I don't see why this would be covered by the government, when other things are not.  I pay for needed non-prescription drugs completely out of pocket.  I pay for treatments not covered by insurance.  I pay for tests not covered by insurance.  I pay for my health insurance.

I do think government health care should cover anything that is prescribed by a doctor (within reason, no trips to Cuba to lay out in the sun!).  This isn't even a  drug, it's a food and I don't know why the government should pay for this and not other things.

I sound rather non-empathic, but I do feel for this family.  I think she is just taking the wrong approach.

In my opinion, physio should be covered because it saves dollars in the long run to get people back to work sooner.
Basic dental & prescriptions for part-time or low-wage earners & orthotics for diagnosed need too.

Why just part-time and low-wage earners ninjafaery?  I know medical costs/prescriptions can be a burden on people of those who make a decent salary.

it is going to cover:

SRS (species reassignment surgery)

Braintaping (performing a backup of one's ego)

Egocasting (sending one's 'self' to another body)

ERS (Exoterran Reassignment Surgery -- to modify one's phenotype from, say, Earth to a zero-g asteroid environment)

Neural Pruning

Maybe healthcare policy should be looked at it in terms of who should be excluded and why. It might turn out to be the most inclusive and cost-effective way of considering the issues.

I guess I'm assuming this group doesn't have extended health benefits from their employer.

Curious and more curious

If this child was G-tube fed the AB government pays the difference between  special formula and regular diet for child/infant. It goes through Supports for families with disabilities (formerly Handicapped Children's Services) and requires a signed letter from a registered dietican. With an agreement -home vist by worker and signed document a disabled child -not tube fed-would also be eligible for this.

So agrument must be that this infant is not disabled.

Pretty silly as they are right-he is not disabled now but will have big health issues if not on formula.

So we have private insurance _Blue Cross turning them down   AND Alberta Health turning them down.

Ironic thing is if he was in hospital formula would be covered.

Same as if he was in foster care!

Tabitha, thanks.  Going to the province in this case is making more sense to me now.

Ninjafaery, not all employers offer health insurance, and there are also those who are self-employed.  Even with private health insurance, not everything is covered, as we see in this case, and there can also be caps.  I've known of policies where once you reach $10,000 of prescriptions that's it.  I know of medications that treat conditions I have, where that amount would cover 1 month.  I know of people who have declined a prescription because of the cost, and I know of people who dropped out of school due to medical costs.

Mike, that is sarcasm, right?

No Chemgal, it's NOT sarcasm.

Who should be denied free medical care? The poor because they can't pay or the rich because they can? Resources are limited. Do we spend large on high-tech solutions to prolong the lives of the terminally ill, or invest in maximising the health of and capabilities of children, even those who do not seem paricularly ill? What sorts of approaches facilitate health — not just in relation to "health" in the sense of "not clinically sick" but in the sense of "wholeness of life"? Should poverty reduction be seen as a health issue? What about smoking? What about fast foods? 

By and large we are overly concerned about longevity. Especially the longevity of the  rich. We are less obsessed with suicide rates among Innuit communities. Why?

Should health care have a different sense of "justice"? 

Whoops!

Multiple post, sorry.

Mike, what would you like to see covered for whom?  What's your definition of the rich?  What about the middle class?

I see healthcare as an important issue for ALL.

1. Yes, I'd include Canada' middle class in the "rich", sure. 

2. And I agree that healthcare is an important issue for all.

And that means that I think we really need to look at what that means. If it means avoiding death, I have to disagree. That would lead us to funding cryonicists. The world would be four stories high in wall-to-wall freezer chambers. 

But I would support the inclusion a a bit of fear-of-death counselling in high schools.

I would not support the general availability of drugs to counter the normal effects of ageing — including memory-enhancing and potency-prolonging pharmaceuticals (though I'd agree that there are some fuzzy lines here). We each have "our" time to live as fully as we can, not for as long as we can. Nor would I see fertility as a fundamental human right.

And if healthcare is important to all, as we agree,  should it stretch to enormously expensive life-prolonging technology for the terminally ill, or palliative care care? Or should it go to ensuring all children have the best possible chance to experience a full life. It's not as though ANYONE has the resources to provide all sorts of health care options to everyone on the planet.

So, ensuring food is available to all would be a good place to start. Giving all Canadians access to healthy water would not have a prohibitive cost. Giving people healthy, safe and satisfying working conditions would certainly be do-able. And it would be feasible to ensure all Canadians have healthy housing and a liveable basic income — poverty could be eradicated. These are all fix-its that have health impacts.

Then, at another level, we have all sorts of elective surgical procedures. Facial repair after an injury? A boob job for self-esteem or sexual presentation? Somewhere here, we start encountering warped values that aren't going to be solved by surgery. Do we cater to every whim? Or every need? Where's that line drawn?

Basic Dental Care (both preventative and basic restorative) as this has a MAJOR impact on overall health.

Some form (possibly geared to income/need) of a Prescription drug plan

ANd would you count guaranteed shelter and food safety part of a health care plan?

Guaranteed shelter and food safety? YES, absolutely. A means tested scrip plan? Yes, of course. Basic dental care? Yes… and basic eye and ear care.

I agree -- I would like to see basic dental work added into the plan.

I think sex-change operations should be taken out.

"Sex change" is, I think a misnomer: it should be "gender restoration".

Health Care should cover:

Schedule 1 - Preventive:

1. chiropratry
2. dentistry - checkups, fillings, extractions, crowns, impacted teeth
3. massage
4. Pysiotherapist
5. Chinese Medicine
6. Medical Dr. - checkups, mental health, minor treatments - under $200/visit
7. Naturopath - annual checkups,  & treatments under $100.00/visit

Shedule 2 - Intervention:

1. chemotherapy
2. heart surgery
3. in office surgeries - moles, vasectomies, stitches
4. setting fractures
5. experimental surgeries - up to 10%
6. organ replacements
7. dental surgery
8. and many I can't list at present but you get the idea

All individuals are guarenteed universal i.e. free health care.  The taxation is based as follows:

1. Corporations and companies: based on percentage of profits. - the same percentage across the board

      2.    Private citizens based on income in relation to Real Estate ownership, so that those who own more Real Estate will pay more Health Care tax.  This will equalize the situations in provinces and cities where Real Estate is out of proportion with our paycheques. 

     3.    Health Care is UNIVERSAL and therefore just and written into a constitution as such and as such can be mediated provincially or federally, but neither government has the abiity to veto the other in regard  to coverage.

I think stitches for Bible induced paper cuts should be taken out. Fortunately the fee schedule isn't based on my religious beliefs.

I wish varicose vein surgery was at least partly covered. It is not, since it is considered cosmetic. Laser surgery for the worst cases in my area is $2400 per leg or $4000 for both. Guess I will be covering mine up for the rest of my life.  Varicose veins are also at a greater risk of developing clots within. Call it preventive?

I agree that many of the things listed above are related to health, but I wouldn't include them as a health plan, as it starts to get quite broad, like roads so that one can get medical treatment in a timely enough fashion.

My issue with the means based prescription plans is that some who may not qualify really do need the financial health when it comes to their medication needs.  If people who could afford it had to pay for private health plans that weren't allowed to then cap the plan, or limit which drugs were covered, then it wouldn't be an issue.

I think legalizing euthanasia could help reduce some costs.  Attempting to keep someone comfortable while they are slowly dying with body functions increasingly being lost can't be cheap, and they still would be suffering if they don't want to live if they are like that.

I agree, it can also be crippling, I know someone who at times has trouble walking because of the swelling and pain.  I don't know why it's just considered to be cosmetic.

I don't think I understand this.  Many people make good money without having any RE income.

I wonder if it is ALWAYS considered cosmetic or if there is a threshold where it is considered mediaclly neccessary.  Because sometimes it is a medical issue.

While In Alberta my ex-husband had his veins done as a medical procedure-at the St. Albert hospital and covered by AB Health-that would be about 20 years ago.

