OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[afx114]

Good post eavesdropper. EOM

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia]eaves,
We all know the answer to that one. I just heard a local ad bragging about doing some new type of heart surgery they did on a 90 year old man and how successful it was. His is an inspirational story; he survived the Bataan Death March, however, it does give you pause to think. I am not suggesting death panels, I was merely thinking about what you just wrote, would the family have made the same decision if they had to pay a percentage of the cost from their own personal funds? That is a great question. I do not have the answer other than most people do not have that kind of money to pay for their medical procedures.[/quote]

Exactly, Aecetia. So it makes people think (hopefully they haven’t forgotten how!).

Not that long ago, if a 90 year-old got sick and died, people would say, “He lived a long and good life. Now he’s gone to his just reward”. Or some shit like that.

Now it’s all about prolonging “life” at any cost. Look, I like having Granny around, just like the next person. But, despite arguments seemingly to the contrary, people die. Strange as it may sound, death is part of the life cycle. We are incredibly parochial, with archaic attitudes, about the topic of death in this country. This was clearly evidenced by the brouhaha over the nonexistent “death panels”. The language was clear. However, the concept of planning how to die is so foreign to people in this country that they had no trouble believing the PR flack who came up with the death panels stuff.

Now, before some get their britches up in a knot, allow me to clarify what I mean by the term “planning to die”. I’m not talking about “Dr. Kevorkian’s Neighborhood” here. I’m discussing how to handle life-threatening illnesses and conditions. Fortunately, most people don’t have to face this until they’re in their 70s or 80s. Unfortunately, the first time they have to think about it is when they are in the middle of such a situation at that age.

This is understandable. Most people don’t want to think about life-threatening illness or death. However, the one thing that people DO want is CONTROL. And just as one seeks to control how they live as much as possible, they can also have some control over how they want to be treated as a patient.

Unfortunately, many are being asked complex questions regarding their medical treatment at a time when they are not only handicapped by age, but when they are physically and emotionally at their lowest. Even worse, quite often the opinions and wishes of the elderly patient are bypassed by the healthcare providers in favor of dealing with the patient’s spouse or children. These individuals are coming from their own personal point of view: their needs and their experiences. A son in the prime of his own life may not be able to conceive of someone actually being ready to die. A daughter may be so concerned with how much she will miss her mother or father, or how much she depends on their support, that her own needs shadow those of her parent. If the patient has not made a living will, or if he/she has never discussed what their wishes are, the decision is left to someone whose own motivations may not be in the patient’s interest. At the very least, it can create a significant burden for loved ones who are already overtaxed emotionally.

I’ve seen this in my own family, where well-meaning relatives cannot (and sometimes refuse to) see what the natural course of aging has done to their parent. Young people, for the most part, don’t realize what it is like to deal with serious illness or injury. They also don’t realize that older patients do not tolerate the effects of surgery and treatment nearly as well as they, themselves, would. They also don’t realize how quickly a medical condition can arise, or worsen.

So quite often a patient, or his/her family, are faced with making huge decisions in a crisis situation. Decisions like this will almost invariably based on emotion, which does not bode well for favorable results.

Americans need to get over this delusion that bad things won’t happen if they don’t think about them. Newsflash: no matter what you’ve heard on Inside Edition or read in the National Enquirer, cutting-edge American scientists have not found an alternative for eventual death. I’m not saying that the lives of 90 year-olds have no value. They have incalculable value. But make sure that we’re talking about “life” here, not simple “existence”.

It’s easy to evade difficult decisions when someone else is picking up the tab. Having a financial stake in these decisions will force people to put serious thought into them. Some families may, indeed, decide that it’s best for them and for Grandpa to remortgage 5 or 6 of their homes to pay for a brain shunt and heart valve replacement, and that it’s worth the extraordinarily high pain level and risk of permanent injury or disability that Grandpa is undertaking. But they will, at the least, evaluate those factors before making that decision.

I know, all too well, that there are many, many people out there who are saying “Only God can decide when it’s time for someone to die”. I respect their beliefs, but I’m wondering why so many of them insist on interfering with that decision.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper]. . . We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.[/quote]

eaves, I agree with both of these points. I have posted here before that I will NOT undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with a late-stage (terminal) cancer and if my chances for survival are 50% or less with trying the chemo, I would lean towards NOT undergoing chemo if my last kid was grown. I’ve just seen firsthand what the poisons in it can do to the body. In many cases, it is irreversible damage, even if the patient manages to survive for a length of time. I’m of the mindset that if it’s my time to go, then I want to enjoy what time I have left feeling as well as I can and with my brain intact as long as possible.

