Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
04 May 2012, 12:54 pm
Tequila wrote:
Strapples wrote:
Eugenics makes me sick, now spread the word of this thread and the petion all over the internet. this is something that needs to go viral.
I assume you're obviously very much aware of the very strong link to Nazism and eugenics, although eugenics was not actually a creation of Nazism? I mention this because you're Jewish.
Needless to say, I very much support you in your quest for more reasons than one.
I am Jewish-Christian hybrid and Nazis + Eugenics + anyone seeking to eradicate the world of people with disabilities are vile creatures that themselves need to be castrated so that their sick gene pool cannot continue.
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
04 May 2012, 2:27 pm
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
04 May 2012, 2:39 pm
visagrunt wrote:
I find your proposal very problematic, Strapples, for a few reasons. DNR Orders are a matter of private decision between a doctor and a patient; I am troubled by any attempt for third parties to force their way into a doctor patient relationship. DNR orders exist for good reasons. There are many patients who--while neither terminal nor degenerative--have reached a sound and sensible decision about the steps that they want, or do not want, taken in the event of a catastrophic event.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases.
It is no longer a doctor patient relationship when said DNR is taped to the back of a wheelchair and is in the public eye, at that point that DNR is a public record and the public can step into it.
DNRs DO exist for a good reason yes, however, they are not effective nor efficient for people who have severe communication disabilities. This is where my law comes into play, people who can normally communicate or sign the papers themselves are unaffected by it. People like Katie Jones though are affected under this law, under this law Katie Jones parents would apply for a DNR and then the medical records be disclosed under protection to the 12 jurors who must vote by supermajority to pass the DNR.
NO law is perfect especially on its initial draft, i am sure that there can be an appellate process where professionals are allowed into the jury. but again this law ONLY affects cases of non communicating patients. This does NOT cover patients who can sign their own DNR paper work or use an alternative means to agree to the binding nature (voice signature recorded and witnessed by a third party, signature by x. etc)
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
04 May 2012, 2:56 pm
04 May 2012, 3:03 pm
Tequila wrote:
I assume you're obviously very much aware of the very strong link to Nazism and eugenics, although eugenics was not actually a creation of Nazism? I mention this because you're Jewish.
Needless to say, I very much support you in your quest for more reasons than one.
Needless to say, I very much support you in your quest for more reasons than one.
First, just to be clear, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. This is just something I feel has to be said, not because of what you've said, but because of what some idiots might think upon reading what you said.
As it happens, I am not Jewish. (I do know you weren't talking to me.) Yet I am aware of the connection, and oppose both eugenics and Nazism. It doesn't matter if the people they're proposing to 'get rid of' include me or not - once anyone starts talking about eliminating any group, they are out of line, and everyone else has reason to worry. Once they've succeeded with one group, who knows what group they'll target next? And that doesn't matter as much as the basic point, that targeting any group at all is evil, unjustified, and enough to demand that all decent people oppose that agenda.
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
04 May 2012, 3:59 pm
theWanderer wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
I find your proposal very problematic, Strapples, for a few reasons. DNR Orders are a matter of private decision between a doctor and a patient; I am troubled by any attempt for third parties to force their way into a doctor patient relationship. DNR orders exist for good reasons. There are many patients who--while neither terminal nor degenerative--have reached a sound and sensible decision about the steps that they want, or do not want, taken in the event of a catastrophic event.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases.
I find your remarks problematic, first, because this was not a doctor patient relationship - it was not the patient, Katie, who decided, but her parents. And you assume that an organisation of doctors can be trusted to decide what is and what is not "proper" - when many doctors in the past openly supported eugenics, and when many continue to pursue that agenda under the cover of any argument they can offer which will distract people from what they're really doing. Allowing doctors any say in when a person should be allowed to live is almost as absurd as allowing cats to decide which mice get eaten. (Just in case you don't know cats very well, I do - the answer would be "all of them", as, with many doctors, the answer would be "no one who is 'unfit'".) The only reason I qualify my statement with the word "almost" is the fact that there are some doctors out there who do not seek to advance the agenda of eugenics - despite the fact that every single professional organisation I am aware of in medicine does officially support that agenda, using other words and false arguments. Read War Against the Weak. Read some of the other research that has been done, then look through their official policies and read between the lines. Think about what lies behind the words, what they really mean, or rather, what they are designed to accomplish.
totally with you Wanderer yet again you hit the nail on the head, the Patient Katie had No say so in her care. And it is so true that many doctors still go throguh the eugenics thing. This is why I state that NO doctor can be in the jury.
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
02 Sep 2012, 7:33 am
So some really good news, I got a senator on my side who reviewed the law and said he would bring it up within his official committee in the senate. thats GOOD. as far as THIS becoming a bill it probably wont happen he said. but will we see DNR reform he said he guarantees it.
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
02 Sep 2012, 3:33 pm
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
02 Sep 2012, 4:39 pm
theWanderer wrote:
That is good news, as long as it's reformed intelligently. (Whoever wrote the existing laws certainly didn't use good sense, to permit something like the case that started this thread to happen at all.) But I will hope they manage to improve things.
Well Sen Bernie Sanders (D-VT) specifically said he wants tighter controls on when a DNR can happen. specifically BANNING them and federally invalidating them on children under 18 and people who did not sign or make the decision themselves. he said he doesn't have much he can do about people whom are older but children its wrong.
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
02 Sep 2012, 5:16 pm
Strapples wrote:
Well Sen Bernie Sanders (D-VT) specifically said he wants tighter controls on when a DNR can happen. specifically BANNING them and federally invalidating them on children under 18 and people who did not sign or make the decision themselves. he said he doesn't have much he can do about people whom are older but children its wrong.
If I lived in Vermont, he'd have my vote...
I hope he gets it through.
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
02 Sep 2012, 5:17 pm
i dont live there but i work with him a lot.
he is a great guy.
hes against internet censorship too and all the anti piracy BS thats slowly shutting the internet down,
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
CyborgUprising
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland
03 Sep 2012, 12:46 pm
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
03 Sep 2012, 12:49 pm
CyborgUprising wrote:
Though I have a DNR myself (I'm too cheap to let those b*****ds take my money), I disagree with allowing parents to make such a decision for their children, "ret*d," brain-damaged,etc. or not. If it's too expensive to care for your child, appeal to others for donations, get a better insurance policy, take up another job or whatever.
or as a last resort there is always the difficult but much better choice of allowing the child for adoption.
i know a lot of people who would adopt whether special needs or not.
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
CyborgUprising
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland
03 Sep 2012, 1:17 pm
Strapples
Supporting Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,861
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
03 Sep 2012, 1:18 pm
CyborgUprising wrote:
Strapples wrote:
CyborgUprising wrote:
Though I have a DNR myself (I'm too cheap to let those b*****ds take my money), I disagree with allowing parents to make such a decision for their children, "ret*d," brain-damaged,etc. or not. If it's too expensive to care for your child, appeal to others for donations, get a better insurance policy, take up another job or whatever.
or as a last resort there is always the difficult but much better choice of allowing the child for adoption.
i know a lot of people who would adopt whether special needs or not.
I thought of typing it, but then I figured "whatever" was inclusive enough... (though I can see where people would include "taking them out back" as "whatever," though that isn't my intent).
oh great now we have to deal with murderous parents *rolls eyes*
_________________
check out my website at {redacted by admin - domain taken over and points to a porn site}
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM
