DP Tool Club 8/CDASC08.ISO/VRAC/ANR9307.ZIP/9307FEAT.ANR

Text File | 1993-08-19 | 66KB | 1,504 lines

ABLEnews Review, July 1993: Feature Articles

A)  Words

(5)     Sat 3 Jul 93  9:58p
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: The Difference Words Make

ABLEnews Reprint

Editor's Note: Some months ago we had a vigorous discussion on
ABLEnews regarding the role of language in promoting bias against
persons with disabilities.  When I read the following, I thought
it might constitute a contribution to our reflections on...

                    The Difference Words Make
                                               --Mary Meehan

Eugenicists have often used words that dehumanize handicapped
people, whether born on unborn.  Early in this century, they
spoke of the handicapped as "defectives" or "diseased." Margaret
Sanger, the birth-control crusader, complained about "the every-
day spectacle of distorted bodies, of harsh and frightful
diseases stalking abroad in the light of day; of misshapen heads
and visages of moron and imbecile."

Both eugenicists and others in the medical profession have used
demeaning terms for specific handicaps: "harelip" for cleft lip;
"lobster claw deformity" for cleft foot; "Mongoloid" for Down
syndrome; and "anencephalic monster" for a child missing a large
part of the brain.

Such terms suggest that people with handicaps are less than
human.  It is a short step from that to believing that they do
not have full human rights.

The disability-rights movement has led to a change in attitudes--
or at least a change in language--within the medical profession.
Doctors, and even eugenicists, today are more likely to say a
child with disability" than to say "a defective child."

Mainstreaming the handicapped in schools and elsewhere may result
in additional changes of attitude.  So may current positive
portrayals of disabled people in film, television, and
advertising.

[National Catholic Register, June 20, 1993]

CURE Comment:  As advocates for patients with (and without)
               disabilities, we are sorry to say that we find the
               changes Ms. Meehan notes are more semantical than
               substantial as far as the battle for medical care
               is concerned, and we suspect it is the same on
               other fronts of the fight for full equality for
               persons with disabilities.

With a tip of our ABLEnews hat to Mary Meehan.

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street,
Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 25411 (304-258-LIFE/258-5433).

[posted on ABLEnews...beyond the headlines. (1:262/4)]

(34)    Fri 2 Jul 93  5:21p
By: Gordon Gillesby
To: All
Re: STANDING BY WORDS
                           STANDING BY WORDS

I come, in conclusion, to the difference between "projecting" the
future, and making a promise. The projecting of "futurologists" uses
the future as the safest possible context for whatever is desired; it
binds one only to selfish interest.  But making a promise binds one to
someone else's future.  If the promise is serious enough, one is
brought to it by love, and in awe and fear.  Fear, awe, and love bind
us to no selfish aims, but to each other.  We are speaking where we
stand, and we shall stand afterwards in the presence of what we have
said.

-- Wendell Berry (The Whole Community Catalogue, David Wetherow (Ed.),
Communitas, Inc., 1992, p 61.)

This article is from FUTURITY Newsletter and may be reprinted with
attribution; letters and submissions are welcome.  For more
information or to submit material for publication, please contact:

                              Roger Strand
        Governor's Planning Council on Develomental Disabilities
                 Minnesota Department of Administration
                        300 Centennial Building
                            658 Cedar Street
                          St. Paul, MN  55155
                              612/296-9963

[posted on DRAGnet - Disability Information 612/753-1943 (1:282/1007)]

(230)   Sat 31 Jul 93 12:53a
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: Language and Disability

ABLEnews Extra

[The following message has been imported for your information from
Abled where it was posted by our good friend and faithful Canadian
chronicler, Arlette Lefebvre:]

A Note About Language Usage and Labelling People with Disabilities
(AS POSTED BY WILLIAM MCQUEEN)

The language we use to refer to a person with a disability reflects
our attitudes and beliefs about that person's potential, needs, and
desires. This is true, whether we are conscious or unconscious of the
language we use, because descriptions have a dramatic effect on the
first impressions of a person and in turn the expectations people are
likely to have for that person. Language shapes the way we see people,
the way we treat them, and the way we provide services.

Language is powerful in that it can be used to define someone either
positively or negatively. There is an entire "language of diagnosis"
that puts the person's impairment up front; for example, "the blind
man" or the "epileptic child". The diagnostic label becomes the most
important attribute of the person, the one most central to his or her
identity. It is very difficult to see beyond the person's label and
find out who the person really is. Whenever we use language, we are
making choices about how we want to define the situation or the
person. ....

        Language Suggestions

Refer to people by their names and avoid any stigmatizing labels.

Try as much as possible to let the context describe who people are.

Avoid general terms such as "the disabled", "the mentally retarded",
and any short forms such as "C.P." or "M.R."

Put the word person first in situations where it is necessary to be
specific about the kind of impairment a person has; for example, a
person who has a visual impairment or a person who is elderly.

Use the terms people with disabilities and people who have been
devalued when discussing broad societal issues.

In reference to people participating in a programme or activity, use
the term participant as the best descriptor.

In the context of people being involved in social services, the term
service user is appropriate, particularly when discussing people who
are involved in guiding service reform.

The term self-advocate is useful when referring to people who are not
only advocating for themselves but who are also part of a broader
movement of social change and belong to a self-help or self-advocacy
organization. ---

Arlette

[posted on ABLEnews...a world of difference. (1:262/4)]

B)  Nazi Ethics

(7)     Sat 3 Jul 93  8:21p
By: John Covici
To: All
Re: "good" nazi ethics

"Good" Nazi Ethics, "Good" Nazi Finance?

CLUB OF LIFE
by Linda Everett

With Congress calling for the elderly to give up Medicare to help cut
the federal budget deficit, and proto-fascist punks like the ``Lead or
Leave'' group complaining about the resources older Americans are
using, the summer of '93 is beginning to look sort of like the summer
of 1937--in Nazi Germany, where more and more rationales were also
devised to eliminate support for vulnerable people.

In Nazi Germany in 1937, one medical economist itemized the daily
costs of care of a mentally ill or ``deficient'' person, or a
``cripple,'' complaining that the state spent far more on the
existence of these ``worthless'' people than it did on a healthy man
with a healthy family. The wholesale slaughter performed by Nazi
Germany under the rubric of euthanasia is familiar to us all--as is
the Holocaust of millions to which that euthanasia mentality
ultimately led.

Today, the same Nazi notion--that a nation can repudiate whole groups
of its sick citizens whenever it is economically expedient to do
so--is being promoted once again.

              Nazi Doctors of 1993

Thus, George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, wrote in a May 19 editorial that we could save ``scores
of billions of dollars annually'' under universal health care by
simply ``eliminating futile care and limiting unneeded care or
`medicine at the margins.'|'' He wants every hospital in the country
to ``define futile care ... develop guidelines ... about how to
identify it and eliminate it.''

