That does not mean that the two movements do not share certain limited political issues, such as limiting the rights of homosexuals, and the use of the state to promote Christian faith.

Land is probably stretching his point, but it is certain that today’s U.S. conservative Christian movement, of which Land is a part, has nothing to do with the Nazi atrocities mentioned.

Whose stretch is more offensive to the cause of Christ?

As one who survived a car wreck and broken neck, I advocate that everyone over the age of 18 should have an advance care plan for circumstances that they may encounter, such as those that result in apparent brain death from an accident. That way, the patient determines how agressive the treatment will be, rather than some third party.

Another example is the “do not resuscitate order” or DNR, which may be appropriate in cases involving advanced Alzheimer’s, severely disabling stroke damage, and the like. A patient could request such an order be entered if they were in such a condition.

There is nothing in the law that requires a patient to receive that treatment, but most medical facilities and many physicians insist that patients under their care have prepared a physician’s directive prior to treatment in the facility if possible. It avoids battles over the continuation of invasive and/or painful treatment for those who are no longer able to decide for themselves at the critical time and who have no prospects of a cure, but which treatment may delay death for weeks or a few months.

But Pierard is an amazing historian. His work on America’s wars and on civil religion is very good.

I have found Land to be sloppy in most of his reasoning on most subjects. This is no different.

Doctor’s dealing with elderly patients necessarily have to deal with advanced care planning.

My dad, eighty-six years old, had a heart attack a year ago. The doctors told him he could have by-pass surgery that would extend his life by a few years but had a 50% chance of killing him and a 75% chance of putting him on a dialysis machine for the rest of his life (since low blood flow to his kidneys had made them weak). After more tests the doctors strongly advised him not to do the surgery.

This is also advanced care planning, and it’s not necessarily bad — it’s giving patients their options.

What Land has a problem with is “advanced care planning.” The issue for Land is whether this advanced care planning will “encourage” older patients to forego treatment that might extend their life, something patients might opt for if they are in significant pain or so incapacitated they see no point in living and, from Land’s perspective, given a little push with advanced care planning.

I believe it may be Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (an Obama health care advisor) who has written more extensively about advance care planning. He’s the person Land compared to Josef Mengele. Basically Emanuel says if a patient is in sufficient pain or so incapacitated that life for them is pointless, then the patient might want to go ahead and “not take your medicine.” But Emanuel does not recommend euthanasia (at least in what I gathered from the radio}. But the ERLC calls “not taking your medicine” a slippery slope to it.

In any case, does the bill say a patient has to have “advanced care planning?” I haven’t read enough of the bill to know. Does the bill control what a doctor says to a patient in advanced care planning? I doubt it could.

“SECTION. 1233. ADVANCED CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advanced care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.”

The ERLC says this “could be the slippery slope that potentially leads to euthanasia.” (See ERLC Analysis: The House Health Care Bill H.R. 3200 at erlc.com)

Decide for yourself if Dr. Land’s rhetoric warrants what is in the bill.