The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- Jacob M. Appel: The Ultimate Prescription: Make Us Decide How We Want To Die
- NKorea Seizes SKorean Fishing Boat
- David Wild: "Police On My Back": My Playlist For Today's "Teachable Moment" at the White House
- Robin Sax: "Shades of Gray": The Real Story Behind My Resignation from the L.A. County DA's Office
| Jacob M. Appel: The Ultimate Prescription: Make Us Decide How We Want To Die | Top |
| At a recent AARP tele-town hall on healthcare, President Obama fielded a provocative question from a North Carolinian caller named Mary. Mary asked the President whether proposed reform legislation would include a requirement that every person of Medicare age "be visited and told to decide how they wish to die" and she asked the President to promise her that such a provision would not be in the final healthcare measure. Mary was likely referring to Section 1232 of one draft of a House of Representatives bill that would reimburse physicians for discussing advance directives and end-of-life options with senior citizens, if they so choose. In response, the President correctly informed her that no one is seriously considering any law that would force elderly Americans, or anybody else, to decide how they want to die. Despite the claims of some opponents of insurance reform that this draft legislation will force people to meet with their physicians to consider end-of-life matters, none of the health plans proposed by the President or being considered by Congress do anything of the sort. But they should. How a person decides to die is among the most personal choices any human being will ever make. Some terminally ill patients will wish for the healthcare system to expend every available dollar on prolonging their lives, all the way to the point of imminent medical futility. Others will forgo heroic and extreme measures, preferring to let nature take its course. A third group of individuals--and I am among these--would like to survive only until we can no longer communicate meaningfully and lucidly with our loved ones; then, we want our healthcare providers to terminate our lives with as much speed and as little pain as possible. In an enlightened society, each of these wishes would be honored. However, while all Americans should have a right to decide how they want their lives to end, it does not follow that they should be able to avoid confronting such a choice. The unfortunate reality is that death does come to us all--whether or not we bother to think about it. Considering the enormous costs of end-of-life interventions, both emotional and economic, society has every right to expect its members to make clear in advance their wishes regarding such care. Providing all available care as a default, in the absence of an advance directive, makes no more sense than making early termination the default. If all people had to choose in advance, of course, no default would be necessary. Vast sums of health care dollars are spent on hospitalized patients with no chance of recovery, many of whom have little prospect for regaining consciousness. Some of these individuals, for religious or philosophical reasons, would have wished to be kept alive under these circumstances. Honoring such requests, barring extraordinary circumstances, is a reasonable choice in a diverse and tolerant nation. On the other hand, many of these unfortunate individuals would not have wanted to be maintained in such a state. Regrettably, having failed to complete an advance directive or to express their wishes clearly to their families, or possibly having no surviving relatives at all, these poor souls are doomed to a condition they never desired--and at an extraordinary cost to the tax payers. If we had required these individuals to fill out an advance directive while they were healthy, much as we demand that our citizens complete tax returns and jury questionnaires, we could have maximized their autonomy and simultaneously minimized the public burden. Given the choice between filling out a form for a few seconds, or dying in a manner incompatible with one's wishes, the former seems a far less intrusive incursion into human liberty. Mandatory choice models, which some jurisdictions already use for organ donation, recognize that people often need a nudge to effectuate their genuine desires. Many Americans without advance directives lack the necessary knowledge to understand that such options are even available to them. Some falsely assume that having a living will or health care proxy is synonymous with agreeing to second-rate care. Others mistakenly believe that drafting such documents is expensive or requires an attorney. Even for many people who understand the value of having an advance directive, actually filling out such a document runs up against procrastination, denial and the constraints of daily living. To many young people, death seems too distance a threat to prepare for at all. Requiring these individuals to sit down with their doctors for ten minutes to clarify their end-of-life wishes would do as much for their welfare as compelling them to wear seatbelts on their drives home. If nothing else, all hospital patients should be required to complete advance directive forms upon admission. President Obama deserves considerable credit for informing the public that he and his wife have living wills. Such documents should certainly be required of the United States President, considering the Constitutional crisis that would emerge if a Chief Executive were rendered dependent on life support--and a dispute arose over whether to withdraw it. However, the President was wrong to dismiss the legislation that Mary feared as "morbid." Talking to the elderly about death is no more unseemly than talking to teenagers about sex. Both are honest recognitions of life's inevitabilities. If Mary wants to live until modern medicine can no longer sustain her body, nobody is telling her that she cannot have her way. All society is asking is that she make her wishes clear. Should she subsequently change her mind, she has every right to execute a different living will or appoint another healthcare proxy. What is truly indecent is not that we demand that our citizens confront death. It is that millions of Americans go without health insurance and basic preventive care in order to sustain the lives of critically ill and unconscious people who, had they been asked, would have opted against such extreme care. But the fault is not theirs. It is ours for not asking them. We will all choose how we die eventually--either actively, through an advance directive, or by default, through the substituted judgment of others. But if we mandate choice in advance, we can maximize both health and liberty. What President Obama should have told Mary was that, if all Americans decide how they want to die, they can help people like her live longer and healthier lives. More on Barack Obama | |
| NKorea Seizes SKorean Fishing Boat | Top |
| SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea seized a fishing boat from the South on Thursday after it accidentally strayed into the North's waters, officials said, amid tensions on the peninsula over Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs. Seoul asked the North to quickly release the fishing boat and the four crew members, a Unification Ministry spokeswoman said. Early Thursday morning, a North Korean patrol boat took the 29-ton vessel "800 Yeonan" into custody after it crossed into the North's eastern waters – apparently because its satellite navigation system malfunctioned, an official at South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said. The official, who spoke on customary condition of anonymity, said the boat was taken to North Korea's eastern port of Jangjon. The Unification Ministry, which is responsible for handling relations with the North, made a formal written request to North Korean maritime authorities asking for the boat's release, spokeswoman Lee Jong-joo said. North Korea confirmed it had received the request and said by telephone that it would look into the matter, Lee said. North Korea's state news agency, monitored in Seoul, did not mention the seizure. Relations between the two Koreas deteriorated last year after a pro-U.S., conservative government took office in Seoul, advocating a tougher policy on the North. In retaliation, Pyongyang cut off ties and halted all major joint projects except a joint industrial complex located just across the border in North Korea. The North has been holding a South Korean worker at the complex since March for allegedly denouncing its political system. South Korea has repeatedly demanded his release, but so far the North has not allowed Seoul officials any access to him. Two South Korean fishing boats accidentally crossed into North Korea in 2005 and 2006, respectively, before North Korea later released the ships and their crews on humanitarian grounds, said Lee. More on North Korea | |
| David Wild: "Police On My Back": My Playlist For Today's "Teachable Moment" at the White House | Top |
| Today's the day that President Obama will attempt to share a "teachable moment" with Sgt. James Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. I'm not sure what food and beverage will be served - I'll leave that up to the White House Mess. But we all know there's nothing like some good tunes to really set the right mood. In order to avoid any awkward teachable moments, I've intentionally left off some more provocative police songs from N.W.A. or Body Count, and even "I Shot The Sheriff" by Bob Marley & The Wailers and "Piggies" by those dangerous gangsta rockers The Beatles. So here's my playlist for a "Teachable Moment." Please reply with your far more arresting ideas for some songs to really get this potentially awkward party of three started. "Police On My Back" - The Clash "State Trooper" - Bruce Springsteen "Gee, Office Krupke" - West Side Story "Sound Of Da Police" - KRS-One "Dream Police" - Cheap Trick "Don't Stand So Close To Me" - The Police "Everyday People" - Sly & The Family Stone "Karma Police" - Radiohead "Build Your Own Prison" - The Boxmasters "Let's Stay Together" - Al Green "Jailhouse Rock" - Elvis Presley "Authority Song" - John Mellencamp "I Fought The Law" - The Bobby Fuller Four And let's not forget "Mr. Policeman." Who's that one by, you ask? Rick James, bitch. | |
| Robin Sax: "Shades of Gray": The Real Story Behind My Resignation from the L.A. County DA's Office | Top |
| We've all heard the saying, "Don't believe everything you read." Well, I saw this played out in spades after reading the now infamous article posted by Andrew Blankstein in the LA Times. Here's the lesson--while a story can be "true" for editorial purposes, it may not express the essence of what really occurred. And for those of you who know my style of "telling it like it is," I will not disappoint you now. I am here to give you the down-low on my departure from the DA's office. And if you don't believe me, feel free to subpoena my personnel file and read it for yourself. In February 2009, two months before the release of my book, Predators and Child Molesters: A Sex Crimes DA Answers 100 of the Most-Asked Questions , I delivered notice to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office that I wanted to resign from the office. Though it was a difficult decision, I cited, both in person and in my letter, my desire to pursue a career in the media. I wanted to support victims on a macro-level, as opposed to dispensing