The Culture of Death: The Assault on the elderly

large group we wont take it any moreThe Culture of Death: The Assault on the elderly.( History books will read that Lincoln freed the slaves and Obama enslaved the free.)

From Obamacare, and Death Panels by ray harvey

When it is the government, rather than private individuals through the open market, deciding what is or isn’t “unnecessary care,” and deciding what care to get “rid of,” then that by definition is government rationing. Government acts by compulsion. If government decides what is “necessary,” and grandma’s hip-replacement surgery is deemed “unnecessary” even if grandma wants the surgery, then grandma’s care has been rationed by the power of the state — no matter what words you use to describe it.

Here is what Barack Obama told the New York Times regarding his desire to control your health:  “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here. [Therefore] I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”

It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And Obama also said “that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance”.

**Keep in mind that this unspeakable injustice would all be avoided if your inalienable right to your own life — and only your own life — were recognized as it should be.

In response to that despicable ideology, no less than Nat Hentoff — a civil libertarian about as far to the left as the socialist Noam Chomsky — wrote the following: “I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. *But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to “Dr. Obama,” particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington,  Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that “allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination.” (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals — “the complete lives system.” 1996, he wrote that ***”services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Rationing is a basic part of Obama’s eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a “very difficult democratic conversation” about how “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care” costs.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Chief Heathcare Advisor to Obama and brother of Rahm Emanuel said.”Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change. Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.”

(comments) Here is what will happen first:

“…I’m sorry sir…we cannot schedule that appointment for you in November 2010 to have that melanoma removed because you have not undergone your mandatory annual counseling after age 65…oh, of course you are right. I know you are only 62, but they did move the age down again this year…we have an opening in three months with the counselors office…would you like that?”

This is fully expected, but It will not be the people you will be FORCED to talk to in order to receive your care, nor the intentional delays in care that will be the most insidiously evil facets of this. It will be the conversations like this one below that will become commonplace that ONLY BEGIN to illustrate what it is all about:

“…Hi Jan, how are you?  I heard your father is resisting counseling. It must be difficult, I know. There just seems to be so much of that lately. I know I am only 40 years old, but I don’t understand why people like your father are so opposed to this.

I went with my mother to her counseling session, and while she was angry because she was supposed to have another five years before she had to go but they moved the age down again, she went anyway. I thought she was really rude to the counseling agent, who was just a young woman only doing her job. Hm.

Someone told me they are only hiring young women as counselors now, because the men who were doing it just got angry too easily and shouted at people to just “sign the damned papers”. Hm. I tried to tell my mom why they have to do this, but she said they do it just to get rid of old people to save money.

The counseling agent gave my mom a copy of the book “Death is Joy”. I read it, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, when I was going to school, we didn’t have to read it, but now they have required classes they take every year beginning in first grade.

Suzie is in third grade and is taking the course this year that deals with the chapter on keeping birth rates down, and Tommy is in his senior year where they cover the financial aspects of care for the elderly. He was so excited, he said that since they have implemented this national care program, the number of elderly people has dropped dramatically, so they can spend more money on programs such as monthly equality checks for the economically disadvantaged and reparations for the descendants of slaves. I think it is wonderful.

He asked me why so many elderly people are so selfish and refuse to accept counseling…I didn’t really have an answer for him. Hm. Now, don’t be defensive, I am not criticizing your parents.I am just saying, it is a problem.

They had an hour-long program on PBS about this the other night, and they were saying how the people who are being selfish about this and refusing to take advantage of early exit programs that pay cash to their children are being so self-centered because they grew up in a time where everyone was self-centered and were interested only in money. You know, they showed films from the days of the capitalists where there were people who had what they called ‘gas-guzzlers”, and they used to make so much more money than they needed to live comfortably, so many people were going without health care because they were taking all the money…”

Then, just wait until they pass legislation for a “Death Benefit” that will be paid to the families of elderly people. That will be the icing on the cake. It will be presented as a compassionate gesture to help the families with their grief, and will put at ease those people slated for “end of life” counseling. I can see the conversation on this as well:

COUNSELOR:  Thank you for coming in today, sir. Now, let’s see…you have high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis but more importantly, positive genetic tags for vascular/heart disease, Alzheimer’s, matricular degeneration and three types of cancer, prostate, esophageal and colon. Prostate and colon are very high. We see one of these two expressing itself in the next three years.