I don’t believe in spending $300K (wherever the $$ comes from) to save (or improve) the life of someone of advanced age as you describe here and if this 90-year-old patient had any sense or say in the matter (instead of his well-meaning children or spouse), he probably wouldn’t agree to undergo all of that mess, either. This is just my .02 on the subject.

I remember that prior to the early/mid-70’s, it was expected that kids just passed around and contracted all the “childhood diseases” (measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough) some multiple times and this is how they acquired an immunity. They almost never saw a doctor unless they needed some Penicillin or their rash became infected. They just stayed home until they were no longer contagious. Many children lost their hearing when their parents discovered, just a little too late, that their measles had turned into meningitis.

I don’t recall of any health plans for children being in existence back then. Heck, I’m not even sure my parents had health plans for themselves!

I recall that diseases for which there were vaccines available (polio, smallpox, tetanus and diptheria) had mostly been eradicated, smallpox almost completely. In many other countries, vaccines either were not yet available or just becoming available.

Yes, we, as Americans, expect so much more in medical services now, whether or not we have the ability to pay for it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper]. . . We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.[/quote]

eaves, I agree with both of these points. I have posted here before that I will NOT undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with a late-stage (terminal) cancer and if my chances for survival are 50% or less with trying the chemo, I would lean towards NOT undergoing chemo if my last kid was grown. I’ve just seen firsthand what the poisons in it can do to the body. In many cases, it is irreversible damage, even if the patient manages to survive for a length of time. I’m of the mindset that if it’s my time to go, then I want to enjoy what time I have left feeling as well as I can and with my brain intact as long as possible.

I don’t believe in spending $300K (wherever the $$ comes from) to save (or improve) the life of someone of advanced age as you describe here and if this 90-year-old patient had any sense or say in the matter (instead of his well-meaning children or spouse), he probably wouldn’t agree to undergo all of that mess, either. This is just my .02 on the subject.

I remember that prior to the early/mid-70’s, it was expected that kids just passed around and contracted all the “childhood diseases” (measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough) some multiple times and this is how they acquired an immunity. They almost never saw a doctor unless they needed some Penicillin or their rash became infected. They just stayed home until they were no longer contagious. Many children lost their hearing when their parents discovered, just a little too late, that their measles had turned into meningitis.

I don’t recall of any health plans for children being in existence back then. Heck, I’m not even sure my parents had health plans for themselves!

I recall that diseases for which there were vaccines available (polio, smallpox, tetanus and diptheria) had mostly been eradicated, smallpox almost completely. In many other countries, vaccines either were not yet available or just becoming available.

Yes, we, as Americans, expect so much more in medical services now, whether or not we have the ability to pay for it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper]. . . We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.[/quote]

eaves, I agree with both of these points. I have posted here before that I will NOT undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with a late-stage (terminal) cancer and if my chances for survival are 50% or less with trying the chemo, I would lean towards NOT undergoing chemo if my last kid was grown. I’ve just seen firsthand what the poisons in it can do to the body. In many cases, it is irreversible damage, even if the patient manages to survive for a length of time. I’m of the mindset that if it’s my time to go, then I want to enjoy what time I have left feeling as well as I can and with my brain intact as long as possible.

I don’t believe in spending $300K (wherever the $$ comes from) to save (or improve) the life of someone of advanced age as you describe here and if this 90-year-old patient had any sense or say in the matter (instead of his well-meaning children or spouse), he probably wouldn’t agree to undergo all of that mess, either. This is just my .02 on the subject.

I remember that prior to the early/mid-70’s, it was expected that kids just passed around and contracted all the “childhood diseases” (measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough) some multiple times and this is how they acquired an immunity. They almost never saw a doctor unless they needed some Penicillin or their rash became infected. They just stayed home until they were no longer contagious. Many children lost their hearing when their parents discovered, just a little too late, that their measles had turned into meningitis.

I don’t recall of any health plans for children being in existence back then. Heck, I’m not even sure my parents had health plans for themselves!