justice one victim, one case, and one jury at a time. On March 16, 2009, I arrived at my "exit interview" where I began the process of turning in my badge, ID, books, Blackberry, etc. Then, my boss asked me why I hadn't considered taking a leave of absence instead. He noted that this would be a good option for me, as it would give me the chance to see if media was in fact what I wanted to do, while still keeping the doors open. "Why not?" I agreed. Thus far, the DA had been more than willing to let me pursue television opportunities, so long as cases discussed were not being handled by our office. I could write, speak, do whatever I wanted so long as the opinions were my own and not those of the DA. So, with no "trial of the century" in view, (except for Chris Brown---which I never said bupkus about) I went off on my leave. During that time, I blogged, wrote, spoke, and realized the huge impact one can make on society via the power of the media. As a prosecutor, public speaking and "performing" are not new for me. Many of the same reasons that I love being a trial lawyer are why I love communicating via television, radio, and the internet. The biggest difference between popular media versus a courtroom setting is that people watching TV, listening to the radio, or reading are doing so because they want to, not because they received a summons (that they could not get out of) in the mail. Now, let's fast-forward to July, 2009. On Friday, July 17, 2009 I was contacted by the producer of Larry King Live to join a high-profile panel discussing the death of Michael Jackson. And why wouldn't I want to be one of them? My book was out and the panel would be discussing an investigation into the activities of one of the most (if not the most) prolific entertainers of all time. I was especially interested because this celebrity had once been accused of criminal behavior as a suspected pedophile, an area I had considerable experience dealing with. There was lot to be learned from this case--about custody, children, how we view those accused of sexual assault, how assets are divided, and rights sold---yes, this was the case that had it all. Given that Michael Jackson had a case under review in the LA District Attorneys office in 1993 and given the fact that all the reports indicated this was a case that the AG's (Attorney Generals) Office was handling, I really didn't think twice when I said, "Sure." So there it was--I went on, did my thing, left and enjoyed the rest of the weekend without a second thought. Come Monday morning, I received a message from my boss, who simply requested I return his call. I did so two hours later because I thought he was telling me it was time to return to work. The immediate thought of "being called back to active duty" was a jolt of reality. Suddenly, the answer became clear. I don't want to go to back, I wasn't ready to go back, I liked what I was doing--all these ran through my mind. I dialed my boss and began to gear up for my marching hours. But I was totally taken aback when my boss said, "You were on Larry King on Friday, right?" "Yes," I said. "Well, you can't do that," he continued. "But isn't the AG's office handling the Jackson case?" I asked. "No, we are, it's our case and you can't talk about it. Otherwise it looks like you are representing our office's opinion on the case. " "I totally get it," I replied and apologized. My mind began racing, and I barely paid attention as he softened somewhat, saying that it didn't seem I'd said anything wrong. He even complimented me on my appearance. There was no discussion of my leaving, a resignation, firing or anything of the sort. The conversation ended with me saying that I might get in touch with him later on. Why would I get back in touch? Because since the Larry King Live show, unbeknownst to my boss, I had been getting calls from media across the country. They didn't just want to talk about Jackson, but about other cases where there were legal issues and injustices. People wanted my help and wanted me to advocate on their behalf. With my email inbox overflowing with requests for media about Jackson and people who needed my advocacy on other cases, I realized the day had indeed come. My courtroom work as a prosecutor was over. Instead, I would represent "The People" in print, on camera, in classrooms, through speeches--all of which I had been juggling while being a DA. So there it is. No, I wasn't paralyzed, nor was I "hemming and hawing." It was clearly time to resign. Two hours later, I sent in my resignation thanking Mr. Cooley and the LA District Attorney's Office for their continued support. I told them it was better for me not to "try to walk the extremely tight line" of being both a prosecutor and an outspoken advocate. I would now, officially, be pursuing my other endeavors. I received a lovely email back thanking me for my service to the office and the People of Los Angeles County. And that's all there was to it--until someone thought there was a story and the LA Times decided to write it as such. Today, I want to thank both the LA Times and whoever contacted the LA Times with the "news" of my resignation. It did nothing but catapult me into the media, giving me an entree to many new media outlets and to wonderful people I would never have known. So, yes there are two sides to every story and as a prosecutor I always try to look to both sides and be fair. As a journalist and a legal commentator, I do the same. That is why I wanted to share my story with you. As you continue to read articles and listen to broadcasts, remember to separate the spin from the facts, the hype from the truth and most importantly, know this: it is not always black or white. Neither is life! | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment