Debate: Should Bill Clinton speak at President Reagan's Funeral.

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Galahad
I wonder though, if you're looking for some sort of "gotcha". This was a popular one with Dan Quayle. He was pro-life but when asked what he would do if his daughter wanted to get an abortion he talked about how he would support her and love her etc. It was as if he was being inconsistent if he didn't gnash and wrawl and disown her.

And the same type of gotcha question did in Dukakis when some CNN newsreader asked him if a criminal raped and killed Kitty, would he be for the death penalty. He barely knew how to answer.

 

[dmadman43]

So, lemme see if I'm following this. Clinton should speak at Reagan's funeral because Bush is against stem cell research?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
frankly, I think the issue will be more prominent if Nancy speaks at the convention -- and that could be trouble.

No, that would be AWSOME! Along with a tribute to Reagan. How cool would that be??? The Dems would match that with...what? A firery speech from Algore calling for more resignations?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Bravo Peachgirl! Bravo!

yea, it's not like that's never happened before.

Can you say Senator Wellstone's funeral? I thought you could.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
It's always fun to talk about something one knows nothing about.

If you're referring to not knowing Bush's stance on this particular nuance of the issue....

I suppose there's more than one of us discussing something we know nothing about.


If you're referring to being in the position of having to make those choices and follow a loved ones wishes even when they aren't your own...

It's always fun to talk about something one knows nothing about.

wonder though, if you're looking for some sort of "gotcha". QUOTE]

Why is it only possible that conservatives don't have an ulterior motive when discussing issues???

You're missing my point, no doubt due to my inability to get it across effectively, but I'll give it one last try. Supporting a family member's decision or making sure that a family member's wishes are carried out, despite one's personal beliefs is NOT what I'm talking about.

For instance: George Bush is anti-abortion. If his daughter were to get pregnant and choose abortion I have no problem with his continuing to support and love her. No inconsistency at all. For this example, let's pretend Bush is a female. She claimed to be anti-abortion, yet when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, chose abortion....yeah, that would be inconsistent to say the least.

In other words, Bush claims that ALL life is sacred and worth saving. If he chose a living will that requested anything beyond not using extraordinary measures (life support), I'd find his position to be inconsistent.

That's all I'm saying, no ulterior motives at all. Hard to believe coming from what you think is a flaming lib, huh?

 

[Galahad]

In other words, Bush claims that ALL life is sacred and worth saving. If he chose a living will that requested anything beyond not using extraordinary measures (life support), I'd find his position to be inconsistent.

I'm not flaming you, but this make no sense. There is no inconsistency at all. You expect a pro-life person to insist on all possible means of life support at the end of life or they are inconsistent? IF they would object to assisted suicide or intentional "accidental" overdose, etc. that would make sense. But removing life support is not contradictory to holding life a sacred.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
If you're referring to not knowing Bush's stance on this particular nuance of the issue....

I suppose there's more than one of us discussing something we know nothing about.

Excuse me, but I haven't made any assumptions or drawn conclusions about President Bush's beliefs, convictions as they relate to his speaking at former President Reagan's funeral. Maybe you need to re-read this thread.

If you're referring to being in the position of having to make those choices and follow a loved ones wishes even when they aren't your own...

I was not referring to that, even though I've been there, done that. My reference was to your statement that you know nothing about President Bush's stand, but you feel free to bash him on it anyway.

 

[Pyg Me]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Noooooo! Nooooo! Nothing in this country can be non-partisan! Nothing!

I think it's quite ironic that those who praise Reagan to the nth degree are the same individuals who would deny Clinton the right to speak. Hmmm, that's not political play, huh?

And to those who say that Nancy should decide, sure, for the private side of the events, I have no problem with that. But, if we're talking the STATE event, nope, it should be non-partisan and Nancy should not have the only voice in the way it is run.

I think it's also ironic that w is going to speak at the funeral of Reagan. Given w's strong opposition to furthering stem-cell research I would say that it's next to a slap in the face to have him speak.

YOU screaching about nonpartisanship? What a hoot!!

You are a demogogue. You are a idealogue. You would not know nonpartisan if it dropped in your lap.

 

[peachgirl]

You expect a pro-life person to insist on all possible means of life support at the end of life or they are inconsistent?

No, that's not what I said at all.

I said that if he requested anything less be done in the way of treatment other than NOT using extraordinary measures, then the position would be inconsistent.

Is that any clearer?

Just in case it isn't...

I would expect a person who claims to believe that all life is sacred and worth saving would only request a DNR order and that no other extraordinary means be used to extend their lives.
I would expect that no matter what the quality of their life was, they would not request to have treatable illnesses go untreated in order to hasten their death.

 

[Pyg Me]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Dude, do some research on a state funerals before you speak and make yourself look ill-informed.

We know why Clinton may be upset. He's missing out on an opportunity to have his mug in front of the camera. The protocol of a state funeral still dictates that the family decides who is invited and who speaks and the details of the ceremony. Sheesh! This is not a political event for any party to get visibilty.

You forget to mention the the death of the greatest President in the 20th century us ruining President Clinton's book tour.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I don't doubt that President Clinton would say good things, but I don't see what the point would be of having him speak, unless that same honor was going to go to all of the former Presidents, and the question would still be "Why?".

People have gone to see the casket because the family elected to have it publicly displayed so that people could go pay their respects. They could have foregone the public displays, but they obviously realized that many people would want to pay their final respects by passing the bier.

