| Do you think parents should be allowed to file DNR on a child under the age of 16 |
| YES |
|
19% |
[ 16 ] |
| NO |
|
80% |
[ 65 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 81 |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
 Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
totally on your side TheWanderer. do you like my idea for the new federal law which would be named the Katie Jones Act
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know. 
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
theWanderer
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2010
Age: 54
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Strapples wrote: | | totally on your side TheWanderer. do you like my idea for the new federal law which would be named the Katie Jones Act |
Of course I like it. I have no idea why this isn't a law already, but it ought to be. I'd vote for anybody who backed this, if it came to that.
I like the line in your signature about Autism Speaks, by the way. Before I figured out I was on the spectrum, I came across one of their videos, where this blonde woman was saying - right in front of her daughter - that if she didn't have a "normal" daughter, too, she would have packed her autistic daughter into the car and driven off a bridge. And she encouraged her daughter to say how she hated her sister... I remember that video because it really shook me up; it was like an updated Nazi propaganda film designed to show how horrible and useless the people were they wanted to kill. It's all the same crap, really. Everybody is human. Everybody should have human rights. Anyone or anything that opposes that, I'm opposed to.
_________________
AQ Test = 44 Aspie Quiz = 169 Aspie 33 NT EQ / SQ-R = Extreme Systematising
===================
Not all those who wander are lost.
===================
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man - would be diagnosed with a psychological disorder |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theWanderer wrote: | | Strapples wrote: | | totally on your side TheWanderer. do you like my idea for the new federal law which would be named the Katie Jones Act |
Of course I like it. I have no idea why this isn't a law already, but it ought to be. I'd vote for anybody who backed this, if it came to that.
I like the line in your signature about Autism Speaks, by the way. Before I figured out I was on the spectrum, I came across one of their videos, where this blonde woman was saying - right in front of her daughter - that if she didn't have a "normal" daughter, too, she would have packed her autistic daughter into the car and driven off a bridge. And she encouraged her daughter to say how she hated her sister... I remember that video because it really shook me up; it was like an updated Nazi propaganda film designed to show how horrible and useless the people were they wanted to kill. It's all the same crap, really. Everybody is human. Everybody should have human rights. Anyone or anything that opposes that, I'm opposed to. |
Autism Speaks if they COULD would start a whole EUGENIC movement and start GASSING us to death... NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP STYLE. HITLER STYLE.. I swear Autism Speaks is THE WORST.
Now as far as this law I am going to push it up to my senators and congress. hopefully there it can become a bill.
maybe we should start an online petition to garner figure 50,000 signatures then send it off to congress, then that will definitely gain traction and media attention.
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
abacacus
Rock 'N Roll Outlaw
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 3316
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's.... kind of scary actually. Under the age of 18, DNR's should NOT be valid, and they should ONLY be valid if the person files the order for themselves (or makes it know they consent in a court of law).
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| abacacus wrote: | | That's.... kind of scary actually. Under the age of 18, DNR's should NOT be valid, and they should ONLY be valid if the person files the order for themselves (or makes it know they consent in a court of law). |
this is why i propose a bill for congress
Katie Jones Act
VOID on All DNRs for people under or over 18 with a Non Degenerative Disease Who did not sign the DNR themselves <This will render all current DNRs for a person under or over 18 who did not sign the DNR themselves Null and VOID Federally>
DNRs for people under 18 with a DEGENERATIVE or otherwise TERMINAL illness will be allowed per current state laws
DNRs for adults who did not sign the DNR but are over 70 shall continue and not be covered by the blanket ban
DNRs for Special Needs Adults who have a severe communication disability but are Non Degenerative or Terminal will require a small jury of 4 people and require a 3/4ths supermajority vote to enact the DNR. none of the people may be physicians or doctors or lawyers.
DNRs for Special Needs Children whom are Not Degenerative or Terminal will require a Grand Jury Hearing involving a panel of 12 impartial people and a 3/4ths supermajority vote required to enact the DNR. none of the people may be physicians or doctors or lawyers.
If for any reason a DNR fails to pass (reach the vote threshold) it may not be brought forth to the courts again until the childs 18th birthday or 1 year, whichever is longer. Exemptions are allowed if the patient becomes terminal or degenerative, at this point the DNR is to proceed with current state statutes.
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
theWanderer
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2010
Age: 54
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Signed. 
As for Autism Speaks, while I agree with you on what they'd do if they dared, I think they've learned people won't accept anything that open. So they're trying different, subtler tactics. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black. It's a history of the eugenics movement in the United States, and it gives some hint how they went underground after World War Two, although it glosses over just how many leaders of Planned Parenthood had ties to the American Eugenics Society. Sadly, it also reveals how intertwined with eugenics even a seemingly benign pastime such as genealogy is. And I say "is" and not "was" advisedly. I was a professional genealogist, a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists. When I learned of these links, I suggested on their mailing list a change to the Code of Ethics barring any of us from taking part in such atrocities, as well as stripping those genealogists in the past who had taken part of any honours they had been given. In response, I was ridiculed, attacked, told it was "unimportant"... And I came to realise that at least some of the members were working on such things, which are now given the reassuring but misleading label of "health studies".
My point is, eugenics is still out there. They are still trying to kill everyone they see as "unfit". They are just doing it more quietly and subtly, and by doing so, they've managed to convince a lot of otherwise decent people who would be horrified if they confronted the reality directly.
_________________
AQ Test = 44 Aspie Quiz = 169 Aspie 33 NT EQ / SQ-R = Extreme Systematising
===================
Not all those who wander are lost.
===================
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man - would be diagnosed with a psychological disorder |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theWanderer wrote: | Signed.
As for Autism Speaks, while I agree with you on what they'd do if they dared, I think they've learned people won't accept anything that open. So they're trying different, subtler tactics. If you haven't already, I encourage you to read War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black. It's a history of the eugenics movement in the United States, and it gives some hint how they went underground after World War Two, although it glosses over just how many leaders of Planned Parenthood had ties to the American Eugenics Society. Sadly, it also reveals how intertwined with eugenics even a seemingly benign pastime such as genealogy is. And I say "is" and not "was" advisedly. I was a professional genealogist, a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists. When I learned of these links, I suggested on their mailing list a change to the Code of Ethics barring any of us from taking part in such atrocities, as well as stripping those genealogists in the past who had taken part of any honours they had been given. In response, I was ridiculed, attacked, told it was "unimportant"... And I came to realise that at least some of the members were working on such things, which are now given the reassuring but misleading label of "health studies".
My point is, eugenics is still out there. They are still trying to kill everyone they see as "unfit". They are just doing it more quietly and subtly, and by doing so, they've managed to convince a lot of otherwise decent people who would be horrified if they confronted the reality directly. |
Eugenics makes me sick, now spread the word of this thread and the petion all over the internet. this is something that needs to go viral.
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26039
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Strapples wrote: | | Eugenics makes me sick, now spread the word of this thread and the petion all over the internet. this is something that needs to go viral. |
I assume you're obviously very much aware of the very strong link to Nazism and eugenics, although eugenics was not actually a creation of Nazism? I mention this because you're Jewish.
Needless to say, I very much support you in your quest for more reasons than one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | Strapples wrote: | | Eugenics makes me sick, now spread the word of this thread and the petion all over the internet. this is something that needs to go viral. |
I assume you're obviously very much aware of the very strong link to Nazism and eugenics, although eugenics was not actually a creation of Nazism? I mention this because you're Jewish.
Needless to say, I very much support you in your quest for more reasons than one. |
I am Jewish-Christian hybrid and Nazis + Eugenics + anyone seeking to eradicate the world of people with disabilities are vile creatures that themselves need to be castrated so that their sick gene pool cannot continue.
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find your proposal very problematic, Strapples, for a few reasons. DNR Orders are a matter of private decision between a doctor and a patient; I am troubled by any attempt for third parties to force their way into a doctor patient relationship. DNR orders exist for good reasons. There are many patients who--while neither terminal nor degenerative--have reached a sound and sensible decision about the steps that they want, or do not want, taken in the event of a catastrophic event.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | I find your proposal very problematic, Strapples, for a few reasons. DNR Orders are a matter of private decision between a doctor and a patient; I am troubled by any attempt for third parties to force their way into a doctor patient relationship. DNR orders exist for good reasons. There are many patients who--while neither terminal nor degenerative--have reached a sound and sensible decision about the steps that they want, or do not want, taken in the event of a catastrophic event.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases. |
It is no longer a doctor patient relationship when said DNR is taped to the back of a wheelchair and is in the public eye, at that point that DNR is a public record and the public can step into it.
DNRs DO exist for a good reason yes, however, they are not effective nor efficient for people who have severe communication disabilities. This is where my law comes into play, people who can normally communicate or sign the papers themselves are unaffected by it. People like Katie Jones though are affected under this law, under this law Katie Jones parents would apply for a DNR and then the medical records be disclosed under protection to the 12 jurors who must vote by supermajority to pass the DNR.
NO law is perfect especially on its initial draft, i am sure that there can be an appellate process where professionals are allowed into the jury. but again this law ONLY affects cases of non communicating patients. This does NOT cover patients who can sign their own DNR paper work or use an alternative means to agree to the binding nature (voice signature recorded and witnessed by a third party, signature by x. etc)
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
theWanderer
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2010
Age: 54
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | I find your proposal very problematic, Strapples, for a few reasons. DNR Orders are a matter of private decision between a doctor and a patient; I am troubled by any attempt for third parties to force their way into a doctor patient relationship. DNR orders exist for good reasons. There are many patients who--while neither terminal nor degenerative--have reached a sound and sensible decision about the steps that they want, or do not want, taken in the event of a catastrophic event.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases. |
I find your remarks problematic, first, because this was not a doctor patient relationship - it was not the patient, Katie, who decided, but her parents. And you assume that an organisation of doctors can be trusted to decide what is and what is not "proper" - when many doctors in the past openly supported eugenics, and when many continue to pursue that agenda under the cover of any argument they can offer which will distract people from what they're really doing. Allowing doctors any say in when a person should be allowed to live is almost as absurd as allowing cats to decide which mice get eaten. (Just in case you don't know cats very well, I do - the answer would be "all of them", as, with many doctors, the answer would be "no one who is 'unfit'".) The only reason I qualify my statement with the word "almost" is the fact that there are some doctors out there who do not seek to advance the agenda of eugenics - despite the fact that every single professional organisation I am aware of in medicine does officially support that agenda, using other words and false arguments. Read War Against the Weak. Read some of the other research that has been done, then look through their official policies and read between the lines. Think about what lies behind the words, what they really mean, or rather, what they are designed to accomplish.
