Right to Privacy

[dave1949]

Dave,

My son works in intensive care at a large metropolitan hospital. The other day he sent an e-mail to my daughter, also a nurse, saying he was planning to have DNR tattooed on his chest. She agreed it was a good idea, as did his mom, who has been a nurse for 40 years....I don't think they were kidding.

Chuck

It sounds like a good idea to me. I get the feeling that a lot of the testing and so forth done on terminal patients is for the purpose of making money. The longer they can keep a person legally 'alive', the more they make. For some reason, living wills can get ignored.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

According to the linked chart, it has happened 11 years before this occurence. The balance is 2.4 billion, not trillion, got carried away with my zeroes.

The point remains, if you take 10% off each beneficiaries monthly check, it is possible to sustain the SS system without major hardships. Or as Bob said, stop paying SS to every cause it wasn't intended for.
Dave.

Again, Find a me a politician who is willing to do that.
That is the thing that is so pernicious about these "entitlement" programs. Once they start, nobody is going to touch the "third rail" and start telling people, Sorry, you're just going to have to make do with less.

 

[dave1949]

Again, Find a me a politician who is willing to do that.
That is the thing that is so pernicious about these "entitlement" programs. Once they start, nobody is going to touch the "third rail" and start telling people, Sorry, you're just going to have to make do with less.

Term Limits Problem solved, no more career troughers.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Term Limits Problem solved, no more career troughers.
Dave.

And which politician is going to propose those?

 

[Chuck52]

Dave,

A surprising number of those folks getting the Hail Mary treatments are on Medicaid or Medicare, which complicates the profit motive a bit. They may or may not have living wills or end-of-life directives, but someone has to be there to argue for them if they are already past stating their own preferences. From the stories I hear, many times the physicians just seem to go on auto-pilot....it might work, so do it! The incredible bills some families get stuck with for painful and ultimately useless procedures done to (not on) obviously terminal patients is unbelievable. I have four nurses in my family and have stated my preferences in such a way that I'm fairly confident I won't be vegetating forever when I go, but I must confess I haven't yet prepared the legal documents....most days I don't feel all that bad!

Chuck

 

[gerard]

I find it interesting that this thread started out with a "right to privacy" question re: constitutionality and no one posted the controlling amendment? The 4th amendment reads:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

All privacy issues stem from this and subsequent court interpretations. Unfortunately this is why they call it a "living" document as court interpretations make it's meaning continually change. Guess it depends if you feel we should apply the law as the founding fathers foresaw, or should we do so in light of current norms and values? (And remember - what THEY thought was unreasonable was having the soldiers kick in your door at night, sleep with your wife, eat your food, sleep in your bed, and leave in the morning without so much as a thank you!)

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I find it interesting that this thread started out with a "right to privacy" question re: constitutionality and no one posted the controlling amendment? The 4th amendment reads:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

All privacy issues stem from this and subsequent court interpretations. Unfortunately this is why they call it a "living" document as court interpretations make it's meaning continually change. Guess it depends if you feel we should apply the law as the founding fathers foresaw, or should we do so in light of current norms and values? (And remember - what THEY thought was unreasonable was having the soldiers kick in your door at night, sleep with your wife, eat your food, sleep in your bed, and leave in the morning without so much as a thank you!)

I also was waiting for someone to bring that up.
There would be some who say that "the right to privacy" does not exist. That it is a construct of as you said of later interpretations and court decisions. No where in the 4th amendment is the word "privacy" mentioned. Only against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[gerard]

In light of the current health care debate I can't help but share the attached quote from the 1770's. Are we too stupid to learn from history so as not to repeat the negative aspects of it and why could these people see it over 200 years ago and we can't today?


A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy?
Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

In light of the current health care debate I can't help but share the attached quote from the 1770's. Are we too stupid to learn from history so as not to repeat the negative aspects of it and why could these people see it over 200 years ago and we can't today?


A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy?
Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770.

I think that the quote is ambiguous and is subject to interpretation. After all it was over 200 years ago, How could anybody foresee what would happen now