Yes, but don't you just wonder if some of those people parading through are just attending to be able to say that they had been there? I saw a blurb on TV where they showed a lady traipsing through and she was staring at the soldier on guard the whole time. It just seemed a little strange.

 

[Galahad]

I would expect a person who claims to believe that all life is sacred and worth saving would only request a DNR order and that no other extraordinary means be used to extend their lives.

OK, I think I understand what you're saying. But I would think there is a whole spectrum of options that would not contradict a person's stance that life is sacred. If the prognosis is 50/50 they might try a number of things before giving up and removing treatment, for example, yet another might choose to remove treatment sooner.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I would expect a person who claims to believe that all life is sacred and worth saving would only request a DNR order and that no other extraordinary means be used to extend their lives.
I would expect that no matter what the quality of their life was, they would not request to have treatable illnesses go untreated in order to hasten their death.

The last sentence I understand. It's the 1st one that has me confused. By this logic, I would expect sentence 1 to read:

I would expect a person who claims to believe that all life is sacred and worth saving would only request a DNR order and that other extraordinary means be used to extend their lives.

The part of using NO other extraordinary means has me confused on this.

Personally, I believe all life is sacred and worth saving. Just as an aside, my HPOA states the following: "I want to have life-support treatment if my doctor and another health care professional agree it could help my condition. I want my doctor to stop any life-support treatment if he/she and another health care professional agree it is not helping my health condition or symptoms."

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Pyg Me
YOU screaching about nonpartisanship? What a hoot!!

You are a demogogue. You are a idealogue. You would not know nonpartisan if it dropped in your lap.

First, there was much sarcasm in my post.

Second, I take back what I said about the funeral. I believe AFR is correct in that it should be left to the family. I still seriously doubt the credibility of the article posted by the OP but that's another story.

Third, demagogue? Look up the word.

Finally, ideologue? Yeah. Sure. Again, as one of your brilliant followers phrases it, "Kettle, you're black!"

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Yes, but don't you just wonder if some of those people parading through are just attending to be able to say that they had been there? I saw a blurb on TV where they showed a lady traipsing through and she was staring at the soldier on guard the whole time. It just seemed a little strange.

I would love to have been able to travel to either CA or Washington, DC this week to be one of "those" people parading through the library or Capitol Rotunda. I would love to be able in the future to say "I was there." To me, this is an ultimate show of respect for Mr. Reagan.

As for the TV coverage I've seen, I think it's a little hard to tell exactly what the people are looking at. But then my eyes are not all that good to begin with...

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Pyg Me
You are a demogogue. You are a idealogue. You would not know nonpartisan if it dropped in your lap.

Pyg Me, I think you are crossing the line from civility to personal attack. It's this type of post that got the DB shut down.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by peachgirl
No, that's not what I said at all.

I said that if he requested anything less be done in the way of treatment other than NOT using extraordinary measures, then the position would be inconsistent.

Is that any clearer?

Just in case it isn't...

I would expect a person who claims to believe that all life is sacred and worth saving would only request a DNR order and that no other extraordinary means be used to extend their lives.
I would expect that no matter what the quality of their life was, they would not request to have treatable illnesses go untreated in order to hasten their death.

You continue to debate matters to which you have no understanding. DNR issues are more complex than most people realize. There are legal and moral issues dealing with terminally ill patients that you can not simplify by describing it as "taking extraordinary means to extend lives". DNR does not mean life support. All a DNR refers to is resuscitation. Once a peron is on life support, it is against the law for a hospital to remove it, no matter what the patient's wishes were.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by gometros
You continue to debate matters to which you have no understanding. DNR issues are more complex than most people realize. There are legal and moral issues dealing with terminally ill patients that you can not simplify by describing it as "taking extraordinary means to extend lives". DNR does not mean life support. All a DNR refers to is resuscitation. Once a peron is on life support, it is against the law for a hospital to remove it, no matter what the patient's wishes were.

Just to clarify further. There are many diseases that are treatable, yet the viability of a quality of life is virtually non-existent. Certain staph infections (Staphalacaucus Aurea for example) are terminal, but the patient's life can be sustained with with agressive drug treatment. However, it is perfectly legal for a patient's advocate (as determined by a health care proxy) to request that the treatment be withheld.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by gometros
Once a peron is on life support, it is against the law for a hospital to remove it, no matter what the patient's wishes were.

This is untrue. Often patients will enter emergency care and the health care team will have no knowledge of a DNR, DNI, living will, or other advance directive for the patient. At times, life support is began.

When the advance directive comes to light, life support can easily be withdrawn.

And, BTW, hospitals and other health care professionals are not bound to provide any treatment or services that are deemed to be of no significant value to the betterment of the patient.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
The last sentence I understand. It's the 1st one that has me confused. By this logic, I would expect sentence 1 to read:

I would expect a person who claims to believe that all life is sacred and worth saving would only request a DNR order and that other extraordinary means be used to extend their lives.

The part of using NO other extraordinary means has me confused on this.

I believe a person can hold all life sacred and worth saving, yet not want "extraordinary measures" performed in order to prolong their lives when the underlying condition is terminal and in the later, more severe stages.

Perhaps we aren't on the same page as to what we define as extraordinary measures. To me, that includes artificial means of support such as ventilators. It wouldn't include antibiotics or any medications to treat a curable condition even though the underlying condition was terminal.