_________________
AQ Test = 44 Aspie Quiz = 169 Aspie 33 NT EQ / SQ-R = Extreme Systematising
===================
Not all those who wander are lost.
===================
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man - would be diagnosed with a psychological disorder |
|
| Back to top |
|
theWanderer
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2010
Age: 54
Posts: 975
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | I assume you're obviously very much aware of the very strong link to Nazism and eugenics, although eugenics was not actually a creation of Nazism? I mention this because you're Jewish.
Needless to say, I very much support you in your quest for more reasons than one. |
First, just to be clear, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. This is just something I feel has to be said, not because of what you've said, but because of what some idiots might think upon reading what you said.
As it happens, I am not Jewish. (I do know you weren't talking to me.) Yet I am aware of the connection, and oppose both eugenics and Nazism. It doesn't matter if the people they're proposing to 'get rid of' include me or not - once anyone starts talking about eliminating any group, they are out of line, and everyone else has reason to worry. Once they've succeeded with one group, who knows what group they'll target next? And that doesn't matter as much as the basic point, that targeting any group at all is evil, unjustified, and enough to demand that all decent people oppose that agenda.
_________________
AQ Test = 44 Aspie Quiz = 169 Aspie 33 NT EQ / SQ-R = Extreme Systematising
===================
Not all those who wander are lost.
===================
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man - would be diagnosed with a psychological disorder |
|
| Back to top |
|
Strapples
Strapplius, God of straps!
Joined: Dec 01, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 19255
Location: Chicago Area IL (FAR FROM AUTISM SPEAKS)
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theWanderer wrote: | | visagrunt wrote: | I find your proposal very problematic, Strapples, for a few reasons. DNR Orders are a matter of private decision between a doctor and a patient; I am troubled by any attempt for third parties to force their way into a doctor patient relationship. DNR orders exist for good reasons. There are many patients who--while neither terminal nor degenerative--have reached a sound and sensible decision about the steps that they want, or do not want, taken in the event of a catastrophic event.
How can a "jury" of people who are not familiar with the patient, the patient's guardian or the doctors going to make a meaningful decision? Guardians of patients with severe illnesses already have enough to deal with without imposing on them the burden of proving their good sense and good judgement to a group of strangers who have no direct knowledge. If you do not trust parents and guardians to take correct decisions, how can you possibly trust complete strangers?
What I see here is an overreaction to a cases that does not appear to warrant a DNR--but neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether or not those decisions were well made. I suggest that the better body to be doing this is the professional body that licenses physicians.
If I sign a DNR order improperly, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons has every authority to inquire into my decision, and to discipline me if I have acted improperly. Similarly, if I refuse to sign a DNR order at the request of a patient or a patient's guardian, then they have the right to complain to the College, and if I have refused improperly, I can be similarly subjected to censure.
It should be borne in mind that DNR orders are not the same as the withdrawal or treatment, or active euthenasia. DNR orders are simply orders that in the circumstances of an event like a cardiac arrest, no effort will be taken to rescussitate the patient. There is nothing in a DNR order that implies that such an event will be hastened. A patient who is neither terminal nor degenerative might never experience such an event, and a DNR order is a moot point in such cases. |
I find your remarks problematic, first, because this was not a doctor patient relationship - it was not the patient, Katie, who decided, but her parents. And you assume that an organisation of doctors can be trusted to decide what is and what is not "proper" - when many doctors in the past openly supported eugenics, and when many continue to pursue that agenda under the cover of any argument they can offer which will distract people from what they're really doing. Allowing doctors any say in when a person should be allowed to live is almost as absurd as allowing cats to decide which mice get eaten. (Just in case you don't know cats very well, I do - the answer would be "all of them", as, with many doctors, the answer would be "no one who is 'unfit'".) The only reason I qualify my statement with the word "almost" is the fact that there are some doctors out there who do not seek to advance the agenda of eugenics - despite the fact that every single professional organisation I am aware of in medicine does officially support that agenda, using other words and false arguments. Read War Against the Weak. Read some of the other research that has been done, then look through their official policies and read between the lines. Think about what lies behind the words, what they really mean, or rather, what they are designed to accomplish. |
totally with you Wanderer yet again you hit the nail on the head, the Patient Katie had No say so in her care. And it is so true that many doctors still go throguh the eugenics thing. This is why I state that NO doctor can be in the jury.
_________________
check out my website at http://www.alinssite.info and my forum at http://www.disabledplanet.net
When in doubt, ask an autistic. Chances are, they're obsessed with what you need to know.
Autism Speaks will NEVER speak for me
CLASSIC AUTISM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