MEEr…really?

COUNSELOR:  Yes. This is all very scientifically based, and the results are incontrovertible. There is no mistake.

ME:  Ahhh…could I speak to a doctor about this?

COUNSELOR: I am afraid not, sir. The rules are physicians are for direct care only,   and nothing else. Federal Statue HCR23.1771-b mandates that I communicate this information to you, and inform you of the various options.

ME: But you don’t know anything about medicine! You are a clerk, nothing more! How can I discuss this issue with you?

COUNSELOR: Sir, I have taken all the courses coming through High School, and attended the Life Counseling University courses offered by the government   I graduated in the top half of my class. I do understand the issues here.

MEBut…but…

COUNSELORLook, sir. You are getting old, and are soon going to be a burden on society. You don’t have cancer right now, and can still think and get around, but for how long? You need to think about your children and their children. We offer a special financial compensation package that will help them bear the grief of your passing, to be paid out upon your death. With your approval, we emailed them an official forms packet before this meeting.

ME:  I approved that?

COUNSELOR  Well, yes sir. The electronic copy is right here with your  signature (TURNS SCREEN TO FACE ME).

ME:  I never signed that!

COUNSELOR: Sir, didn’t you read the codocil that was automatically added at the bottom of your government supplied Will and Last Testament session that we finished up your first End of Life session you had with us last year?

You did click the button that said “I approve all the changes” and you did use your voice authentication to say “I do approve”.

ME:  What! What is going on here? I…

COUNSELOR: Your two sons and your daughter who came in with you today have been in communication with our department on this.

(Smiles) I think it is great that the government approves time-off pay for employees to attend these End of Life meetings for their parents. I’ll call them in…

ME:  Hey!  I am not finished discus…

(DOOR OPENS, CHILDREN ENTER)

SON 1: Dad, I am so glad you signed up for the Early Exit Death Benefit. I was really behind on my tax payments for last year, and that will put me over the top…

ME:  You…what?

SON 2:Yeah, dad. Billy is graduating from high school, and we want to send him to a quality college, but we could never afford it. But now we might…thanks to you.

Daughter: Oh, Daddy (tears in her eyes) I know none of us live forever, and I will miss you so much, but this money will allow me to pay th license fees to the government so I can open my dream business! Without you…

ME: HEY! WTF is going on here? I am not “ready to die”, I feel pretty good, I could live for another twenty years! I didn’t sign that damned thing, they just threw all this stuff in front of me! This is effing stupid! (TURNS TO COUNSELOR) Look, I don’t know what kind of crap you set in motion, but undo it. I didn’t sign up for this.

COUNSELOR: (PRIGGISH, TIGHT LIPPED LOOK ON HIS FACE) Sir…you have already been scheduled for next year, and your family has been paid that benefit in advance as the law allows. We cannot undo it. See the text that you signed (TURNS SCREEN) states explicitly that this if final and cannot be remanded…

ME: (SMASHES SREEN WITH HAND) LOOK! I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS IF YOU HAVE TO BURROW THROUGH THE WIRES BACK TO THE CENTRAL COMPUTER SYSTEM YOURSELF, USING YOUR SLIMEY PENCIL NECK AS A LEG TO DO IT SO YOU CAN UNDO THIS ROYAL F*CKUP ON YOUR PART…

COUNSELOR: (HAND CUPPED OVER SPEAKER, EYES ON ME, WHISPERING) We have a 22-22 in here…get in here right away… DAUGHTER: (WAILS) How could you be so selfish?

SON 1:Great. I might as well go down to the Tax Police right now to get fitted for the volunteer industry uniform…How am I going to tell Billy he can’t go to the Barack Obama University? How?

DOOR OPENS, BURLY UNION GUYS IN BLACK COVERALLS RUN UP TO ME AND TASE ME. ALL GOES BLACK

Emanuel has said installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change. Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.”

Democrats are generally slow on the uptake as they have been taught in their leftist schools to not use their minds and eyes and ears but rather to trust their loving government. One has but to study history to see the error of such blind trust in mankind as governments throughout history have murdered more innocent people than any given human institution.

The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,

The American people—thanks to Hillary Clinton—now have a more complex understanding of how, by design, universal healthcare puts into place the foundation of regulations that will allow government to control not only the lives of the people, but their mobility as well. Universal healthcare provides government with the platform that will surreptitiously allow them to, ever so slowly, steal the liberty of the People under the guise of taking care of them.

A large faction of American people still dislike Clinton because, as First Lady with no constitutional authority to engage in the legislative process, she formed a healthcare task force out of the public eye and created the most without change or comment. Her plan, created with the assistance of Bill Clinton’s chief healthcare architect, Ira Magaziner, did far more than create a healthcare bill. Obamacare is Hillarycare with a few minor tweaks. Both, by the way, contained provisions for a federal Health Board whose job it would be to limit the government’s liability by rationing healthcare to those with terminal or catastrophic chronic illnesses for which there is no cure. Actuarially, old age is one of those catastrophic chronic illnesses since old age always results in death. Hillarycare also included a biometric national ID card that was disguised as a healthcare card. That same card will be included in any healthcare system enacted by Congress—including the healthcare co-ops if that becomes Congress’ only option to get government’s foot in the door.

Mary Therese Helmueller  an RN from Minneapolis authored an article in the Catholic magazine, Homiletic, in 1998. In the article she noted that while she was visiting in Mexico City in February of that year, her grandmother was admitted to a local hospital with a fracture above her left knee. According to the hospital records she personally examined upon her return, her grandmother was alert and oriented upon admission. But, the report added, she became unresponsive after 48 hours, went into a coma. She was transferred to a hospice two days later. Carefully tracing the events that led up to her grandmother’s coma, Helmueller discovered that her grandmother became unresponsive after each pain medication.

She was diagnosed as having a stroke and being in renal failure. Helmueller‘s grandmother died shortly after her arrival at the hospice. The hospital charts were normal. The CATscan was negative for stroke or obstruction. The EEG indicated no seizure activity. All the blood work was normal. She was not in renal failure. The only anomaly Helmueller found was the overmedication of her grandmother. She also noticed her grandmother was listed as a “No Code” patient.

Helmueller insists her grandmother had no terminal illnesses. Nevertheless, the hospice’s admitting records reveal that two doctors stated that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. The first doctor, the director of the hospice, never examined or evaluated her. Nor did he even read her chart. The second doctor was on vacation when she was admitted. He did not return until three days after her death. Yet, in their expert medical opinion, she was terminal when she arrived at the hospice.

The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,

(Hospices, for those who don’t know, are transitional care facilities. Those who are suffering either from terminal illnesses or progressive debilitating chronic illnesses are usually transferred to TC facilities which are generally referred to as “exit treatment” facilities—referring to an exit from life. Hospice patients usually arrive by ambulance and leave by hearse.)

No one better understood what was going on at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida than the pro-life disability rights groups like Not Dead Yet that showed up to stand, in solidarity, with Terri Schiavo and the Schindler family during Terri‘s deathwatch. Like thre rest of America, they have been watching the alarming growth of medical euthanasia over the past decade, and they find it troublesome that our courts are legalizing euthanasia by judicial fiat. While the catastrophic impaired—particularly when they are aged and infirmed—now have a court-protected right to die— with or without a Living Will, they no longer possess an unquestionable right to live. Not Dead Yet recently asked Congress to pass a law requiring federal courts to review all cases where the end-of-life wishes of the impaired person are not in writing and where family members disagree on end-of-life decisions.