Let's be blunt. Using the most widely read medical journal in the
world, Lundberg has targeted whole categories of people who could live
with life- saving or life-sustaining medical treatment, including
food, but who, in Lundberg's view, have lives that are ``futile'' and
not worth society's efforts. (``Lives not worthy to be lived,'' was
Hitler's way of expressing the same thing.)

To force you to accept murder, Lundberg enlists priests, ministers,
rabbis, hospital attorneys, and ethics committees to mandate mass
murder.

              Some Co-Thinkers

 Another one with a similar complaint is Dr. Mark Godec of the
National Institutes of Health; he says, according to the May 2
Washington Post, ``Too much time, effort and especially money is spent
keeping alive people who will soon die anyway.'' Godec wants federal
law to disallow any payment for care provided in the last 30 days of a
person's life. Of course, such a law will bring the last 30 days of
your life considerably forward in time--perhaps years earlier than
otherwise....

The law would target the young and old with {any} illness.

Joseph d'Oronzio, bioethics writer and Columbia University assistant
professor of social medicine, wants to combine euthanasia ``ethics''
with ``the economics of rationing care.'' In ``Good Ethics, Good
Health Economics'' (New York Times, June 8), d'Oronzio writes that 16%
of the total Medicare annual budget is spent on care for the last 60
days of life, costing $32 billion a year. Instead of draining
Medicare, family, and insurer, this guy wants the elderly to sign
living wills which could cut costs on ``unusally expensive
activities''--like saving your life.

Without a blush, he suggests a federal law to mandate that Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security beneficiaries be hounded into signing
living wills or advanced directives.

All in all, their ideas sound a lot like Hitler's.

From New Federalist V7, #25.

[posted on The Lincoln Legacy  703-777-5987 (1:109/909)]

Wed 7 Jul 93  9:56a
By: Chris Bova
To: All
Re: "good" nazi ethics, "good

JC> With Congress calling for the elderly to give up Medicare to help cut
  > the federal budget deficit, and proto-fascist punks like the ``Lead or
  > Leave'' group complaining about the resources older Americans are
  > using, the summer of '93 is beginning to look sort of like the summer
  > of 1937--in Nazi Germany, where more and more rationales were also
  > devised to eliminate support for vulnerable people.

I dont see a thing wrong with reducing the benefits to the elderly.
The Sienor Citizens of this country are living longer and longer,
making our nation older and older, while the middle aged and young are
going to have to work harder and harder to support these people.
Something has to give. How can the young save anything for their own
retirement when the government is determined to extend the benefits to
people who are living for longer and longer?? And the aged are a
powerfull politicall force in this country. They will never be forced
to give up anything the way power lies. As more and more people start
collecting benefits, and there are less and less active people to
support them, debt become the only option. We can only give them what
we can afford to give them, which is not alot. If we are going to
reduce the defecit, they must suffer like everyone else.

 JC> In Nazi Germany in 1937, one medical economist itemized the daily
   > costs of care of a mentally ill or ``deficient'' person, or a
   > ``cripple,'' complaining that the state spent far more on the existence
   > of these ``worthless'' people than it did on a healthy man with a

 JC> Another one with a similar complaint is Dr. Mark Godec of the National
   > Institutes of Health; he says, according to the May 2 Washington Post,
   > ``Too much time, effort and especially money is spent keeping alive
   > people who will soon die anyway.'' Godec wants federal law to disallow

Think about your own beliefs, anyone who is reading this. Do you
support socialized medicine?? In such a system, there is a time to
die, when the government will no longer pay for you.

I dont see any problem with living wills. We have too many people who
are suffering from life threatening diseases at 20 or 30 to spend
billions keeping alive a 80 year old vegtable who will never be off
life support. Again, we can only give what we can afford to. If this
country was rolling in cash, prehaps we could keep everyone alive, but
this is not the case.

 JC> Without a blush, he suggests a federal law to mandate that Medicare,
   > Medicaid, and Social Security beneficiaries be hounded into signing
   > living wills or advanced directives.

Again.. what's wrong with this??

Entari

[posted on Dragon's Cave  Mexico, NY  315-963-3389 (1:260/388)]

(71)    Tue 13 Jul 93 11:08p
By: Earl Appleby
To: Chris Bova
Re: "good" nazi ethics

Chris,

I hope you don't mind my butting into your questions to John, but I
read your comments on my birthday, and as my Dad's would have been
just three days before, I felt the urge to respond.

I haven't quoted you because I just wanted to share my honest feelings
about the spirit of your message as it struck me for whatever
consideration I hope you might give them.

First, of all, it seems that you are young...or at least not yet old
<smile>. I'm sure you've heard the old cliche about walking a mile in
another man's moccasins before you criticize him, etc. Well, Chris,
such cliches are also called "truisms" because they are basically
true.  I hope and pray you have a long life and I also hope that when
you are old or your parents, your friends, those you love and care
about are old, they will be treated with the compassion, dignity, and
respect they deserve.

If I recall correctly and I don't think for reasons that shall soon be
obvious that I could have imagined this you used some such expression
as  an "old vegetable" or the like.

Chris, old vegetables are rotten cabbages, moldy carrots, spoiled
potatoes, but human beings are NEVER vegetables (or minerals, for that
matter)...not because they are old or disabled or old AND disabled or
any other reason!!!

My Dad died at the age of 75 in 1991, which was much to young in my
book, and my Mom's, and my brother's, and my sisters.  He was in a
coma when he died what the bigots who seek to victimize (basically
kill) such victims of "quality-of-life" call the hate word "vegetable"
or more elegantly but no less dehumanizingly "peristent vegetative
state."

Indeed Dad lived in that coma for nearly ten years. I don;t think many
vegetables do that and certainly not with the love and courage my
father/my hero showed every day of his life against the odds, his life
in coma.

Nor is my Dad the only one I know and love who has been called at one
point or another in their lives a "vegetable," to their face by those
who think wrong, behind their backs by those who do not stop to think.
Any number of CURE's advisors have been there, that's why we are
family as surely as by blood.

A while back I expressed my hope that you and your loved ones would
enjoy old age.  I hope that neither you or your loved ones are ever in
a positon to be called a "vegetable" or worse to be killed because
someone thinks of them that way.  The way things have been going the
past few decades that could be most any degree short of perfect by TAB
(i.e., temporarily able bodied) standards. But perhaps if you knew or
cared for someone hurt by such words and the attitude that lies behind
them you would refrain from using them.

Well, now, you know one, Chris.

Again, sorry to butt in on your reply to John.  If I know John, and I
do (he's a good friend), I'm sure he'll have a few thoughts of his
own.  So I'll leave any further dialog to the two of you. These are
just some thoughts of mine I thought you might think about on your
own.

Earl

[posted on ABLEnews...your comments are welcome here. (1:262/4)]

(77)    Tue 13 Jul 93  3:19a
By: John Covici
To: Chris Bova
Re: Re: "good" nazi ethics, "

On 07-07-1993 Chris Bova  wrote to All

JC> With Congress calling for the elderly to give up Medicare to help cut
  > the federal budget deficit, and proto-fascist punks like the ``Lead or
  > Leave'' group complaining about the resources older Americans are
  > using, the summer of '93 is beginning to look sort of like the summer
  > of 1937--in Nazi Germany, where more and more rationales were also
  > devised to eliminate support for vulnerable people.

CB> I dont see a thing wrong with reducing the benefits to the elderly.
  > The Senior Citizens of this country are living longer and longer,
  > making our nation older and older, while the middle aged and young
  > are going to have to work harder and harder to support these
  > people. Something has to give...

There are several invalid assumptions in your remarks as stated above.

First of all, I think the main problem here is the assumption that we
have a finite and diminishing resource base with which we can care for
people.  This is only true if we retain the stupid government economic
policies which various administrations have put forth over the last
25-30 years.  The last President who had any idea of what to do was
John Kennedy.  Clinton stuck his tow in the water -- in terms of some
kind of investment, but then backed off immediately.

Under the conditions of no economic growth you are correct -- we will
kill off our weaker people and we will be morally as well as
economically bankrupt.  Our economic policies must change immediately
in order to solve this problem.  I will not go into details here, but
this would involve abolishing the Federal Reserve and creating a
national bank through which the government could use credit to create
wealth by loaning money for actual projects which would do something
-- such as factories, farms, hospitals, etc. rather than the
speculative derivatives buble which now sucks out all the lifeblood
from our economy.

The other problem is a cultural problem.  We have a culture of death
in this country today.  Did you ever think that one of the reasons why
there are not enough young people to take care of older people is that
about 28 million people have been killed by abortion?  The same folks
who want to kill the elderly and handicapped want to kill preborn
children.

JC > In Nazi Germany in 1937, one medical economist itemized the daily
   > costs of care of a mentally ill or ``deficient'' person, or a
   > ``cripple,'' complaining that the state spent far more on the
   > existence of these ``worthless'' people than it did on a healthy
   > man ...Another one with a similar complaint is Dr. Mark Godec of
   > the National Institutes of Health; he says,...``Too much time,
   > effort and especially money is spent keeping alive people who will
   > soon die anyway.''...

CB > Think about your own beliefs, anyone who is reading this. Do you
   > support socialized medicine?? In such a system, there is a time
   > to die, when the government will no longer pay for you.
   > I dont see any problem with living wills. We have too many people
   > who are suffering from life threatening diseases at 20 or 30 to
   > spend billions keeping alive a 80 year old vegtable...

See above for why this is nonsense.  We are obligated to take care of
everyone -- human life is precious because we are made in the image of
God.  These are the principles on which this country was founded.

JOHN COVICI

[posted on The Lincoln Legacy  703-777-5987 (1:109/909)]

(97)    Wed 14 Jul 93  5:47p
By: Betty Moss
To: Chris Bova
Re: "Good" Nazi Ethics,??????

CB> I dont see a thing wrong with reducing the benefits to the elderly.
  > The Sienor Citizens of this country are living longer and longer,
  > making our nation older and older...And the aged are a powerfull
  > politicall force in this country...

Yes we are. The "elderly" in this country were the ones who fought
WWII and insured the freedom for the younger generation to have a
place to work. These folks have worked long and hard for their
benefits. Social Security was started in the 1930s after the Great
Depression as a means of providing something to the elderly, blind,
disabled and their dependents. It was never meant to be a total
retirement, and believe me; it is not. These folks also paid into the
social security system to be able to have Medicare. They paid their
dues. And those who are just now beginning to collect also had the
same argument you present. When they were young and working, they also
thought they would never collect, the system would go broke, they
wouldn't be able to save, and all those other arguments. Well, it's
still there, folks still complain and I hope it will be there when you
to be "elderly."...

[posted on 221B Baker Street Panama City FL  904-871-6536 (1:3608/1)]

C)  Health Care Plans and Pans

(10)    Sun 4 Jul 93  4:56p
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: Health Reform Views

ABLEnews Open Line

                      Folks Are Talking...

about Clintons' health care changes. Here's a cross-sample of
what they're saying on the op ed pages of the US press:

     Assume the president and his wife remember when
     Congress passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act,
     and that the angry elderly objected so much to paying
     more in taxes for a small increase in benefits (that)
     the law was repealed. Are the Clintons prepared to ride
     out the storm they will generate with a plan that will
     apparently cost most people more money...and give them
     less control and choice over their care?
                              Joan Beck, Chicago Tribune

     Hillary Rodham Clinton enjoys more reincarnations than
     Shirley MacLaine. Hillary is political savvy, aware of
     what it means to be first lady, so she chooses her
     words carefully. She is doggedly preparing the
     rationale for her health-care plan--whatever it turns
     out to be, however much it costs--in anticipation of
     the criticism that will inevitably accompany the cry
     for more taxes to pay for everything.
                              Suzanne Fields, Washington Times

     The Clinton health plan seems slated for delivery in
     the summer or early fall at the earliest. That's no
     tragedy. In fact, it wouldn't be a terrible thing if
     the administration were to reconsider its entire
     approach. From the start, the Clinton task force has
     been headed in the wrong direction, more interested in
     fostering social egalitarianism than in improving the
     quality of the health care available to most Americans.
                              New York Post, editorial

     Mike Horowitz, an (OMB) official (under) Reagan,
     observing the charge of Clinton's wonk brigade,
     describes the escalating spiral as a 'legal-medical
     arms race.' Medicare spending quadrupled in the last 12
     years. It may be hard to do worse, but the Clintonians
     are making the same mistake the Republicans made:
     trying to interpose the government into 250 million
     doctor-patient relationships. Nobody's that smart.
                              James Pinkerton, Los Angeles Times

     Even if we could squeeze out all waste and fraud and
     inappropriate use, the relentless march of a sicker
     population and the development of more things we can do
     about sickness mean we are going to have to pay more,
     wait longer, or both. The coming debate is sure to be
     full of oversimplications and charges. But at its core
     are two questions. How much medical care do we want and
     are willing to pay for, and who should decide?
                              Julie Rovner, Washington Post

Editor's Note: Ellipses have been admitted for ease of readability.
The opinions expressed above are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of ABLEnews or CURE. Quotes from other
sources offering additional perspectives on health reform are welcome.

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street, Berkeley
Springs, West Virginia 25411 (304-258-LIFE/258-5433).

[posted on ABLEnews...for news and views. (1:262/4)]

(59)    Tue 6 Jul 93 11:59a
By: Gail Hitson
To: Earl Appleby
Re: GOT IT!

Hi Earl,

Thanks so much for the reply to my post regarding Clinton's Health
Care Package (proposed, that is).  I enjoyed reading your reply, and
although I do not agree with you totally, I certainly had something to
consider and think about.  One question:  What if we can not supply
all needed/wanted medical care to all Americans due to cost? What do
we do then, do we make cuts or forget the whole thing?  If we make
cuts, where do we start the cutting?  I do not suggest starting them
with the disabled (include me, please), but am interested in reading
YOUR thoughts on this.  If you have the time to reply to this, I can
receive the mail in the same way again.

A Friend,
Gail Hitson

Originally posted on:
LifeLine  BBS (1:112/73)

(70)    Tue 13 Jul 93 10:32p
By: Earl Appleby
To: Gail Hitson
Re: GOT IT!

 > Hi Earl,

 > Thanks so much for the reply to my post regarding
 > Clinton's Health Care Package (proposed, that is).  I
 > enjoyed reading your reply, and although I do not
 > agree with you totally, I certainly had something to
 > consider and think about.

Well, I'm glad it finally arrived, Gail. Still can't figure out how
our messages were delayed. One of life's minor mysteries. Not even my
family agrees with me totally... on everything, that is, so you're in
good company <smile>.

 > One question:  What if we
 > can not supply all needed/wanted medical care to all
 > Americans due to cost? What do we do then, do we make
 > cuts or forget the whole thing?  If we make cuts,
 > where do we start the cutting?  I do not suggest
 > starting them with the disabled (include me, please),
 > but am interested in reading YOUR thoughts on this.
 > If you have the time to reply to this, I can receive
 > the mail in the same way again.

I suspect the same way may be direct to your fine BBS, but I'm nothing
if not intrepid, so I thought I'd see if our ABLEnews feed works
better this time.

There is no simple answer to your question. At least that I am aware
of. Here are MY thoughts...which is what you asked for.

First, the premise of your question. I am not convinced by any means
that the richest nation in the world is unable to meet the health care
needs of all its citizens.

When and if that case came about I think we should look at other
non-health areas on which money, public and private, is spent.

I do not believe we should be cutting health care because I believe it
is inadequate.  I am concerned that it will be more inadequate under
so-called "reform" because access to new beneficiaries will be bought
at the expense of present beneficiaries, including Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries, already insufficiently covered.  In sum,
cost-cutting means care-cutting. And I oppose care-cutting. Indeed
CURE has spent more than a decade fighting for care for patients whose
lives are endangered by its denial, beginning with my dear Dad, who
lived 10 years in coma with us at home despite numerous attempts to
end his life through checkbook euthanasia.

Of course, I agree with you about not cutting the disabled. In sum
those with the greatest need for care should be the last to be
cut--disabled or not, but common sense and life in a TAB society that
discriminates against persons with disabilities should disabuse us of
that naive notion, as did the fight for my father's life and countless
others since.

These are my personal thoughts, based on my deepest ideals and my
experiences in the costly school of life.  Thank you for your interest
and, above all, your friendship.

Your friend, as ever,
Earl

[posted on: CURE...Caring When Care Is Critical. (1:262/4)]

(75)    Sat 10 Jul 93 12:00a
By: Tom Huber
To: Gail Hitson
Re: Health Prop. & Questions

In a message to Earl Appleby (sp?) you said:

GH> Thanks so much for the reply to my post regarding Clinton's Health Care
  > Package (proposed, that is).  I enjoyed reading your reply,
  > and although I do not agree with you totally, I certainly
  > had something to consider and think about.  One question:
  > What if we can not supply all needed/wanted medical care
  > to all Americans due to cost? What do we do then, do we
  > make cuts or forget the whole thing?  If we make cuts,
  > where do we start the cutting?  I do not suggest starting
  > them with the disabled (include me, please), but am
  > interested in reading YOUR thoughts on this.  If you have
  > the time to reply to this, I can receive the mail in the
  > same way again.

I know I may be a bit late in raising this question, but has anyone
considered doing things that, in the long run, would help reduce
health care costs? Not just control them, but reduce them?

Here's what is behind my thinking. I work in the computer industry as
a writer. I've been assoicated with the industry for some thirty
years. About fifteen years ago, I saw the calculator industry go from
a group of separate, dedicated companies to nothing. It was taken over
by multi-national conglomerates that make a lot of microwave ovens,
televisions, and other electronic goodies. The price for a good
caculator has fallen from several hundred dollars to less than $20.00.
Even printing calculators typically run less than $80.00

The same thing is currently happening to the computer industry. Prices
are tumbling and features are being added faster than anyone would
have ever imagined.

If prices can down in the calculator and computer industry at the same
time so many improvements have been made, why can't the same thing
happen in the medicial industry?

There are a couple of possible answers, but I'm only speculating on
this:

   1  Most research is done by non-commercial groups -- either
      publicly- or privately-funded research firms, or universities
      and colleges, also working with funds from public or private
      sources.

   2  The private industry that is involved, doesn't have the
      resources to intelligently build and distribute the devices
      needed for the industry. Those that do, often reap huge profits
      because there is no competition.

   3  Everyone in the distribution chain adds dollars to the end cost
      just to handle the product.

   4  Competition, in the sense of calculators and computers, is
      almost non-existant. There may be several reasons for the last
      item.

Are there ways to get around the problem? I hope so. I've got some
ideas, but I'm not sure where to send them. I would also like to hear
responses to the things I see as possible causes. If I'm wrong, let me
know.

Thanks,
Tom

[posted on Nat'l Amputee Connection, Dallas TX [phone]
(1:124/5109)]

(78)    Sun 11 Jul 93  9:21p
By: Don Larivee
To: Gail Hitson
Re: GOT IT!

Gail,

The greatest fear I have is that the health care program will suddenly
find that they can't afford to keep certain high cost medical problems
going.  Then what will they do?  I don't know much about it but one
thing I do know is that in England, if you have kidney disease and are
over 55, you will not be put on dialysis.  They will only put you on a
special diet until you die.  Is this the kind of medical care we want
in America?

Don

[posted on Med-Talk BBS! 305-452-9941  (1:369/61)]

(80)    Sat 17 Jul 93  2:03a
By: Earl Appleby
To: Don Larivee
Re: GOT IT!

 > Gail,
 > The greatest fear I have is that the health care program
 > will suddenly find that they can't afford to keep certain
 > high cost medical problems going.  Then what will they do?
 > I don't know much about it but one thing I do know is that
 > in England, if you have kidney disease and are over 55, you
 > will not be put on dialysis. They will only put
 > you on a special diet until you die.  Is this the kind
 > of medical care we want in America?

 > Don

Not me, Don, and I'm afraid your concerns are well-grounded. Consider
this ominous observation by Robert Kaiser, MD, in an article in the
June 21 American Medical News telling titled, "When Medicine Gets Down
to the Hard Choices":

    The point is this: Once it is given a mandate, the federal
    government will devise an equitable scheme to distribute the
    resources available for health care. Those democratically derived
    bureaucratic solutions will initially seem reasonable. Eventually,
    they will appear unfair, rigid, and unethical in individual
    circumstances, in which suffering human beings request but are
    denied treatments that society says it cannot afford. And doctors,
    who solemnly pledge to treat anyone who seeks their care, will
    confront the moral dilemma of failing to uphold the oath they have
    taken.

BTW, Don, CURE was founded to fight FOR patients facing just that sort
of "individual circumstance."

Thanks for your sharing your perceptive perceptions.
Earl

[posted on CURE...Caring When Care Is Critical. (1:262/4)]

(125)   Fri 16 Jul 93  2:36a
By: Gail Hitson
To: Tom Huber
Re: Health Prop. & Questions

TH > I know I may be a bit late in raising this question, but
   > has anyone  considered doing things that, in the long run,
   > would help reduce health care costs? Not just control them,
   > but reduce them? If prices can down in the calculator and
   > computer industry at the same time so many improvements have
   > been made, why can't the same thing happen in the medicial industry?

There are some major differences between the medical field and
manufacturing field.  Isn't one of the reasons that prices fell
dramatically was the cost of production went down, as well as the
price of parts used in the item.....all due to use of labor and goods
from foreign countries (where it is cheaper)? This isn't really that
feasible for medical care, which is usually a service provided where
it is needed.

I too believe that some costs should drop under a governmental
program, for example, preventive care could save quit a bit of money
on those who currently have no medical insurance and rely upon
hospital emergency rooms for care.  Also, prenatal care free for
pregnant women, could potentially save quite a bit in the Prenatal
Units.  This sort of preventive medicine has the potential to save our
country a lot of money, which by the way, it is already paying out
whether one realizes that or not.   Also, in terms of paperwork and
duplication, it seems we could save a lot there too.  Of course, the
government doesn't really have a good track record for efficiency,
which is another can of worms. <G>

[posted on LifeLine  [phone] (1:112/73)]

(126)   Fri 16 Jul 93  2:37a
By: Gail Hitson
To: Don Larivee
Re: GOT IT!

DL > Gail,
   > The greatest fear I have is that the health care program will
   > suddenly find that they can't afford to keep certain high cost
   > medical problems going.  Then what will they do?  I don't know much
   > about it but one thing I do know is that in England, if you have
   > kidney disease and are over 55, you will not be put on dialysis.
   > They will only put you on a special diet until you die.  Is this
   > the kind of medical care we want in America?

   > Don

NO, Don, it definitely isn't!

Gail

[posted on LifeLine  [phone] (1:112/73)]

(139)   Sat 17 Jul 93  2:40p
By: Tom Huber
To: Gail Hitson
Re: Health Prop. & Questions

TH > I know I may be a bit late in raising this question, but
   > has anyone considered doing things that, in the long run,
   > would help reduce health care costs? ...

GH > There are some major differences between the medical field and
   > manufacturing field.  Isn't one of the reasons that prices fell
   > dramatically was the cost of production went down, as well
   > as the price of parts used in the item.....all due to use
   > of labor and goods from foreign countries (where it is
   > cheaper)?  This isn't really that feasible for medical
   > care, which is usually a service provided where it is needed.

That's what a lot of U.S. CEO's would like you to believe, but it
isn't necessarily so. For instance, most VCRs sold in the U.S. are
manufactured in the U.S. by foreign-owned companies. In the area of
computers, new technology -- higher density in integrated circuits;
automated, surface-mount technology; and better designs all
contributed to the lower prices. Lower overseas labor costs have been
a factor in many industries, but not all. Mostly automation and better
design so the products could be assembled easily have contributed the
most to lower costs.

The areas I'm addressing are those areas where companies are not
making the best use of new technology and manufacturing techniques.
Modernization and automated design equipment (while it might still be
primitive, compared to some areas) could go a long way in reducing
costs of equipment, particularly prosthetics. New technology could go
(I believe) a long way in producing better products that cost less
than their current counterparts.

GH> I too believe that some costs should drop under a governmental
  > program, for example, preventive care could save quit a bit of
  > money on those who currently have no medical insurance and
  > rely upon hospital emergency rooms for care...

Yes, yes, yes. Most people who work but can't afford insurance wait
until they have to go to the hospital before seeking treatment. Even
after getting treatment, the high costs of medicines often prevent
them from following through and getting well.

Ironically, the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA hold a lot of us
hostage with prescription medicines that in other fields (veternary
medicine, for instance) cost a fraction to buy. If somebody's cow is
sick and the medicine costs too much, the cow simply is not kept... We
don't do that with humans, thank goodness. Nevertheless, there is a
problem when one pill costs one to three dollars each and the same
combination of ingrediants for cows cost pennies or fractions of a
penny each. I don't know how wide-spread this is, but I've been told
of several instances.

GH> Also, in terms of paperwork and duplication, it seems we
  > could save a lot there too.  Of course, the government
  > doesn't really have a good track record for efficiency,
  > which is another can of worms. <G>

I recently received a notice from my insurance company on a claim for
my wife. She does not work. Once a year I have to verify the people on
my insurance. I have indicated she doesn't work. Yet, for every claim
for her, I have to take the time to tell them she still doesn't work
and doesn't have any other insurance. That's the simple part of it.

Yes, it would be nice to have one, universal method of logging claims
for coverage.

And it is all too true that the government is terrible at processing
anything, except <grin> your tax return, or the lack thereof.

Have a better day!

Tom

[posted on Nat'l Amputee Connection, Dallas TX [phone]
(1:124/5109)]

D)  "Living Will" and Will to Live

(151)   Sun 18 Jul 93 11:24a
By: Chris Bova
To: All
Re: Living Wills

CB> I dont see any problem with living wills. We have too many people
CB> who are suffering from life threatening diseases at 20 or 30 to
CB> spend billions keeping alive a 80 year old vegtable who will never
CB> be off life support.

BM> I agree about living wills. It makes it so much easier on the family
BM> when this is in place. I agree with your statement above. We are not
BM> extending life; we are prolonging death and death is a part of life.
BM> etc. Living will makes it easier.

I share your thoughts.
Chris Bova

[posted on Dragon's Cave * Mexico, NY  315-963-3389 (1:260/388)]

(160)   Sun 25 Jul 93 12:32a
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: Living Wills or Will to Live?

Recent messages by Chris Bova and Betty Moss have presented one view
of "living wills."

There are, of course, others.

In "Karen Ann Quinlan," B.D. Colen, who was nominated for a Pulitzer
Prize for his coverage of the Quinlan story for the Washington Post,
observes:

        The text of the Living Will that has been
        distributed upon request to some 1.3 million
        Americans say volumes more about our worship
        of youth, beauty, and perfection, and our
        fear and loathing of aging, ugliness, and
        inconvenience, and pain than it does about
        our problems in dealing with medical technology.

Those interested in another perspective on living wills may request
CURE's brochure, "Living Will--No, Will to Live--Yes."

