying "This is the new way of society join up or be left behind", and do you not expect a few pieces of resistance to that intrusion on the normal way of life?... I know that the appearance of the Burkha and other islamic strict dress codes for their Women has caused a LOT of resistance in some places. But think of how when they are used to that in their own country, how they would react to an American woman strutting her stuff in Californian beachwear or the short-shorts and tied shirt "Daisy Duke" style on their streets?... Cultural shock, when you persist in forcing a foreign culture on an existing one, anywhere in the world, is liable to cause trouble. "When in Rome".... That idiom has a long history. 400 yrs of occupation of the Romans in UK. When they left, there were still people who had resisted them cheering loudly for decades. I say read the article again carefully and think how would it be if that happened the other way around?.. If a Vegan LGBT community had a Barbecue butchers shop open up right in the middle of it encouraging all of them to eat meat?.. Which is exactly what those protesters did.... There are two sides to the story, I have seen and understood both. On this occasion, I believe that the community that has gone against the larger local strict "Orthodox" Christian community has done it the wrong way. Try driving a car decked with American slogans through the more orthodox areas of Iran and Afghanistan if you want to know more.... or even Vietnam. Or North Korea. I say this knowing that if you drove the same car with pro UK slogans through some of the same area's, you may get a very similar response.... What has been done there is introduce a very Western culture to a non tolerant very Russian neighbourhood... And its obviously not going down well with the locals. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 1, 2016 13:11:13 GMT
Cut for brevity What has been done there is introduce a very Western culture to a non tolerant very Russian neighbourhood... And its obviously not going down well with the locals. I get what you're saying, but still... All these people have "done wrong" is open up a café where they don't serve meat and put a couple of flyers in their OWN windows. It's not like they're posting them all over town, yet part of the community thinks it's an attack on their way of life and decide to launch a counterattack where they throw perfectly good meat at people who don't want it? If you're so insecure about your own lifestyle that you feel like you have to ruin everyone else's to keep yours safe, you might just have bigger problems than what other people eat and wear. As for the Orthodox Christian part, well... They're doing it wrong. Maybe that's why they're so insecure about it...? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 1, 2016 13:58:49 GMT
If you are going to open a cafe in a HIGH population of say Catholic that has signs on it that are Anti-Catholic, are you not going to expect some resistance?.. If you open a Pork Butchers shop in a Jewish "Enclave", do you not expect some complaints?. If you start a poster campaign in a high LGBT population "Dont be stupid gay is not right", in the way that those anti-omnivores are blasting posters about veganisim being the only right way, they expect some criticism... I say maybe they are a bit out of time on this one. Maybe they should have picked a better area to open. If the locals are ganging up and saying "You are not welcome", then maybe its time to rethink the business model. Do not alienate your neighbours....?... now, if they had opened a Vodkan restaurant... |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jun 1, 2016 14:20:48 GMT
I know Greek Orthodoxy has a tradition of abstaining from meat; apparently in some of the monasteries it's only served on Pascha (Easter). Does Russian Orthodoxy not have that tradition?
|
|