I recall that diseases for which there were vaccines available (polio, smallpox, tetanus and diptheria) had mostly been eradicated, smallpox almost completely. In many other countries, vaccines either were not yet available or just becoming available.

Yes, we, as Americans, expect so much more in medical services now, whether or not we have the ability to pay for it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper]. . . We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.[/quote]

eaves, I agree with both of these points. I have posted here before that I will NOT undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with a late-stage (terminal) cancer and if my chances for survival are 50% or less with trying the chemo, I would lean towards NOT undergoing chemo if my last kid was grown. I’ve just seen firsthand what the poisons in it can do to the body. In many cases, it is irreversible damage, even if the patient manages to survive for a length of time. I’m of the mindset that if it’s my time to go, then I want to enjoy what time I have left feeling as well as I can and with my brain intact as long as possible.

I don’t believe in spending $300K (wherever the $$ comes from) to save (or improve) the life of someone of advanced age as you describe here and if this 90-year-old patient had any sense or say in the matter (instead of his well-meaning children or spouse), he probably wouldn’t agree to undergo all of that mess, either. This is just my .02 on the subject.

I remember that prior to the early/mid-70’s, it was expected that kids just passed around and contracted all the “childhood diseases” (measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough) some multiple times and this is how they acquired an immunity. They almost never saw a doctor unless they needed some Penicillin or their rash became infected. They just stayed home until they were no longer contagious. Many children lost their hearing when their parents discovered, just a little too late, that their measles had turned into meningitis.

I don’t recall of any health plans for children being in existence back then. Heck, I’m not even sure my parents had health plans for themselves!

I recall that diseases for which there were vaccines available (polio, smallpox, tetanus and diptheria) had mostly been eradicated, smallpox almost completely. In many other countries, vaccines either were not yet available or just becoming available.

Yes, we, as Americans, expect so much more in medical services now, whether or not we have the ability to pay for it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper]. . . We have to start looking seriously at QUALITY of life, instead of simply looking at the length of it. We have to stop pissing and moaning about not being able to choose our own physicians, and we have to get real about providing painful and disabling 6-figure courses of “treatment” for 85 year-old patients.

You know, I appreciate that family members might be happy that the life of their 90 year-old father was saved by $300,000 worth of surgery, hospitalization, and rehab. I just question if their decision would have been the same had they been compelled to pony up 25% or 50% of the cost from their own personal funds.[/quote]

eaves, I agree with both of these points. I have posted here before that I will NOT undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with a late-stage (terminal) cancer and if my chances for survival are 50% or less with trying the chemo, I would lean towards NOT undergoing chemo if my last kid was grown. I’ve just seen firsthand what the poisons in it can do to the body. In many cases, it is irreversible damage, even if the patient manages to survive for a length of time. I’m of the mindset that if it’s my time to go, then I want to enjoy what time I have left feeling as well as I can and with my brain intact as long as possible.

I don’t believe in spending $300K (wherever the $$ comes from) to save (or improve) the life of someone of advanced age as you describe here and if this 90-year-old patient had any sense or say in the matter (instead of his well-meaning children or spouse), he probably wouldn’t agree to undergo all of that mess, either. This is just my .02 on the subject.

I remember that prior to the early/mid-70’s, it was expected that kids just passed around and contracted all the “childhood diseases” (measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella, whooping cough) some multiple times and this is how they acquired an immunity. They almost never saw a doctor unless they needed some Penicillin or their rash became infected. They just stayed home until they were no longer contagious. Many children lost their hearing when their parents discovered, just a little too late, that their measles had turned into meningitis.

I don’t recall of any health plans for children being in existence back then. Heck, I’m not even sure my parents had health plans for themselves!

I recall that diseases for which there were vaccines available (polio, smallpox, tetanus and diptheria) had mostly been eradicated, smallpox almost completely. In many other countries, vaccines either were not yet available or just becoming available.

Yes, we, as Americans, expect so much more in medical services now, whether or not we have the ability to pay for it.

[CA renter]

Great series of posts, eavesdropper.

[CA renter]

Great series of posts, eavesdropper.

[CA renter]

Great series of posts, eavesdropper.

[CA renter]

Great series of posts, eavesdropper.

[Author]

Posts