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street, Berkeley
Springs, West Virginia 25411 (304-258-LIFE/258-5433).

[posted on CURE...Caring When Care Is Critical. (1:262/4)]

(270)   Sat 31 Jul 93  2:23p
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: Bitter Lesson

ABLEnews Mail Bag

     Phyllis Robb, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, writes in her
     letter-to-the-editor in the July 12, 1993 American
     Medical News entitled...

                  Bitter Lesson on Living Wills

How true that the living will is open to misinterpretation
(AMNnews, May 17). I'm a professional working in the field of
aging and employed by our local medical society foundation. Until
recently, I was a strong supporter of the living will. Now I know
that, to many professionals, a patient who has a living will
"wants to die." All the fine points elude them.

My mother, at 73 and in excellent health, entered the hospital
for her second hip replacement. After six days she left the
hospital and entered a transitional care unit. On entry she was
given a standard living will for her consideration. She signed
it, not adding any special instructions; she did not take it
seriously enough to even mention it to us.

In our state, the living will takes effect only if the person is
terminally ill and unable to communicate. It is a short, simple
form, and the language is clear. Regardless, a staff person wrote
on mother's record "no code, patient's request." The family was
not informed.

On the 11th day after surgery, mother suffered cardiac arrest due
to an embolism. The staff did not call a doctor or attempt to
treat her in any way; they did not wish to "go against her
wishes." They stayed by her side for 20 minutes while she died.
My reaction was shock and disbelief.

How do I feel now about signing living wills? I wouldn't sign
one; I wouldn't allow information about my wishes to be entered
into a facility's records. Instead, I would talk to my doctor,
then designate a trusted person as a health care representative.
I'd be specific about my wishes with my doctor and that trusted
person. I'd let them handle the situation when and if the need
ever arose. I'd keep the facility out of it.

Phyllis J. Robb
Fort Wayne, IN

CURE Comment: I could and, no doubt, should write an entire
article regarding Phyllis Robb's letter and the tragedy she
describes. For example, CURE counsels patients and families to
consult the medical record daily. Patients who do not "want to
die" must be proactive. That's why CURE was founded. The danger
of involuntary no-code goes well beyond those naively signing a
living will. For further information, request our brochure--
DaNgeR--DNR.

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street,
Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 25411 (304-258-LIFE/258-5433).

[posted on ABLEnews...beyond the headlines. (1:262/4)]

E)  Malice in Medicareland

(152)   Wed 21 Jul 93  8:40p
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: Malice in Medicare

ABLEnews

                        Malice in Medicareland

This should have been a follow-up to a previous ABLEnews alert but
alas your editor let this one fall through the cracks. My apologies to
all concerned. If Glenn Jeffries is reading these lines, please
crosspost such vital information directly to this conference, our
participants are concerned and active. If he's not, will one of my
good buddies at National Amputee Connection please call it to his
attention.

Here is the story as I cited it for my yet uncompleted report on the
June...yes, June issue of the informative North Texas Amputee Support
Group Newsletter:

New and Troubling Medicare Rules!
  "Medicare has appointed four Durable Medical Equipment Regional
  Carriers (DMERCs) to manage the Medicare financing of durable
  medical equipment, which includes prosthetics and orthotics. These
  DMERCs are trying to save money by formulating new rules...These
  changes will set back amputees who rely upon Medicare by at least
  20 years. They will decrease their ability to get adequate modern
  prostheses and to keep them working...Please add your coice to
  thousands of other amputees and people concerne about them by
  calling your congressman's office today. If you think you won't be
  affected by these changes, think again. Whatever Medicare gets by
  with this year, insurance companies will try next year." --Glenn
  Jeffries, secretary, Amputee Coalition of America (ACA). CURE
  Comment: CURE joins our friends in the North Texas Amputee Support
  Group in urging you to call ACA's toll-free Medicare Funding Hotline
  to register you support of their efforts to stop this assault on
  persons with disabilities. Call 1-800-336-9339 to add you voice to
  those opposing these regressive rule changes. You may also request
  further information. In that regard, I've asked Rob Thurlow, the
  editor of this informative newsletter, and the SysOp of National
  Amputee Connection, to crosspost Mr. Jeffries' complete message in
  the Amputee conference to ABLEnews.

Needless to say, I didn't call Rob or I'm sure you would have read all
about it by now, but before you head for your phones, please read on
for our story has a happy ending...for now. This is REAL life, after
all, not a fairy tale. Still, I'm pleased to say we now turn...

                        From Blunders to Bouquets

[As Glen Jeffries reports in Amputee:]


                        ACA HELPS CHANGE MEDICARE REGS

The Amputee Coalition of America has been successful in helping to
change proposed regulations for Medicare benefits for prosthetics.
This is an excellent example of the type of effect that an
organization such as ACA can have.   The ACA demonstrated the benefits
of a national coalition of amputees, support groups,professionals and
others in a time when amputees were threatened with serious loss of
funding for artificial limbs.

THE PROBLEM

On Friday, June 4, 1993, the Executive Committee of the ACA was
notified of the proposed regulations changes by Director Keith
Vinnecour, CPO.  He faxed copies of the proposed regulations with
comments regarding their impact on amputees.  The major features of
the proposed regulations were the following:

Prosthetics were to be considered as a part of durable medical
equipment, which by definition, must be used within the four walls of
the person's home.

All of durable medical equipment payment was being placed under 4
Durable Medical Equipment Regional Carriers (DMERC). All decisions
about funding of prostheses would be determined by "staff of the
carrier" regardless of the prescription or the patient.

Prosthetists would be expected to provide follow up care and
adjustment for the lifetime of the prosthesis for a one time charge
without further reimbursement.

No hydraulic or pneumatic knees would be covered; no energy storing
feet would be covered; light weight prostheses would only be covered
for people in such poor medical condition that they would unlikely be
wearing prostheses; only one check socket would be covered.

The ACA Executive Committee and its Advisors believed that these
proposed regulations would set back prosthetic care by 30 years and
would eventually devastate prosthetics for all amputees. The Executive
Committee decided to let as many people know as possible so that they
could contact the DMERC Medical Directors, HCFA, people on key
committees in Congress, and their own Senators and Congressman.  Time
was extremely critical because the response period ended on June 15,
1993, just 5 weeks from the time the information was received.

THE PROCESS

First a mailing list was developed.  Added to the usual ACA mailing
list were names from as many sources as could be obtained. This
included the Association of Children's Prosthetic and Orthotic
Clinics, the VA, the National Amputee Golf Association, 120+ amputee
support groups, many professionals and others interested in amputee
issues.  In all, the list totalled approximately 10,000.  Since normal
printing and mailing procedures would take too long for getting timely
responses, it was decided to utilize a mailing house that could use
the computer list of names and generate a letter to each of the
persons on the list asking for help in changing the devastating
regulations by voicing their personal concern about the proposed
regulations. A major concern was the fact that each person responding
would need to write at least 11 letters to include every that need to
be addressed.  This seemed like such a major task for anyone without a
computer that the decision was made to set up a mechanism which
allowed the person responding  to authorize the ACA to send letters on
his/her behalf.  A toll-free number and a voice mail system which
allowed the respondent to indicate their decision about correspondence
on their behalf was set up. It seemed the extra cost for this type
system was justified by the increased rate of response it could bring.

