Though I shouldn't be, I'm constantly amazed by the ability of Republicans, allied anti-health ins reform groups, and their friends in the media to tell out-and-out lies and scary stories with a straight face.

TPM, and OGD's post (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/08/-your-life-your-choices.php) were quite helpful.  In digging a little bit deeper, I found a couple of other pieces of the puzzle that help show the disingenuousness of Fox News and the Republicans that are pitching this, that I wanted to share:

1)  Chris Wallace challenged Tammy Duckworth on the point that the VA was no longer using the booklet (which I found to be very good, for veterans, non-veterans, everyone).  From MediaMatters, here is the transcription of the first part of his challenge:

"WALLACE: Secretary Duckworth, that's just not true. The VHA put out a directive on July 2, 2009, and I want to put up two pages from that directive." (http://mediamatters.org/research/200908230014)

Now, Chris Wallace is a smart guy.  He has a smart staff.  And, he even put up a snipped quote, which mentioned PART OF the title of the July 2 document.  Given their intelligence, I have to assume that his mischaracterizing the HANDBOOK as a DIRECTIVE was intentional, and was designed to bolster the false accusation that the VA ORDERED doctors to point patients to the booklet. 

Sure, the word "directive" is in the title of that part of the handbook (which is found at: http://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/policy/VHA_Handbook_1004-02_Advance_Care_Planning_20090702.pdf), but the "ordering" part of the "directive" refers to the document that a person may make in advance of being incapacitated, NOT to telling health practitioners to force someone to read a certain booklet!  But, before accusing the VA Secretary of telling Wallace's viewers an untruth, he would take a look at the document first.  WOULDN'T HE?

The second clue as to the Wallace/Fox agenda is noted in the MediaMatters article - that Wallace & Co. clipped the on-screen quote and distorted his comments to make it sound like the directive - errrr, handbook - ordered the use of the booklet in question, instead of using that as an example (along with a specifice VA-approved form, 10-0137B).  Also, Wallace states that the directive - er, handbook - mentioned the booklet in question TWICE;  the second time was simply in the bibliography/references section.  Whoaaaaaa, Chris.

The differences is too obvious - and the facts that it supports the Fox News agenda so well to make the mistakes - leads me to the conclusion that Wallace and Friends intentionally mischaracterized the handbook.

2.  The July 2 VA directive - er, handbook - explains the many good reasons to talk with its patients about advance directives, including that it is following Congress' intent in passing the Patient Self-Determination Act.  In 1990.  With a bipartisan majority in the Senate passing it, and George HW Bush signing it.  That act requires that all providers who accepted Medicare or Medicaid funds give their patients information on advance directives. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:48:./temp/~c101mZx05o::

Here is a very good (and very SHORT) article on the PSDA, and the spirit of the law:  http://academic.udayton.edu/LawrenceUlrich/315psdame.htm (a good candidate for an interview?).