- This topic has 164 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ubiqutin, no, and I never said there aren’t cases where the right thing is done, or in which the doctors are more “machmir” then the rav.
I will make an observation and state my opinion on it, I’m curious as to your opinion:
The acceptance of the abortion of unwanted babies has coincided with the trend towards euthenasia and less aggressive life saving measures for end of life patients. They are all correlated.
RebYidd23- I was saying most nurses were caring, but simply not capable. I also encountered nurses who did not want their patients to be fed.
I was saying most nurses were caring
Most nurses come to work to make money, just like the rest of us.
I was saying most nurses were caring
Most nurses come to work to make money, just like the rest of us.
The two are in no way mutually exclusive.
I was deathly ill a number of years ago, went to the hospital, they treated me correctly, I survived, and then George Bush was incorrectly and unjustly declared the winner of an election for president of the United States. Oh, the humanity.
just my 2scents.
The health care industry is designed to help people. Its sad that some that have entered this field are in it more for themselves than for others.
Regarding elderly, its no secret that a lot of doctors and nurses treat a younger patient different than they would an older patient.
If an older pt arrives to the emergency room with trouble breathing. if the pt has a DNR, they will send the pt to one of the back rooms without taking care of the patient.
I have personally witnessed doctors witholding life saving drugs which resulted in the patients death. only because the patient was a nursing home patient so who cares.
The argument that when faced with helping a younger person with a longer ypll or an older person that might not live long is not relevant, since there usually is enough resources to treat both.
Anyone that deals with medicine really knows this.
Dy
Great question. I don’t think they are related.
The trend towards “less aggressive life saving measures” actually is an interesting one. A century ago none of this was relevent, there where no ventilators, ICU’s, Dialysis etc… Even CPR isnt much older than 50 years old. These advances were all made in a time when medical decisions were made soleley by doctors. The Doctor didnt ask about “code status” or DNI, he or she (by far usually he) would decide if in his opinion the patient would benefit. Even 30 years ago this was a case. The average age in ICU patients has gone up not down over this time! (while life expectancy has increased slightly over this time, its not enough to account for the above). What changed was an increased emphasis on “autonomy” letting patients decide for themselves.
Consider CPR, it was originally developed in the 50’s and is literally a
God-send for those dying due to cardiac arrest. A patient’s heart stops they are now dying, by restarting their heart they can keep on living. With time though it began to be expanded to other patients. Now most times CPR is used it is used for a dying patient whose heart stops because he is dying, by restarting his heart he can keep on dying.
Similarily for ventilators, they wherent originally put in with plan to remain there until the patient succumbed to whatever it was that was killing them. When Dialysis was first made available there was an actual commitee that decided who would benefit from it. (there was a fascinating piece in Life magazine in 1962 about this comitee)
With time as these technologies became more ubiquitous they began to be more universally applied. That coupled with patients and thier familes being offered “everything done” the ages in ICU went up, chrnic vent units where opened and along with it medical expenses went up and up.
There is no secret in that last stament it is well known,non-disputed and been extensively written about over the past 2 decades. The problem is how to reign in costs. Insurance companies would often deny coverage, Surely you remeber the discussion over OBamacare which was partly related to this very issue.
Syag earleir had mentioned diverting funding from elswhere, he suggested libraries, I’m not saying I disagree, but then what? Roads/infrastructure? the army? The problem is as things stand and with all the (expensive) medical advances B”H being made, costs are going up an up.
The tend towards “less aggressive measures” is a more recent one. It isnt quite as old as abortion. It is partly based on the above, in conjuction with the very real suffering that these patients endure.
To make things more complicated, the technology exists to keep people “alive” forever. There are Thumpers, which are essentially machines that do CPR available in many hospitals. We could simply hook up patients with no heart beat to thumpers, ventilate them dialyse them as needed, and keep everybody alive forever. This isnt offered to patients so this discussion doesnt come up. Yet. The way things were headed it was only a matter of time until that had become mainstream.
Would this have been appropriate ? I’m not usre
Feasible? Absolutely not!
What would the Torah say about this? I dont know as stated sevweral times, I’m no posek
Are those who think this would not be a good use of resources, comng from a “dark evil” place? Absolutely not!
I am not as familiar with changing attitudes towards abortion, it may be due to them becoming easier/safer, or perhaps as part of the “revolution” in that regard that is said to have begun in the 60’s. But I dont think it is related to the issues I’ve outlined above
2scents
“since there usually is enough resources to treat both.”
No there absolutly is not. Resources are not limited to $$$. It includes, beds, manpower etc….
ubiquitin- I’m just asking out of curiosity. What would you say to the nurse who does not want her patient who can no longer feed himself to be fed?
ubiquitin,
that is not true. everything IS tied to money, money buys more beds and more staff.
No doctor is faced with the decision of treating one patient over the other one.
There are a lot of good people in health care, but some are lazy and uncaring. I know that because I am in the field.
Gamnait
It depends on lots of variables. I’m not sure of the specifics in your (hypothetical?) question. So I’ll share a few thoughts with you.
First and foremost, none of this is what I would say, what I would do etc… I yield to the Torah and it doesnt matter what I think. That is not at all what I have been addressing.
All I have been saying is that the approach taken by the “medical establishment” even if wrong is not coming from a “dark and evil” place. So regardless of what I would say to her, her views are not NECESSARILY coming from a “dark and evil” place.
She may be wrong, but she isnt necessarily evil. (of course there amy be an evil individual here and there).
That said. I dont want to avoid answering your question, but without the specifics, I will comment on your comment on the matter:
” I used to volunteer in the hospital, going around the geriatric ward. There were patients who would sit there with untouched meal trays
because they were unable to feed themselves.”
Unable because they were weak? demented? no appetite? unable to swallow? unable to lift food?
” many of them did not have the time to feed all of their patients before the trays were collected again.”
Whoever said I was wrong regarding lack of resources please read this testimony.
” I did encounter some nurses who did not care about their patients at all. I once alerted a nurse that something was wrong with a patient, and she just laughed me off and stayed at her station.”
Thats terrible, she should be fired
ubiquitin- The patients in these cases would typically have dementia and little to no appetite in addition to being physically incapable of opening packages and lifting the spoon to their mouths. They would sip liquid from a straw placed by their mouths, and would eat when spoonfed.
2scents
“since there usually is enough resources to treat both.”
“that is not true. everything IS tied to money, money buys more beds and more staff.”
I dont really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there is enough money? If so for how long? Are you saying that there is no doctor shortage?
“No doctor is faced with the decision of treating one patient over the other one.”
Thats not quite true, hospitals frequently go on “diversion” sending patients elsehwere due to lack of capacity. You are in the healthcare filed, do you really not know this?
At any rate, this discussion isnt really about individual doctors but about the “medical establishment”
“There are a lot of good people in health care, but some are lazy and uncaring.”
Agreed!
I don’t think they are related.
I think that’s ridiculous. They’re okay with killing babies, but not old people? Come on, be reasonable.
Dy
Killing babies? Thats the Catholic view. We believe “Ubar yerech Imo” though obviously we don’t allow for abortion on demand.
I gave you a detailed synopsis of how we got to where we are today regarding “old people” and the best you cna reply is “come on be reasonable”
After thinking of m earlier response, I have a question for you (and anybody else who would like to take a satb at it.
The technology exists today to keep blood circulating in a body with no heart beat, we can ventilate a body that cannot breathe.
Putting aside the Torah for a second (not literally chas veshalam, and as a frum yid, I hope you cant completely put it aside since hopefully it has affected your worldview) but I mean is assuming you say that a ethical decision that is not based on Torah is not automatically evil, which I beleive you said earlier.
Should we prolong every (assuming no suffering) life indefinitely by circulating their blood with “thumpers” and Ventilating them with a ventilator?
I assume you reject brain-death, so even if circulation isnt the best these patients would “live” i.e. “breathe” and have a “heart beat”for years to come.
I have follow up questions bu I don’t want to get lost.
(and at all times keep in the back of your mind, that this discussion isnt really about what the right thing to do is or the Torah thing to do, but rather is it evil to come to the conclusion that the medical establishment has)
Syag, your suggestion of diverting money from libraries to hospitals to support the Torah true position has one small problem. It’s unconstitutional . The Establishment clause prevents the government from supporting the viewpoint of a particular religion.
Besides, explain to a non-Jew why your viewpoint is more important than his library. They also pay taxes
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=921&st=&pgnum=291&hilite=
Suddenly, they’re big lamdonim?
DY
Don’t need to be a lamdan. The “medical establishment” does not view life as beginning at conception, thus abortion isn’t killing babies.
Incidently, we dont view life as beginning at conception either. Though that doesnt make it automatically muttar
DY: R’ Moshe is certainly a minority opinion in this. He’s how every Posek in America holds, but most Poskim agreed with the Tzitz Eliezer.
And your claim isn’t fair. They don’t hold it’s okay to kill babies. They hold fetuses aren’t babies.
So you’re both going to resort to nitpicking?
It is so blatantly obvious that life has become cheap l”a, but go ahead, keep burying your heads in the sand if you wish, and instead make the issue into the lomdus of fetal life and whether we do or don’t pasken like R’ Moshe (which incidentally, might be true, but I brought that teshuvah to show that R’ Moshe’s shittah was inadvertantly referred to as catholic r”l).
DY: Well, I believe that is one of the Tzitz Eliezer’s Taanos on R’ Moshe.
And frankly, life isn’t cheap. General society values life more now than ever before in history.
DY
I will read the Teshuva more carefully but does R’ Moshe say life begins at conception?
This isnt nipicking, abortion isnt relevaent to the discussion at hand (like I explained at length above). You brought it up, I pointed out why aside from not being relevant your flaed tzushtel isnt even a tzushtel and you complain that I’m nitpicking
I second Sam2’s statment
ubiquitin -“The “medical establishment” does not view life as beginning at conception, thus abortion isn’t killing babies.”
Says who??? Btw, I don’t do abortions & I know a lot of med prof who don’t either!
Health the AMA and ACOG among others
Until it was eventually banned by the (supreme?)court a few years ago they would pull a 6 or 7 month old baby out of its mother except for his head. Then they would cut a hole in his head and suction out his brains as he kicked his legs and flailed his arms. This was done not only for reasons such as cleft palate or Down’s syndrome but also simply at the “mother’s” request. Called “intact dilation and extraction”. It was of course performed in a sterile hospital room by doctors and nurses in white gowns.
ubiquitin,
I am very familiar with hospital diversions as well as its laws.
However, that is usually when they either have an overloaded ER or ICU, they are recommending that patients go elsewhere otherwise they might not get the care they deserve.
You are making the point that in the bigger picture healthcare money should be spent for people with a longer ypll. that is not the discussion here, rather how some health care providers treat patients that are not young or have terminal illnesses.
Doctors are rarely faced with having to make a decision of giving a medication or treatment to one patient over the other. nor are other staff, be it with feeding or giving vasopressors so that the post arrest pt should have a chance. its an attitude that anyone that deals with health care industry is very familiar especially in emergency medicine or ICUs.
As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of great doctors nurses and other providers that have a passion helping sick people and do what is right
Btw, I don’t do abortions & I know a lot of med prof who don’t either!
That’s not true. Every medical professional does abortions. I’ve seen them done in optometrists’ offices.
ubiquitin -“Health the AMA and ACOG among others”
This is based on PC, not on medical science!
2scents
“However, that is usually when they either have an overloaded ER or ICU,”
that is my point and many of those “overloading” the beds are…
“You are making the point that in the bigger picture healthcare money should be spent for people with a longer ypll”
NO i am not making that point at all. In most of my posts I have been careful to stress that.
“that is not the discussion here, rather how some health care providers treat patients that are not young or have terminal illnesses. “
exactly, and wether the way they are treated is coming from a “Dark evil” place. THAT is what I have been discussing.
And again, the lack of resources is not the only issue, it may not even be the main issue, but it is very real. PErhaps not on an indivdual level, but on the general “medical establishment” level.
Feivel
describing a terrible act in a horrible way doesnt change much. I can do the same about taking a 90 year old pt full of decubtus ulcers pounding on his chest cracking ribsetc…
Abortion is not relevent to the issue at hand as I have outlined above.
Health Of course it is based on PC. Life beggining (and ending for that matter) isnt really a medical question, it is a theological/ethical question. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
I dont get what your refrence adds, It states what I said that ACOG namely the “medical establishment” is ok with or even “promotes” abortions. OF course not all practitioners agree, I never said EVERY medical proffessional favore abortions on demand. Again sorry if I implied otherwise
ubiquitin – I have a personal policy that if I cannot make my point understood after numerous attempts I stop trying. I am therefore reluctant to post again but I keep seeing windows of opportunity to make my point in response to comments made. If this ends up sounding like “more of the same” feel free to ignore it.
You made a statement above that I would like to work with but you would have to be willing to answer without drawing in any of the past conversation.
you state “many of those “overloading” the beds are…”
what makes you in your innermost heart use the word “overloading” when referring to that population? Without factoring any other facts we’ve discussed, what would make YOU, as an individual, use that wording? (I assure you this is a question, not a set-up)
Cracking ribs is an unfortunate unintended potential side effect of a life saving procedure. Vacuuming out a helpless baby’s brain is intended to murder the child, R’L.
But I guess as you say that’s not relevant to the question of the moral status of “modern” society. .
there was a comment about feivel being a doctor, however i’m wondering is ubequitin a doctor?
ca – I vaguely remember it being mentioned many moons ago. Could we ask the mods for a resume?
Feivel
“But I guess as you say that’s not relevant to the question of the moral status of “modern” society. . “
Remeber it was banned So society is improving!
It is not relevent to the subject at hand it is relevent to the “question of the moral status of “modern” society. . .” That isnt really what we are discussing. It did copme up in passing on Friday, and I responded, that there are areas where our morals are improving (treating minorities, mentally ill, war, and now we can add banning partial birth abortion to improvments in morality,) granted we have a long way to go
Minor quible “Cracking ribs is an unfortunate unintended potential side effect of a life saving procedure.” Not potential, it is definite, in the cases I’m reffering to. But I dont disagree on your general point on this matter.
SYAG
2scents said “overloaded” I repeated it and was careful to put it in quotes, since it was not MY wording.
That you can ask that indicates you have not understood my point either. I am not sharing my view on the matter, regardless of what it is, I put Torah first, as has been stressed repeatedly. I dont get to have my own view.
what I am saying is this:
Those who have another view than I do are not automaticly coming from a “dark and evil place” They may still be wrong but not evil.
reason i’m asking is because no one likes to be told that they secretly are evil
This entire thread seems like a brouhaha to me. A tempest in a teapot.
ubiquitin,
If I understand you correctly, you are vehemently arguing for points that you actually claim to disagree with (since they are against the Torah), because feivel stated that those points were coming from a place of darkness and evil. Which you are interpreting to mean that feivel holds that the medical professionals who do agree with those points are dark and evil. I do not think that is what feivel meant at all.
Transpose these points from medical issues to religious ones, say an avoda zara faith. Now, I think we can all agree that avoda zara comes from a dark, evil place. But we all probably have neighbors or acquaintances who hold of this avoda zara, yet are extremely nice, upstanding, good people! Only mean well. On religion, however, they are simply very misinformed – and the source of their faith is darkness. That’s all I think feivel was asserting. He can correct me if I’m wrong.
If something is against the Torah, then ultimately its source is darkness and evil. Those who hold of those things may themselves not be dark and evil, but the source of their position is. Do you really disagree with that?
Avram
“If something is against the Torah, then ultimately its source is darkness and evil. Those who hold of those things may themselves not be dark and evil, but the source of their position is. Do you really disagree with that? “
Yes! Strongly.
Wanting to alleviate suffering is not (neccesarily) evil
Beleiving that limited resources are better spent in one way than another is not (neccessarily) evil
thanks for answering, kind of, but not really. I did get your point but I can’t get you to take a step back and clear your mind long enough to make mine. (I am willing to assume it is my presentation, not saying it is a fault in you).
I wanted to point out that 2scents used the word “overload” but NEVER made any reference to which population he was thinking of. You did that math on your own. My personal value system may have filled in the blanks as his “overloading” making a reference to poor, drunks and druggies who seem to fill the ER’s I have been in.
I am sorry that feivel’s post was misread by you in a way that is making it impossible to move forward. It seems to be influencing every other comment and question I try to make. It makes me sad becuase you are holding it so strongly against him and “his type” and it isn’t even what was intended.
Regarding all the non-related points that have come up, you sound like a very caring doctor and your commitment to Torah is very commendable.
Which you are interpreting to mean that feivel holds that the medical professionals who do agree with those points are dark and evil. I do not think that is what feivel meant at all.
YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!
thank you.
Yes Avram thank you for also explaining what I said, as I myself and syag and daas and others have so far futilely explained.
ubiquitin,
Yes! Strongly.
Oh, really?
Wanting to alleviate suffering is not (neccesarily) evil
And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, can you not agree that the virtue of wanting to alleviate suffering can be led down bad paths by wrong beliefs?
