covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) (04/23/91)
Index Number: 15084 Ann.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Parsons) writes: > > Well, this debate has been heard on here before, and many of you know how I > feel. I guess I will start the ball rolling by saying this. There is *NO* > *EXCUSE* *FOR* *EuTHANASIA*. God brings us here, he takes us home. Now, I [remainder of quoted material deleted] > > Please, remember this when you so glibly talk about > sometimes there is a need for "euthanasia". Don't give the Devil any more > leaway. If you want to write a living will, then write one, but don't try to > impose your views on somebody else. > from New Federalist V5, #15. LIVING WILLS: DEADLY DOCUMENTS GUARANTEE EARLY DEATH CLUB OF LIFE by Linda Everett The March 18 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reports two studies on ``living'' wills, the documents whereby individuals choose which life-saving treatment they do {not} want should an illness render them incapable of such decisions later. Advanced directives or living wills are promoted by the Euthanasia Council using the euphemism of guaranteed autonomy for patients. Now, the two studies published in the NEJM continue that propaganda with predictable deadly results. The first, ``Perspective Study of Advanced Directives in Life-Sustaining Care,'' involves 175 patients from a North Carolina nursing home. The fact that relatives accompanied 126 competent patients in interviews on their preferences may have swayed vulnerable patients, aware of being considered a ``burden'' by their families, to take positions against treatment. Life-and-death decisions for 49 mentally incompetent patients were decided by surrogates who were financially responsible for them! Both groups were asked what interventions should be given if they were critically or terminally ill, or permanently unconscious. Fifty-seven percent of participants opposed their doctors keeping them alive; 33% wanted to be kept alive as long as possible; and 73% of family members opposed life-saving care for their incompetent relatives. The study aimed to see if the treatment patients received for two years complied with their wishes. In 75% of the cases it did. The existing bias against treating or feeding elderly patients was {advanced} by discussions on refusing care by patients and staff. Four patients received more care than they wished, but in 25% of the cases, patients were undertreated or not saved at all! Their life-saving wishes were ignored by families or doctors, using spurious and immoral ``quality of life'' determinations. - Brainwashing Patients - In ``Advance Directives, A Case For Greater Use,'' a Boston study quizzed people on signing advanced directives and treatment choices in event of coma, persistent vegetative state, dementia, and dementia with terminal illness--which are portrayed by the pro-death lobby as totally hopeless scenarios. Since no one was informed of what new medical breakthroughs can do, in neither study was there informed consent; but in this study, participants were reminded of Boston's highly publicized starvation debate and the death of the comatose Paul Brophy. The study's psychological inducements to sign a directive against ``extraordinary'' treatment included the fact that patients were introduced to the study by their physicians--and most of us trust our doctors have our best interests in mind. After participants were asked to imagine themselves incompetent and sick, the majority refused life-sustaining treatment 70% of the time. The authors proudly note that it took only 14 minutes, on average, to get people to sign away their lives with these directives.