Even if such a law were written, the courts can be expected to weigh in favor of those family members opting for euthanasia.

The federal government is increasingly faced with a catastrophic dilemma as America grays. Too many people living too long is now creating an unfathomable burden on the U.S. Treasury that the US government and the taxpayerscannot afford.

The American Court system is increasingly embracing the argument that beneficence prevents unnecessary suffering for the individual and saves the family—or the State—from bearing what could become a crushing financial obligation if the patient lingers too long. Beneficence—a selfless act designed to spare the loved ones of the patient from both physical and financial anguish—right-to-die advocates argue, justifies euthanasia. Even with the best palliative care there will always be patients for whom there will be no relief from suffering since there are no pain killers strong enough to dull the pain they endure daily. Right-to-die advocates maintain that since many of these people can’t even find temporary relief from the intractable pain that is an inescapable part of their lives, terminally ill or chronically ill patients should have an option that will allow them to escape the pain and misery that blankets their minds like a death shroud and makes them wonder, from day-to-day or hour-to-hour, what is the point of their continued existence.

While euthanasia may rightly be construed as an act of mercy for a handful of people in a handful of instances nationwide, the American people need to very carefully consider what they wish for when they demand the passage of “right-to-die” legislation since the Living Will does not give those signing them more control over their fate. It provides legal cover for its beneficiary—the medical care facility—who has been given the power to take your life.

The Living Will does not promote well-being—except perhaps for the “well-being” of the coffers of the government. Medicare, which foots the bill for medical care for the aged, is facing the same types of shortfalls as Social Security—a rapidly shrinking tax base as more and more members of grey America becomes eligible for benefits. The question lurking in the back of the mind of government is: at what point can Uncle Sam no longer afford to care for chronically ill patients? At what point does voluntary euthanasia, requested through a Living Will, become mandatory euthanasia?

If we accept the logic that it is morally defensible to demand that we be allowed to die to alleviate our own needless suffering from a chronic or terminal illness or injury that will ultimately result in our dying, then how can we reject the notion that government is not morally justified in establishing a mandatory criteria for doctors to follow in cases where patients are construed to be terminal? Or, where elderly patients are admitted with chronic medical problems that simply drain the system without any hope of the patient’s health improving?

The moral argument is a two-headed dragon. You can’t argue for the right of people to be allowed to end their own lives by rejecting extraneous measures to keep them alive and, in the same breath, reject the right of government to arbitrarily decide to end lives judged to be not worth living, or which are too much of a drain on the healthcare system to pay for the care needed to assure your survival..

Hollywood actor-director Mel Gibson, who had been in constant contact with the Schindler family through most of their 13-day ordeal, told Sean Hannity on Fox News that what was happening in Pinellas Park, Florida was a modern-day crucifixion with a pro-death agenda driving it. “It’s just completely wrong to deprive this poor woman of food and water,” he said. “It’s a prolonged and cruel execution. What happened to just being a human being, you know? It’s nothing more than State-sanctioned murder. All the big guys—they all have their hands tied up by some tinhorn judge down there. Come on. When they want to whip a judge, they got no problem doing it. Look what they did to [Judge] Roy Moore. So they can do it if they want. They just didn’t want to. It’s a precedent that they set.

We may be able to save a few Social Security dollars later on down the track simply by pulling the plug on the infirmed, or the disabled, or the aged. It’s the inevitability of gradualism. There is an agenda, and people say, ‘Well, they can’t all be in it together,’ but there’s no other way to explain this behavior.”

 

Tom Delay warned the State and federal judges that Congress ”…will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.” Delay added that he “…never thought [he’d] see the day when a US judge stopped feeding a living American so that they took 14 days to die.”

