I heard a few questions and the range of possible answers on radio a few days ago, and I would find it very difficult to choose any of the offered answers. All answer choices are based on Doing Something.

As a good Roman Catholic, I would answer some questions saying, “It’s not my choice to make” or “In God’s time”, etc….

Pre-prepared answer choices are like a cattle chute forcing the answerer to go somewhere predetermined.

Couple with the instability/uncertainty of ill health described in some previous comments, and you get a recipe for Death

(sounds like the title of a Nero Wolfe book….)

Susan Lee

Thanks for the comment!

I’m beginning to wonder if your reading “in” isn’t willful.

It’s not. I have no patience for that sort of activity. I want to understand positions that don’t make sense to me, not bait opponents.

At no point does anyone say anything about denying choice, options, “muzzling.” Towey doesn’t argue we should protect people from “worrying”.

Perhaps I am confused here? I thought your position was that the VA handbook should not include the checklist? (Maybe I missed the point!)

At no point does anyone say anything about denying choice, options, “muzzling.” Towey doesn’t argue we should protect people from “worrying”.

Since I’m pretty discursive and unorganized, I’m generally off topic. However, I’m too busy today to deal with your speculative approach that has little to do with anyone’s point; indeed, the narrowing of options is the very point of the complaints.

Sol Vason,
Another point, however, is that few of us are doing back-breaking work and most of us can do what we are doing much later in life. As with women & child raising, the most productive society is surely the most flexible one. The back-breaking laborer should have available an earlier retirement, but these people are still productive and, while not wanting to continue at the jobs at which a younger person could excel, are likely to feel happier with “second life” positions. We can use their wisdom and they can use the purpose.

Raising the retirement age is logical – given the circumstances when it was set up, it is also essentially living up to its promise – at least as I saw it almost 50 years ago when I started paying in.

it makes sense if you view people as existing in order to support the State–keep them healthy and productive while they can earn and pay taxes, but if they are not nearly that age at the young end, or almost past it at the old end, they aren’t worth the effort and are just more mouths to feed, as it were—strictly benefit-cost, nothing personal, y’know. That’s what E. Emanuel’s paper said, anyway.

Because of the asynchronous, indirect manner of blog comments, I apologize for not understanding.

The bias of the book is to present options, which is a good thing. I remember being shocked when reading the NHS (at least in the 1990s) was refusing to provide patients’ medical files to patients, because it might worry them.

Here, it seems you are talking about the same thing, not presenting options to patients, because it might worry them, or they may make wrong decisions.

It seems the conservative thing to do is to protect patient rights, while the paternalistic thing to do is to shield patients from knowledge.

Liberals have a 2 point plan. Give free health care to everyone and kill them when they retire (but keep them in perfect health if they are on welfare). Don’t make sense.

Thanks for the reply. I guess what I don’t see is this:

. The argument on the one side is that a book with a clear bias toward making a choice of death should not be directed to be used by all doctors for all patients at all VA hospitals.

While certainly one can argue about framing (the book presupposes that continuing to live in rather hellish conditions is an option, the book presupposes that dying is an option, etc.), given that both options are available, the book asks individuals to think about the qualities that make their life worth living.

It may be that life is worth living for a reason apart from the quality of life. For individuals who believe such, their answers are obvious.

It may be that life is worth living as a function of the quality it has. For individuals who believe such, their answers require more thought.

Clearly, individuals are vulnerable when they receive care. One can make an argument that insurance companies should be having individuals consider these options regularly throughout their lives. However, as some individuals have not done so until they begin care, it is important that they begin considering their options.

some of the worksheets are more guilt-inducing (speaking of financial burdens on relatives) than they need to be

I don’t think so. We live in a country where relatives are expected to care for their ill. Certainly, if the VA would be willing to take up the entire cost of care of the sick this would not be an option. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting this, however, so to keep this consideration away from the ill is to exhibit a clear bias.