Maybe it's just the newer and less invasive treatments that are considered to be cosmetic?  The person I know hasn't ever looked into getting them treated recently.

I have gotten treatments done that are considered cosmetic that really isnt.  I was at least able to use a health spending account for them, but wasn't covered by the government or either insurance plan besides the HSA.

I'm not sure about applying health care taxes according to the real estate owned.  Farmers and ranchers could get royally screwed if it worked like that. 

I think it might be possible to give Income Tax repayments to families with huge medical costs - including trips to see specialists - and outrageous ambulance bills from rural areas to a city - and accomodation when it is needed..  As a rural resident myself I'd love to see cheap hostels for families who travel for medical care - and for families who spend time in the city with a sick or injured person.  I have heard about Ronald McDonald Houses but they are only for families with sick children.

The system used for choosing which medications are 'covered' and which are not is a bit weird too, I think.  A friend was prescribed two medications for the same health problem.  Each was to be taken 4x daily.  Sounded quite reasonable until she realised that they had to be spaced 1-2  hours apart.  Working out a schedule around her job and commute was very difficult.  The pharmacist told her about another medication that isn't 'covered' that you only need to take once a day.  She changed to that despite the expense.  One wonders how people with memory problems keep track of medications that are so complicated and time consuming.

hmmmmm ... how does a person such as I respond to this.........

...... I agree .... Mc Jae's sex-change operation should not be covered ... but perhaps reparative therapy to reverse the damage done by the koolaid he has imbibed in should be.

Regards

Rita

I think it's a very sad day when we start valuing money over human lives.

I see you're not crying for the taking out of burns from cauldrons.

I'm not.  It's an added benefit of allowing euthanasia IMO.  It shouldn't be the reason for it.

I have NO desire to be forced to stay alive, possibly in pain, just because we have a health care system that is dedicated to keeping people alive regardless.

Those of us with medical conditions that may deteriorate until we have no meaningful quality of life should be able to opt for 'no more efforts to sustain life - just pain management until death occurs'.  A written document should be in place (and USED) when a life is becoming a total burden. I have one and gave copies to my partner, each of my adult kids, a close friend and my Medical providers.  It makes more sense to use the avaialble money to save the lives that are worth saving. 

Hi kaythecurler,

I agree, and I have a DNR and a living will in place.  Two friends, my GP and my neurologist have copies. 

The other thing one should consider,  if not married, (where the spouse/legally married partner has final say, most of the time, although it can get tricky and sometimes doctors will challenge a spouse/partner), is a medical Power of Attorney (POA).  This POA would allow someone whom you trust to carry out your wishes - if you have made them known prior to a complicated and/or catastrophic medical situation, OR make decisions on your behalf, should you be incapacitated in way(s) that make it impossible for you to make timely decisions.

Also note, that unless laws have changed recently in Ontario, I think that a common-law partnership, no matter how long it has existed, does not mean the partners involved can make medical decisions for each other.  It might be different in other provinces as well...

That would be good to know if the common-law situation has changed...if someone knows the answer it would be good to post. 

Hi chemgal,

I agree with what you are saying about euthanasia. There very good points to be made about quality of life, just keeping someone alive because therapeutic interventions and advancements make it possible to do so, costs to society, and the stress placed on family and friends that also, take on more responsibilities of care than previously. 

In part, care teams and family members take on added bedside care, or even iin some cases hire additional nursing staff out of their own pockets is because there is not adequate bedside staffing in many facilities to provide appropriate care.  NOTE:  I did not make a sweeping generalization and this is not a problem in some faciliities.  However, from personal experience and from witnessing literally hundreds of cases while I was in chronic-complex care, and then visiting people moved to long-term care facilities, I could share stories that would make everyone here weep.

The issues around euthanasia are mostly ethical and moral dilemmae, I suspect.  In practical, and I argue, humane arguments, euthanasia seems to be a  caring part of providing care.

There is one other major problem here in Toronto, and I suspect  throughout Ontario, but maybe throughout Canada:  the lack of palliative care beds in existing facilities and not  much funding to either expand existing facilities dedicated only to palliative care, let alone building new facilities.  And palliative care takes a great deal of compassionate attention and work by professional staff and members of care teams.

Chemgal:

Euthanasia is where Hitler's death camps found their origins.

It began with killing deformed or disabled babies, then slightly older kids, then adults. It was about "kindness" to those whose "quality of life" seemed irredeemable.

Under this programme (K4), doctors began by putting down 70,273 people who were deemed incurably ill, by "critical medical examination". Austrain doctors kept the practice up after the German policy was ended in 1941 as a concession to the churches and, in the end, the total death count was around  275,000.

In the towns where the killing centres were located, local people saw victims arrive in buses, saw the smoke from the crematoria chimneys, noticed that no bus-loads of "patitnts" ever left the killing centres, and drew the correct conclusion. In Hadamar, ashes containing human hair rained down on the town.

-------

Here's a German poster from Wikipedia: This poster (from around 1938) reads: "60,000Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect  costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too." That sounds like something any Neocon government might put up quite happily:

ANYWAY: 

This all proved handy experience when the challenge came came to design camps equipped with gas chambers to systematicallly exterminate thousands about thousands of gypsies, communists, Slavs, Jews and other people unworthy of the "good life" in the Third Reich. The thousands became millions.

This was people doing this to "other" people.

Another distinctive feature of Nazi genocide was the extensive use — by trained, Hippocratic Oath supporting doctors — of human subjects in "medical" experiments.

Euthanasia is a very slippery slope; it's a way of thinking that can take hold of reason like a virus then erode and ultimately annihilate natural compassion. 

But WE couldn't/wouldn't go wrong here? Well, a generation or two before the rise of Naziism, Germany was one of Europe's cultural brightest lights:  art and literature, philosophy and scholarship all thrived: Germany had been an exciting place until the First World War, of which all of this (and the Second World War) was the unfolding aftermath. 

Naziism is not a healthy place to go in search of ideas, Chemgal. History, flawed as it is, holds some healthier insights. And the Gospels, confusing as they may be, lay it out with crystal clarity.

I note that on this thread nobody has clarified the differences between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia and what IS legal/illegal already. (I have many times over the years)

Instead, it is usually called a slippery slope (like gay marriage) and everyone is afraid of it and so misinformation takes the day.

As with most hot button issues, we can hear rhetoric rather than facts. We can  hear rhetoric so often it becomes "fact" to us.

Passive euthanasia is withholding treatment. It is supposedly not legal and yet it happens every day. 

The religious, mental, moral and legal gymnastics that are done are that when treatment is withheld or withdrawn it is not to cause or hasten death: these practices are then different from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The practices of withholding and withdrawing treatments are then deemed to be ethically and legally permissible.

Written advance directives/living wills in Canada are what we are told to do as well as DNRS... and they may not be worth the paper they are written on unless you get lucky and people choose to respect them. The law, as of yet, does not.  Doctors, family members, proxys... will make the decisions and may or may not take into account your own wishes.

A DNR sounds so final. DO NOT RESUSCITATE!

It is also vague or not so cut and dry.

You can want CPR and not be given it, because medical staff deems that your chances of "survival to discharge" are minimal to none. It is not deeemed beneficial or the benefits are uncertain or unlikely.

The patient is not required to sign for a DNR. Some are assigned the status without consent.

What if you do consent, surely then it is respected, correct?

No, not correct.

In most cases, it only apllies in the hospital.

If 911 is called, they must provide treatment. A pallative care patient can have a DNR and if 911 is called they will most likely resuscitate. They may even intubate. They do not have time to verify a DNR. So, family and care givers are told not to call 911.
 

Instead of allowing 911 to be called and provide pain meds, comfort, transportation to hospital...respectful of a DNR... people (patient and their family) must suffer in order to have wishes respected.

The law actually says a unilateral DNR order can only be justified if the patient is in a persistent vegetative state.

So, if your wish for no extra ordinary measures is not legally binding it must mean that passive euthanasia is a no-no, correct?

No, that is not correct. Passive euthanasia takes place EVERY DAY.

