« Links With Your Coffee - Friday | Main | Ben Goldacre - Now Show »

Links With Your Coffee - Sunday




Huh. So you mean in addition to being meth-huffers, homosexuals, whoremongers & hate-peddlers, evangelists are tax-dodgers, too? Never woulda guessed.

Sweet story about your kin Janna and Doug. They seem to know just what to program. There are lots of opportunities for musicians to perform for seniors and those younger; all they have to do is look around. Their audiences will love them for their gifts and efforts.

As for the DART bus ads, I'm sad to have missed them! And Culver - ugh! Can the Iowa Dems not come up with someone better when his term is up? Cause he is one weak cat...

I'd like some of those anti-abortion ads with religious clothing to be pulled from my route to bowling and a good friend's house. I'd like the guilt-inducing church ads to be painted over as well. These disturb me, Chet. grr

That UK ID card article has the Daily Mail as a source, and it figures with the all the sensationalistic BS. It's already been updated, to say it's probably not true.

Re: Euthanasia BS

Here's an excerpt from the Texas futile care Act - signed into law by G. W. Bush. Imagine what lying Republicans would do with this if it were in "Obamacare":

§ 166.052. STATEMENTS EXPLAINING PATIENT'S RIGHT TO TRANSFER. (a) In cases in which the attending physician refuses to honor an advance directive or treatment decision requesting the provision of life-sustaining treatment, the statement required by Section 166.046(b)(2)(A) shall be in substantially the following form:

When There Is A Disagreement About Medical Treatment: The Physician Recommends Against Life-Sustaining Treatment That You Wish To Continue

You have been given this information because you have requested life-sustaining treatment,* which the attending physician believes is not appropriate. This information is being provided to help you understand state law, your rights, and the resources available to you in such circumstances. It outlines the process for resolving disagreements about treatment among patients, families, and physicians. It is based upon Section 166.046 of the Texas Advance Directives Act, codified in Chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

When an attending physician refuses to comply with an advance directive or other request for life-sustaining treatment because of the physician's judgment that the treatment would be inappropriate, the case will be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee.
Life-sustaining treatment will be provided through the review.

You will receive notification of this review at least 48 hours before a meeting of the committee related to your case. You are entitled to attend the meeting. With your agreement, the meeting may be held sooner than 48 hours, if possible.

You are entitled to receive a written explanation of the decision reached during the review process.

If after this review process both the attending physician and the ethics or medical committee conclude that life-sustaining treatment is inappropriate and yet you continue to request such treatment, then the following procedure will occur:

  1. The physician, with the help of the health care facility, will assist you in trying to find a physician and facility willing to provide the requested treatment.

  2. You are being given a list of health care providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness to consider accepting transfer, or to assist in locating a provider willing to accept transfer, maintained by the Texas Health Care Information Council. You may wish to contact providers or referral groups on the list or others of your choice to get help in arranging a transfer.

  3. The patient will continue to be given life-sustaining treatment until he or she can be transferred to a willing provider for up to 10 days from the time you were given the committee's written decision that life-sustaining treatment is not appropriate.

  4. If a transfer can be arranged, the patient will be responsible for the costs of the transfer.

  5. If a provider cannot be found willing to give the requested treatment within 10 days, life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn unless a court of law has granted an extension.

  6. You may ask the appropriate district or county court to extend the 10-day period if the court finds that there is a reasonable expectation that a physician or health care facility willing to provide life-sustaining treatment will be found if the extension is granted.

*"Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and artificial nutrition and hydration. The term does not include the administration of pain management medication or the performance of a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide comfort care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a patient's pain.

Holy crap

Amazing isn't it? In the irredeemably red state in which I live, a health-care provider can refuse to care for a patient if the prognosis is deemed to be hopeless – even if the patient has normal brain activity and, presumably, even if the patient expresses a desire to continue treatment. There is no provision in the law for any "care provider" of last resort. A committee of physicians, who could be doctors affiliated with the same HMO that wants to discontinue treatment, merely has to decide the patient’s prognosis is hopeless.

Have you ever heard any gnashing of Republican teeth over this HMO provider protection plan?

truly unbelievable. had no idea. the "futile care act"? brought to you by dubya? aren't any of the good guys using this information?

Thanks for posting Tim. Have you written the liberal house rep yet?

The liberal House rep? Who's that? In response to your question, I did just e-mail my congressman, a Democrat (in name only - certainly on this issue) and voiced my disapproval of his shitty web page on health care. Realistically, I expected no better, he's probably the Democrat in the House occupying the most Republican of any Democratically-controlled district in the country. (George Bush lives in his district. Sadly, he's the guy Nancy Pelosi was pushing for the VP spot last year.)


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives