Current Shareware 1994 January

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Current Shareware 1994 January / SHAR194.ISO / articles / anr9307.zip / 9307FEAT.ANR < prev next >

Wrap

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 (214)447-0219 (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 (904)276-4724 (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 (904)276-4724 (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 (214)447-0219 (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 (214)447-0219 (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: costello@FREENET.SCRI.FSU.EDU (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).