We talk a bunch about the autonomy of patients and concent... but....

Look into the laws. They will shock you, no matter whihc side of the issue you are on. Let them. Do not say "this is a slippery slope" and bury your head or be afriad to take it on.  Look at what the law is and what you think it ought to be.... Work towards that.

Equating euthanasia, "good death", a painless death for a chronically or terminally ill individual who would otherwise suffer, with Nazi death camps is IMO ridiculous.

I know all about those with psychiatric, neurological, or physical disabilities representing at a genetic and a financial burden upon German society and the state. I can talk all day long about Karl Brant and Phillip Bouhler and the "clinics" for children and T4

Mike, the expansion program you mention is T4 (not K4). It is named after the address of the program's office in Berlin, Tiergartenstrasse 4.

IMO -
The only thing they have in common is death.
Consent matters.
This rationale makes sex and rape equal.
 

Redhead, I'm not sure of the 'interdependent relationship' law here (I think I have the term right).  You've made good points about pallative care, it's not something I tend to think about when it comes to health spending, but that's important too.

Mike, you make it sound like a very lose-lose situation.  Euthanasia is a slippery slope to mass murders, but keeping people alive is a waste of money.  Are you at least in support of palliative care, or should the terminally ill suffer greatly while dying?

SG, excellent points!  Most of the information I hear about DNR comes from cases in the US.  I do at least know about a personal directive (although recently!) and I am glad to see the government here is at least setting up a database for them.  Maybe as health systems move online it will be easier to follow someone's wishes which will also lead to changing the laws.  Something to watch for sure.

As for your analogy, I will be keeping that one in mind!

MCJae,

You wrote,

"I think sex-change operations should be taken out."

You are entitled to your own opinion.

Since you shared it, I would like to ask a few questions. To be clear, I do so with no real expectation that you will answer them. I do so in order that those readingthis can conetmplate it and think on the subject and then they too can form their own opinions.

If you woke up and found you developed breasts, as a result of coming into contact with some compound, due to hormones, or some other reason- do you think that you, as a self-identifying male, should live with your D cup breasts? Do you think you should have to prove how you got them and that you were really a man? Do you think that if they could not find a medical reason, you should keep them? Do you think there may be a medical reason for removing them without that medical reason? Your mental health? (If it was not covered the cost may force you to live with them)

If your wife sprouted a penis as a result of coming in contact with a presciption she was given or some other reason - do you believe that she, as a self-identifying female, should live with her penis? Should have to prove how she got it and that she was really a woman? Do you think she might, for her mental well being need surgery?

Should people be forced to stay this way when it feels so wrong? Should they have to choose lifelong celibacy or have sex with these genitals?

Should people have to save their whole life, miserable in the meantime?

I ask because we do know that there are things like testosterone and estrogen from outside sources, DES (Diethylstilbestrol)... that affect gender in vitro.
There are chromosomal things like Turner's Syndrome, Klinefelter's Syndrome, et...
 

All I ask folks to do is imagine they were told they are the opposite gender than they believe they are. How would you feel? What would you want? How would you "prove" it?....

SG Thank you: T4.

T4 was introduced and widely accepted as "euthanasia" at first in Germany.

It was active killing and it was without consent on the grounds that the people killed weren't fit to make such decisions.

Consent is not as clear-cut as it sounds. If someone is simply miserable and ill, consent may arise simply because care and concern is wanting to the point that life doesn't seem worth the candle. That is not really or necessarilly consent because the person involved is being let down by the community. It is a community issue that speaks of a failing in family or society. The condition of some nursing homes for the elderly points to this sort of failure.

DNR is something that I and other family members have on our health records. It's an instruction undertaken during "good times" and it's got nothing to do with euthanasia: it's a decision to not be messed around with at riduculous cost in order to survive in a bed or institution, or to deprive the family of it means of subsistence by being an unaffordable cost burden, and it removes the decision from them.

Palliative care is a different issue altogether andit should provide comfort, consolation and as interesting and hospitable an enironment as possible. But I see no need to dish out drugs that simply slow the descent into death. If there's a "cure", sure. If not, give comfort.