By May 27, the mailing lists were prepared, the letters written, and
the phone response mechanisms in place. The first wave of letters went
out without a hitch.  Phone calls came in rapidly from all across the
US and the responses were overwhelmingly positive.   A second mailing
was done the next week to all the prosthetists on our list suggesting
that they contact their patients to participate in the initiative if
they had not done so already.

THE OUTCOME

In all, the ACA Medicare Hotline logged approximately 1600 calls and
sent out approximately 20,000 responses on behalf of the callers.   In
addition to the thousands of individual letters sent the ACA Board
developed a 6 page  document addressing consumer concerns with
seventeen pages of signatures attached. The Board further agreed to
sign on to a 30 page document developed by repected individuals in the
field detailing specific information on technical aspects of Medicare
codes and reimbursement.

WE WON!!!  THE DMERC MEDICAL DIRECTORS AGREED TO COMPLETELY REWRITE
THE POLICIES!!!  ACA Directors are currently working on a functional
classification mechanism to assist in determining the devices
appropriate for any given level of function.  The Medical Directors
have agreed to fund the devices appropriate for all levels of function
up to the serious competitive athlete.  No specific devices will be
excluded.  Follow up care and adjustments are to provided as before
and prostheses can be used outside the four walls of your home.

THE LESSONS

THIS ACTION BY THE ACA, IN CONCERT WITH OTHER GROUPS DEMONSTRATES THAT
WE CAN MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE, EVEN IN GOVERNMENT POLICY IF WE WORK
AND SPEAK TOGETHER, STRONGLY, AND WITH REASON.

THE ACA HAS A LOT OF POTENTIAL POWER TO POSITIVELY AFFECT THE LIVES OF
AMPUTEES ACROSS THE U.S. IF WE WORK TOGETHER.

CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT HAVE A LARGE ENOUGH MAILING LIST TO REALLY BE AS
EFFECTIVE AS WE NEED TO BE IN MAKING OUR VOICES HEARD.   WE REALLY
NEED A MAILING LIST OF 50,000 TO 75,000 IF WE WANT TO BE CONSIDERED IN
NATIONAL POLICY MATTERS.  WE MUST WORK DILIGENTLY IN THE NEXT FEW
MONTHS TO DO THIS.

ACA NEEDS TO BE FINANCIALLY SOLVENT WITH THE RESOURCES TO ADVOCATE FOR
AMPUTEES IF WE ARE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.  THIS INVOLVES A WIDE BASE
OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, SPONSORS AND BENEFACTORS.

PLEASE JOIN WITH THE AMPUTEE COALITION OF AMERICA AND ADD YOUR VOICE TO
OURS AS WE EMPOWER AMPUTEES ACROSS AMERICA.

CURE Comment: ABLEnews and CURE salute the ACA and all disAbility
rights advocates who fought this draconian discrimination against
persons with disabilities.  Keep your power dry boys...and gals, watch
for the covert manouevers behind closed-doors, and press forward in
our common cause.

For further information about the ACA, you could check out their
journal.  As Glenn reports in Amputee:

The AMPUTEE COALITION OF AMERICA "ACA In-Motion" newsletter, vol 3, no
2, Summer, 1993, has just been uploaded to the file area  as
ACANEWS2.ZIP.

It contains articles regarding Medicare Funding of prosthetics, Jim
Maclaren, Health Care reform, support groups newsletter development,
educational and video tape resources as well as a number of other
articles.

Editor's Note: That file is found on the Nat'l Amputee Connection,
Dallas TX [phone] (1:124/5109)

[posted on ABLEnews...beyond the headlines. (1:262/4)]

F)  Inclusion

(154)   Wed 21 Jul 93  8:43p
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: Inclusion

ABLEnews

                        Inclusion

[The following message is forwarded for your information from Autism
where it was posted by James Costello.]

From: [e-mail] (James Costello)

To anyone that Cares,

        I am concerned about the exclusionary practices of communities,
individuals, and human service professionals.  Disability results in "special
treatment, programs, services, and (for many) exclusion from their community
and society at large.

        There is a growing number of people who are dedicated to welcoming
people with disabilities into their community and lives.  This movement is
receiving little support from the traditional human service agencies and
there are several individuals who are not a part of their community.  They
live in segregated environments (group-homes, nursing homes, "accessible
appartment complexes", and on and on and on.  Not many people with disabilities
are considered as neighbors and friends.  HOW CAN WE REGAIN A SENSE OF
COMMUNITY, and invite all people to live a life they desire.

        For years, professionals have been trying to "fix" disability through
programs, services, and training.  It could be possible that some disability
can't be fixed.  For example:  does someone have to demonstrate they can budget
for a month before they can live in the community?  Is it possible that a
neighbor, friend, family member, or bank customer service representative do
this service with someone who needs it.  Why do we have to specialize and
train people with disabilities to do things they may not be able to do.  I
believe it is because they must "earn" their way into society.  I hope for a
day where individuals can be welcomed as neigbors and friends for the
gifts they have to offer as people.

        I experience resistance to these thoughts every day from professionals
in "Human Services."  It is not their fault, they have been trained to be the
expert, and when they can't find the answer to fix a disability, the person
who has that disability continues to be segregated.  It is time we re-
evaluate our values about people and consider the basic human needs we all
share:
        1.      A desire for Friends
        2.      A desire to live as independent as possible
        3.      A desire to earn a reasonable wage for our work
        4.      A desire for family
        5.      A desire to go where we want, when we want
        6.      A desire to be accepted for who we are

        These are viewed as ideal goals for people with disability because
they may not be able to attain these goals the same way you have.  Regardless
the desire's are the same.

CAN WE EVER ACCEPT PEOPLE AS PEOPLE AND WELCOME THEM INTO OUR COMMUNITY?

I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions.

Jim Costello

[posted on ABLEnews...Dare to care! (1:262/4)]

(193)   Sat 24 Jul 93  7:46p    Rcvd: Thu 29 Jul  9:31p
By: Mike Adams
To: Earl Appleby
Re: Inclusion

EA>It is time we re-evaluate our values about people and consider the basic EA>
human needs we all share:
EA>
EA>    1.  A desire for Friends
EA>    2.  A desire to live as independent as possible
EA>    3.  A desire to earn a reasonable wage for our work
EA>    4.  A desire for family
EA>    5.  A desire to go where we want, when we want
EA>    6.  A desire to be accepted for who we are
EA>
EA>These are viewed as ideal goals for people with disability because
EA>they may not be able to attain these goals the same way you have.
EA>Regardless the desire's are the same.

