Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm, Mayor of Chicago) is one of the moving forces and intellectual leaders whose efforts culminated in the recent Affordable Health Care Act. He has come out directly and stated he thinks it would be ideal if he dies at age 75. That got my attention! While he says he is not advocating this for anyone else, I’m thinking … of course you would not come out and advocate this for obvious reasons.
While I can’t find any evidence yet to support it, I think it’s reasonable to ask if that philosophy is thus embedded somewhere in the law? I hope not. But this guy is charmingly chilling in his prescriptions and gives me the creeps.
What do Villagers think of the idea of his idea dying at age 75? I’m curious to see peoples’ reaction to Dr. Emanuel’s” enlightened” views, particular since his fingerprints are all over the new law, and probably in ways we don’t even yet know about.
Ps Here’s a direct quote that I thought was particularly interesting from Dr. Emanuel
“This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.
What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.”
Here’s a link to the full article:
Why I Hope to Die at 75 - The Atlantic
While I can’t find any evidence yet to support it, I think it’s reasonable to ask if that philosophy is thus embedded somewhere in the law? I hope not. But this guy is charmingly chilling in his prescriptions and gives me the creeps.
What do Villagers think of the idea of his idea dying at age 75? I’m curious to see peoples’ reaction to Dr. Emanuel’s” enlightened” views, particular since his fingerprints are all over the new law, and probably in ways we don’t even yet know about.
Ps Here’s a direct quote that I thought was particularly interesting from Dr. Emanuel
“This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.
What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs. A big challenge is antibiotics for pneumonia or skin and urinary infections. Antibiotics are cheap and largely effective in curing infections. It is really hard for us to say no. Indeed, even people who are sure they don’t want life-extending treatments find it hard to refuse antibiotics. But, as Osler reminds us, unlike the decays associated with chronic conditions, death from these infections is quick and relatively painless. So, no to antibiotics.”
Here’s a link to the full article:
Why I Hope to Die at 75 - The Atlantic