But COST must not be the governing criterion, particularly where the people involved are poor.

And, to deny the lessons of T4 and the Holocaust and what they taught us about the ready way in which people can trip to extreme inhumanity, would be to bury one's head in the sand… a very dangerous denial.

There have been great points made by sg, mike paterson and chemgal regarding the issues around euthanaisia.  And perhaps Iwas relating also to katythecurler's post regarding SELF-direction, if confronted with a degenerative, progressive disease, where the end is a known outcome, and there is a desire not to live it out to its agonizing, painful existence, with medical interventions. 

Personally and professionally I have watched and been a member of care teams for people who are literally dying painfully with no chance for a reversal of their physical situation.   

The issue of cost is related to the topic of what health care should cover; it is not the only issue that should be covered, but if one is honest, then cost does enter into the discussion. That said, it is not what is important.  It is important that if one has a progressive, terminal disease, and in a sound state of mind has made a request to exit the physical realm on terms outlined legally and made clear, then that person's wishes should be respected.  What  needs to change is legislation.  What needs to change is an increased focus, as well, on palliative, care, where people who are end-stage can go to pass away peacefully.  Because there are not enough beds for this compassionate care, and if people with chronic comple illnesses, a longer aging expectancy (and with that accompanies various forms of dimmensia, cancers and a vast assortment of age-related diseases), then we better make room in provincial budgets for better care for the aging, the injured, and the chronic degenerative diseased.

The problem with this is the many-fold:

Doctors are trained to keep people alive, regardless of the necessary care that will be an outcome of medical interventions;

Doctors, because of training, distance themselves from post-traumatic/acute care, and GPs are then handed the case(s), and frankly may not know what to do;

And until someone who survives something catastrophic (and their family and care team members end up in the "system"), no one realises how difficult it is to get the help that is required.... the help that until we need it , we think is universal, available, and automatic, because we pay taxes and as a Country believe in Universal healthcare. 

Universal healthcare was something that Canadians agreed upon in the 1960s.  Yet every province is primarily responsible for healthcare - it is not united.  So please explain to me how unversal healthcare exists.  definitely in Ontario it is two-tiered,and has been so for more than a decade.  BC always has the best reputation of healthcare... and also a reputation, at times, for being the most "socialist" province (I don't call BC socialist, I refer to media that has labelled, at times, BC governance, as socialist)

After the first 90 days of my chronic complex care; it is not covered by Ohip, and the cieling of a month's stay was over $1500/month.  I suspect that not all of you know that.  Also, unless you have a plan through work, you must pay for any and all supports, such as a power chair, canes, etc...  even if you were a student at the time.  Because University student does not cover this kind of thing....and if you own RSPs and/or investmentes, you must deplete everything in order for assistance, and then frankly, you are considered the bottom rung of society. 

that is how ODSP works.  You can maintain a home with mortgage, and have no more than 5K in savings, otherwise whatever you receive from ODSP is incrementally diminished.  (In effect, spend all you have saved, become impoverished, and then we will help you.  And there is no alternative.  No other supports to help you through an illness, if there is even a tiny or great chance of recovery.  You are redirected to CPP, and the federal government has no problem with saying NO, repeatedly - catch 22)

Not boasting, I did not qualify for ODSP, but what happened in the meantime is that everything I worked for is diminished, just so that I can walk, return to school and start over.  And that is not what Universal healthcare is about.  Something needs to change; in Ontario we saw all sorts of coverage fade away, and charges were passed on directly to the patine, sometimes even if covered by an insurance plan...

As Canadians, we should be addressing healthcare at a federal level, and demanding a better plan for all Canadians, regardless of income, becuase that was the ideal in the 1960s, and the fallout of the initial efforts from that movement have caused quite a mess, in every province.  It seems to me that it is th sam old argument of, "oh, that is provincial domain....no, I think it is a fedreal issue... and over a hundred years later... nothing is resolved"

We need to work together and lobby at the Federal level, and denad changes in healthcar that reflect ideology of the 1960s, if we believe in Universal healthcare for all.