They may seem to be ideal goals for disabled folks, Earl, but I'd
postulate that they're ideal for virtually everyone, regardless of the
cards life has dealt them.  No one has any guarantee life will award
them with friends, independence, reasonable wages, family, the ability
to go where we want and when we want, and the acceptance of others.
Indeed, when you look at these goals on an international scale, we
almost seem pompous and presumptious for believing they might be
within the realm of possibility.

EA>CAN WE EVER ACCEPT PEOPLE AS PEOPLE AND WELCOME THEM INTO OUR
EA>COMMUNITY?

I'd postulate this is another ideal.  It's something we can work for,
but I doubt it will ever be achieved.  Human nature doesn't support
such a belief.

[posted on Majik Shoppe BBS (405-482-2536) DHST (1:19/10)]

(221)   Sat 31 Jul 93 12:31a
By: Earl Appleby
To: Mike Adams
Re: Inclusion

Thanks, Mike, for taking the time to comment on a post by James
Costello (originally in Autism) forwarded to ABLEnews, in which he
lists:

JC> human needs we all share:

 >  1.  A desire for Friends
 >  2.  A desire to live as independent as possible
 >  3.  A desire to earn a reasonable wage for our work
 >  4.  A desire for family
 >  5.  A desire to go where we want, when we want
 >  6.  A desire to be accepted for who we are

He goes on to say:

JC> These are viewed as ideal goals for people with disability because
 >  they may not be able to attain these goals the same way you have.

You comment:

MA> They may seem to be ideal goals for disabled folks,
 >  Earl, but I'd postulate that they're ideal for virtually everyone,
 >  regardless of the cards life has dealt them.

By "ideal," I gather you mean somewhat less than attainable as you continue:

MA> No one has any guarantee life will award them with friends, independence,
 >  reasonable wages, family, the ability to go where we want and when we want,
 and
 >  the acceptance of others.

That is clearly the case as is encapsulated in the truism--"There are
no guarantees in life."

IMHO, these goals vary in value--morally, psychologically, and socially.

For example, the need for friends and family appears universal. In my
work in the field of juvenile delinquency, we witness the social and
personal dysfunction their absence can create.

The desire to live independently and earn a wage a wage for our work
are sensibly conditioned...independently "as possible," a "reasonable"
wage.  When means are confused with ends and as indicators of human
worth which does not depend on such accidentals we devalue human
dignity whether this is done by the outside values of a prejudicial
TAB society or whether we have internalized those values.  A man or
woman is no less made in the image of God, no less our brother or
sister in the family of man, in sum, not one iota less of infinite
value beacuse he or she needs more or less help than others. Or to put
it another way, interdependence is no less benign than independence.
It is the spirit we and society bring to bear to each that charcterize
their specific nature.

On the other hand, I do not believe an Adolf Hitler should be accepted
for who he is, nor do I believe that a convicted murderer or an
unconviced but active pedophile should be able to go where he wants,
when he wants. I can even see that it may be necessary to restrain a
person's range of physical liberty for their own benefit. This is
certainly the case with a toddler, for example.

Of course, I am sure that, by and large, Mr. Castello, would be likley
to concur. I merely note that seemingly benign generalizations can
prove deadly in someone else's malevolent interpretation...a
phenomenom CURE deals with all the time.

MA> Indeed, when you look at these goals on an international
 >  scale, we almost seem pompous and presumptious for
 >  believing they might be within the realm of possibility.

Of course, you are right, but I suspect I need not remind you of the
profound difference between realism and cyncism.

Realistically, when I regard the odds against the families CURE
counsels it would be only natural to be pessimistic, we know from over
a decade in this battle what we are up against, but to succumb to
defeatism, to fail to endeavor to bring hope where despair seeks new
victims, is to abandon not only the fight for a better world, but for
me, far more importantly, it is to abandon my brother and sister in
the hour of their greatest need, to make a mockery of any love I may
profess for God or man.

As usual, you've managed to get me to think about my unexamined life
<smile>. So good to see you here, Mike!

Regards,
Earl

[posted on You've got a friend on ABLEnews. (1:262/4)]

G)  Futility

(191)   Thu 29 Jul 93  9:24p
By: Earl Appleby
To: All
Re: "Futility"

ABLEnews Mail Bag

An article in the June 28, 1993 American Medical News entitled
"Cost-Conscious Hospitals Set Futile Care Rules" inspired the
following letter-to-the-editor by CURE's director, Earl Appleby, Jr.,
which we post here for your information and consideration:

                                   July 29, 1993

Editor
American Medical News
515 N. State St.
Chicago, IL 60610

Dear Editor:

"Torn between demands to keep dying patients alive at huge
expense and growing pressures to control costs, some
hospital medical staffs are developing policies for
stopping what they consider futile care," Harris Meyer
begins his alarming report, "Cost-conscious hospitals set
futile care rules" (AMN, 6/28).

This is checkbook euthanasia in its classic coercive mode.
Note the loaded language--dying patients, huge expense--
used to rationalize denying patients life-saving care
against their wishes and those of their families.  It seems
"Primum non nocere" must join the Hippocratic oath in the
graveyard of medicine as a noble, even sacred, calling.

Consider the definition of "futile care" cited from the
Children's Hospital and Health Center of San Diego:

     Medical futility has quantitative and qualitative
     aspects. Physicians may regard any treatment as
     futile that either through experience or clinical
     studies has failed to work in the last 100 cases,
     or merely preserves permanent unconsciousness or
     cannot end dependence on intensive care.

The "qualitative" aspect is the old TAB (temporarily abled-
bodied) hate crime of "quality-of-life" bias. "Merely"
preserving unconsciousness as the TAB bigots call it gave
my dear Dad nearly a decade of life with a family who loved
him as he loved us.

By this criteria all my father's treatment from Feb. 26, 1981 to
Sept. 23, 1990 was "futile," notwithstanding the fact he lived
nearly ten years thanks to such "futile" treatments.  Needless to
say, anti-life doctors often beat my Mom mercilessly with this
bludgeon, but this would have given them the legal clout to kill my
father at any time he needed medical help.

The denial of care against patients' wishes is the Final Solution
of the euthanasia Axis for the "biologically tenacious." This is
further evidenced by their extension of the medical killing fields
to those requiring extended intensive care.

"Futile care" is a code word for involuntary euthanasia but getting
those who have traded the caduceus for the dollar sign to be honest
enough to admit it...that is true futility!

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Earl E. Appleby, Jr.
                                        Director, CURE, Ltd.

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street, Berkeley
Springs, West Virginia 25411 (304-258-LIFE/258-5433).

[posted on CURE...Caring When Care Is Critical. (1:262/4)]

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street, Berkeley
Springs, West Virginia 25411 (304-258-LIFE/258-5433).