After the Schiavo incident was televised almost nonstop for 13 days on satellite TV, the Euthanasia Society distributed over 60 thousand living wills. The only one I know of that amended a Living Will to protect her from premature euthanasia was Michael Schiavo’s common law wife, Jodi Centonze—who suffers from nacrolepsy. Centonze amended her own Living Will to include a precaution about euthanizing her during a deathlike nacroleptic trance that resembles an irreversible coma. “I love Michael,” Centonze told the media, “and if/when we are married, I want a clear and lucid stipulation between a ‘vegetative state’ and ‘really, really tired.'” Centonze has made every effort to get her narcolepsy “on the record” so that, in the event she dropped into a narcoleptic sleep her husband would not be able to “litigate” her slumber. Knowing Schiavo’s penchant for discarding infirmed spouses, I guess she doesn’t want to be the next Fox News euthanasia special.

When the Netherlands enacted an euthanasia law on November 28, 2000, Pope John Paul condemned the law which violated the Geneva Accord of 1948. A Vatican spokesman said, “Again we find ourselves face to face with a state law that violates natural law and individual conscience…[that is] a grave problem of professional ethics for the doctors who must put it into practice.” Under the Dutch law, patients are able to make a written request for euthanasia, giving their doctors the right to use their own discretion when patients become too physically or mentally ill to make rational decisions on their own. Last year in the Netherlands there were over 2,500 physician assisted suicides. How many of them, I wonder, actually wanted to go through with it at the time their doctor arbitrarily acted upon their request?

In one case a man—a Catholic—who had been estranged from his family for quite some time developed terminal cancer. His doctor estimated he would die within a year or so. Knowing the pain he was going to face down the road, he signed a consent form. Shortly thereafter, he reconciled with his family. As the family reunification progressed, he began experiencing some new pain that was not alleviated by his current pain medication. His wife called the nurse who, in turn, relayed the wife’s message to the doctor.** Instead of asking the patient to go to his office, the doctor went to his home. The physician gave his patient an injection. The patient gasped and died. The wife screamed that she had not asked the doctor to kill her husband—who had not yet reconciled with God. Neither she nor her husband realized that the release he signed trumped his current desires. He gave his doctor the right to determine when he should die and the doctor exercised that option when his patient’s condition worsened.

Those who favor assisted suicide or euthanasia do so in the mistaken belief that being transited will assure them of a dignified and comfortable death.

There is no such thing. Death is never dignified. Nor is death a comfortable experience. What they are really saying is that most people fear suffering a painful death far more than they fear dying.

However, those who favor assisted death have not prudently weighed the pitfalls inherent with giving either a physician or a government board unprecedented power over their life or the lives of their loved ones. They assume because they live in a democracy that is governed by the rule of law, that government—which plays God with our lives anyway—will, for some strange and unfathomable reason, not abuse the power of life and death. Even without a national law authorizing the use of euthanasia to “protect the well-being” of the terminally-ill, there is already a killing field in every hospital in America. It’s called the “Transitional Care Unit.” That’s where “No Code” patients are taken to await death.

They may be terminally-ill, chronically-ill or simply too old and too much of a drain on Medicare for anyone to care. The most serious health hazard for many seniors when they are hospitalized today is simply their age. When you are old enough, age by itself is a terminal illness. Anything that can cause your death within six months of diagnosis at any age may be termed a “terminal illness.” Diabetes. High blood pressure. Heart disease. According to the yardstick applied by Judge Greer, if you have any of those chronic medical problems, you could be classified as having a terminal illness and denied medical treatment or even food and water.

 For some unexplained logic, medical caregivers honestly believe that their use of euthanasia—the intentional oversedation of patients or overdosing them with morphine or other painkillers—is the most common and humane method used to spare the family. The death certificates likely read “death by natural causes” or perhaps “death from complications of…” whatever chronic illness the patient suffers.