In my previous posts, my intent wa to emphasize a person's rights to direct his/her care within a terminal illness situation.  The term euthanasia that I understand, and that Isuspect chemgal is using, is not in any way related to Nazi techniques.  And to be clear, Nazi scientists took experimentation to an extreme, becase ethnic cleansing and abhorrent experimentaion, and human slaughter took pace during WW2.  That is all proven with physical evidence and survivor witness testimony.  The damage and desecration is incomprehensible to this day.

In this thread the term euthanasia is not in anyway related to MD decision -making; nor is it related to eugenics, which historically was not created by Nazi experimentation.  In the nineteenth and early twetienth centuries, US, UK, Germany, and a number of other European countries were intereseted in this "science" and there were three major conferences held in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York, and the a number of scientists in various fields (including genetics), government officials and politicians involved were, sadly, not just Nazi Germans.

The difficulty with this discussion is using the term euthanasia or legally-assisted suicide.  The term euthanasia, in context of being self directed by one who has a debillitating, terminal illness that ends in agonizing ways,  or knowing that when that person, who has all documentation in place, and a caring group (which may include doctors, and other medical practitioners), has a medically assisted passing, and those in the care group may face criminal charges for assisting suicide.  How do we fix this?

My perspective is that as long as we (as a society and government) avoid the discussions (the serious and meaningful discussions) NOBODY's rights exist or matter.

There exists an overlap.

Consent is iffy, no matter what the topic. We do not normally say "because of this, you cannot consent to what happens to your own body".

Someone can consent to sex and mean yes to "this" and no to "that". They can think the relationship is something it is not. They can be caught up in emotion. The decision to have an abortion can be about finances, emotions, the status of a relationship...Again, the law does not usually say "you cannot consent to what happens to your body".

Values can play into it. Religious views can play into it. (Whether it is abortion, blood products, withdrawl of life-support)
 

The law does not tend to say "these values/religious views are the only ones that matter".

End of life decisions, any and all, can be based on the above, as well as emotion. There can be an element of depression with many illnesses or even aging. It can be based on finances or care, not wanting to be a "burden". 

A person can be medically advised to have a treatment and the decision is theirs. A person can be told not to do ___ and, again, the decision is theirs. People refuse chemo and radiation every day. People also have unadvised pregnancies and keep drinking, smoking, eating sweets....

Our beliefs, values, emotions, finanaces... can and do influence our decisions on end of life decisions as well as living decisions....whether it be dialysis, blood products, chemotherapy.... have a DNR, a written advance health directive, hospice.pallative care.... as well as thoughts on euthanasia (unassisted or assisted, passive or active)

Again, the law does not tend to say, "you are sad about your cancer and thus we are focring chemo on you" or "your finances have you not seeking treatment and we insist"
Likewise, the law does not tend to say, "chances are- a kidney will not be available in time and so we are not doing dialysis" or "you can afford this treatment, so you are getting it"
 

The law normally says that if you are competent to make such decisions and consent then it is your decision.

What should be covered by insurance?

We can debate that until the cows come home. Some will get real off the rails, too....(ie saying smokers should lose all health care or that penile enlargement should be covered)

What will be covered is what we think should be and what we will support (votes and funds)

The difference between you and I, then,kaythecurler,  would be that I believe every life is worth saving.

Rich blessings.

Sure is a good thing that we can agree to have different opinions without being rude to each other.  When my disease has progressed to a stage where I have no enjoyable activities left - then quit wasting money on maintaining my body. I'm thankful for the medical knowledge that has kept me functioning so far, it isn't many years ago that I would have been dead before the age of forty.  Heck - I would have died having my first child without medical intervention!

there are, of course, nuances to that position of yours, right?

like you wouldn't spend a trillion dollars just to save one human life (intentional exaggeration here)?

or if the person had fatal rabies and was locked in a room with uninfected?

or you wouldn't give up everything you have right now and give it to that homelss person?
 

the difference between, of course, belief and practice...one can still believe that every life is precious and still encounter situations when one ends it...