Beleiving that limited resources are better spent in one way than another is not (neccessarily) evil
And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, this is irrelevant to my point. Good intentions are not necessarily related to goodness.
Well then you have skillfully and successfully refuted my contention that wanting to alleviate suffering is evil, and that believing that limited resources are better spent in one way than another is evil. I didn’t realize that was my contention but I’m glad to see it was refuted anyway.
i’m wondering is ubequitin a doctor?
reason i’m asking is because no one likes to be told that they secretly are evil
It seems that he still hasn’t absorbed that he is not being told that he is (secretly or otherwise) evil.
I don’t know if he’s a doctor (or even if he’s a he), but he does seem to come from a medical professional’s perspective.
It seems that my shortening of Feivel’s comment into coming from a “dark and evil place” is confusing some people. So here it is again:
In reponse to my saying
“while they may be wrong it is not generally coming from a bad place”
He replied
“
It is in fact coming from a hideous place of darkness and evil.
While you may to some extent be don l caf zchus and partially view the hospital consciousness as being a mere field of wheat being blown by the winds of the environment and the political correctness accepted as the current avodah zara, still the place this ultimately derives from is the same place that all evil, all isms, all avoda zara has ever come from. From turning ones back to Hashem, to be free to indulge in whatever you wish, to satisfy any lust. All disguised of course behind the license of a statue or of humanism or whatever you call it. Then there is no Ribono Shel Olam CvS, no sanctity of life. Every decision being made only by what feels good and will still leave me in the respect of my local and wider society.
It bothers them to see someone that is much like themselves suffering, so let them die instead. Then we don’t have to worry about our own suffering. Works well. Conscience is clear. Problem solved. Why not? There is no Ribono Shel Olam, CvS.
Maybe this is not always in their conscious thoughts, but It is their true motivation, and certainly the underlying rationale of this degenerate, basically atheistic, pseudo-love society.”
Avram
“Oh, really?”
Yes
“And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, can you not agree that the virtue of wanting to alleviate suffering can be led down bad paths by wrong beliefs?”
Of course! Though that isnt what we are discussing
“And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, this is irrelevant to my point. Good intentions are not necessarily related to goodness”
Fair enough, but Good intentions are deffinitly not relaterd to evil intentions
Syag
“I wanted to point out that 2scents used the word “overload” but NEVER made any reference to which population he was thinking of. You did that math on your own”
Neither did I, YOU assumed what population I was reffering to.
Though to be fair, it wasnt hard math. It is the same population the bulk of this thread has been about.
It seems that my shortening of Feivel’s comment…
Which you continue to grossly mischaracterize.
ubiquitin,
while they may be wrong it is not generally coming from a bad place
[feivel’s response]: It is in fact coming from a hideous place of darkness and evil.
I did read this exchange. This question might sound silly, but I think it is not. What are you defining as “it” in your statement above? My guess is that your “it” is slightly different from feivel’s. Your “it” is probably the intentions of the medical professionals. Feivel’s “it” is the position that you described as “wrong”.
so basically what both feivel and you are arguing about is if “coming from a dark and evil place” is a rule or an exception, feivel says it’s the rule and you may be an exception while you say that you are the rule, and those doctors that pull the plug are the exception
I don’t think you disagree that there are evil doctors and i don’t think that feivel disagrees that there are exceptions to “evil doctors”
It’s true that I didn’t formulate my words in the rigorous manner of a philosophical treatise, thus leaving some room to misinterpret my intent. Rather it was said in somewhat of a poetic fashion, intending to stir the Yid in the hearts of those of the Olam here who have that sensitivity. I hope it did do that. The Ribono Shel Olam’s world is a place for the battle between good and evil both inside each Yid and in the forces of the world. It’s important to recognize that truth.
Now may I suggest to the esteemed moderators that you allow ubiquitin a last post to summarize his points then close this thread.
DY
Really mischaracterize?
In addition to the great pull quotes from Avram above (thanks)
There is also this “to be free to indulge in whatever you wish, to satisfy any lust” as a driving factor. I’m sorry but I STRONGLY disagree, and while it is nice that some of you are toning down his offensive view, words have meaning
Avram
You are correct about my It above.
CA
It is more than that. I am saying the “doctors who pull the plug” even if wrong, are not coming from a “dark and evil place” nor are they trying to be “free to indulge …and satisfy any lust”
- The topic ‘Hospital Horror Stories?’ is closed to new replies.