Today every hospital and healthcare facility is required to ask patients if they have a Living Will. Healthcare agencies risk losing federal funding if they do not ask. When an aged patient does not have a living will, hospitals are required to attempt to get them to sign a “do not resuscitate” form—so their “exit care wishes” will be respected. A sales pitch—given to the elderly—in the form of a horror story about a parent’s endtime medical bills destroying the finances of their children accompanies the form the patient has been asked to sign. The children of the elderly patient are generally told that Medicare and Medicaid will not pay for any extraordinary efforts to keep their terminal or chronically-ill parents alive. If extraordinary lifesaving procedures are requested, family members are told they, not Medicare, will be forced to bear the cost. The Living Will has been “packaged” as part of every hospital or hospice patient’s “bill of rights.” In realty, it’s a death warrant—your’s. Most people believe a Living Will places them in charge of their life—and their death. It does not. It removes choice from their hands and places it in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to cut costs—regardless of the cost.

For example, a 70-year old man who had previously signed a Living Will suddenly found himself admitted as an inpatient through the emergency room of his local hospital. He was suffering from respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator. As he struggled to breathe, he learned that his family was discussing removing him from the ventilator since, they were told, Medicare would not pay for the treatment and the most humane thing they could do for him was to let him go.

Unable to speak but very cognizant, the man scribbled notes to the nurses, saying “Don’t take me off this machineI changed my mind! I want to live!” The family, however, agreed with the doctor who felt it was stupid to waste their inheritance on hospital bills for a man whose condition was terminal. He was removed from the ventilator. Because he signed a Living Will, he was viewed as incapable of making a rational decision to recant the legal document he had previously signed in a more “lucid” moment. His wishes, as stated in the Living Will, prevailed. A man who was not terminal became terminal. He died.

 

In 1990, the American Medical Association adopted the position that physicians, with informed consent, could withhold or withdraw treatment from patients who were close to death. That “position” was pushed by the managed healthcare systems that were footing the bill for what that industry called “wasted treatments” on people who could not be rehabilitated.

Urged to do so by the HMO lobby, the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act that forced hospitals to tell patients [a] they had a right to either demand or reject treatments, and [b] it required all medical care facilities to ask if the patient had a Living Will—and to urge those without them to sign one. In 1993

Bill and Hillary Clinton went on the Living Will offensive, encouraging States to legalize them and working class people to sign them on the pretext that it was the only way people could protect their rights. By 1994 every State and the District of Columbia have Living Will provisions that allow physicians extreme latitude in dealing with terminal or chronic patients.

What American witnessed taking place in Pinellas Park, Florida between March 18 and March 30, 2005 only appeared to be a battle between Michael Schiavo and the Schindler family. They were simply pawns on the chess board of life. What actually transpired was America’s first naked look at the pure ugliness of State-dictated, court enforced euthanasia. But, strangely, America watched that spectacle through rose-colored glasses. They did not see what they should have seen. They should have realized that the courts denied Terri Schiavo equal protection under the law. Someone should have noticed that Circuit Court Judge George S. Greer sentenced an innocent woman to death. Someone should have noticed, and asked, why Greer denied Terri Schiavo sustenance consumed by swallowing. Instead, the American public—which has been brainwashed into believing that a Living Will is good thing—saw Terri Schiavo as less than human and somehow, less deserving to live

.

Yesterday the victim of forced euthanasia was Terri Schiavo. Who will it be tomorrow? Perhaps it will be…you. Have you signed a Living Will? You did? Yes, tomorrow, it will be you

 by Jon Christian Ryter.
.

Today it does not matter if you have a Living Will or not. Hospital officials in every city in the nation urge thefamily members to “no code” elderly relatives who are being admitted into the nation’s medical care facilities—even if they are diagnosed witnon-terminal chronic illnesses. “No code”denies any form of medical intervention to the patient in the event of an emergency situation like cardiac arrest or some other form of respiratory failure. It is the essential first step in euthanizing a terminal patient. Increasingly, it is used to quietly dispatch chronically-ill patients whose quality of life cannot improve and who have become a financial drain on the Medicare system and on their families.