(which, of course, kaythecurler could still believe as you do...and still believe that money shouldn't be wasted on her in certain situations and those two statements wouldn't contradict each other...)

of course, if something like panpsychism is true, then everything is alive, so you're murdering that potato chip...;3

It struck me when MC Jae said he wanted gender reassignment surgery delisted and that he thought "every life is worth saving".

I am not sure how he reconciles the two.

I could talk to him about doctors deciding it is necessary. I could talk about suicide rates. About not "passing" without medical intervention, which often MUST include surgery (ie masectomy) and not "passing" leading to assault and even death. I could talk about people who resort to black market operations and medications off the street, human beings who resort to self-castration or penectomy. I could talk about people resorting to prostitution to make surgery even an option.

I could talk to him about it,  but I won't. I do not think he would care. He might pretend he did for a while.

It would be a waste of time.

For anyone else reading, they might take time to think, to care, to be compassionate, to simply let doctors make medical decisions and allow doctors to tell the government what is medically neccessary and what is not, what is cosmetic and what is not....

InannaWhimsey, I  didn't say every human life is worth saving directly by me. I don't have the funds to save every human life. I wish I did. I was talking about saving by government, saving through health coverage. Of which, of course, we all play a role through paying taxes.

I believe that all of those lives are worth saving.

Rich blessings.

What should medicare cover? 

I believe that it should cover office calls to doctor or clinic; ambulances, hospital care (whether emergency, outpatient, or inpatient).  It should cover diagnostic tests, and monitoring.  It should cover basic dental, vision and hearing, including perscriptions - drugs, medicines, supplements, eye glasses (but not designer frames), hearing aids.  The decision should be madee by the medical profession, not the lawyers or politicians.   If my doctor says that I need a perscription it should be covered.  If my dentist says that only a root canal can save my tooth, then It should be covered.  If my optomitrist says that I need my perscription for glasses changed, then it should be covered.   Basics, like wheelchairs, or this baby's formula would probably fall under this umbrella as well.

I think that health care is a basic human right. 

How do we pay for it?  Taxes.   Make it a priority.  Decide that a country as wealthy as Canadaa can andd should provide health care for all its citizens.  Put that at or near the top of the list of where the government spends its money.  And raise taxes if necessary.   Free up the money people are now paying for private, for profit, health insurance by making it unnecessary (except for luxuries likee private rooms, cosmetic surgery, etc.)

And do more preventive and early intervention work, as well as encouraging and helping families to take care of their own, to cut down on health care costs. 

Euthanasia?   That's a whole different question? 

Could I pass on a joke about now?

An old guy is laying in a hospital bed, tubes and IVs all around.  Obviously he is in a bad way.  Hee tells the nurse, "My grandchildren were in to see me today.  My, they've changed.  One time I just thought they were after my money.  Now they are interested in world affairs.  They kept asking me how I felt about youth in Asia."

Euthanasia is something I've been thinking about quite a bit lately.  Not for the near future, but somewhere down the road.  I've talked to a clergyman.  I'm waiting for an appointment to do 'advance planning' with my doctor.   I don't want to die a 'long slow death from Parkinsons'.   When the time comes when I am no longer able to make decisions for myself, these are my wishes:

No tube feeding - if I can no longer swallow, don't put a tube into my stomach and pour nourishment in.  No more meals; no refreshing cup of tea; nothing by mouth, not even ice cream.   I don't want it.

DNR - don't bring me back if I have a heart attach, or stop breathing.  Let me go, an easy death.

If I develop cancer - no surgery, no chemo or radiation like my daughter went through.  She was young.  She had a life, and children depending upon her.  I've lived my 3 score and ten.  Let me go.

Take care of me.  Feed me, help me, change my diaper (if it comes to that), visit me, read to me when I can't read myself, sing to me, take me for drives, take me to church. 

Give me medication to keep me comfortable and free of pain.  And if that medication has to be increased to a lethal dose, so be it. 

If this means that I will not spend months, or years, lying in a hospital bed, using up expensive medical resources then it is an added bonus.

Euthanasia to me means not forcing a person to live when quality of life is gone.