Back on May 1, we warned you that President Obama’s health care proposals could lead to bureaucrats deciding when to “pull the plug” on an individual’s medical treatment. That awful day is drawing nearer.
In an April 28 New York Times interview, the president spoke of having government guide a “very difficult democratic conversation” about “those toward the end of their lives [who] are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.” Those statements sounded a little creepy to us. Deciding who gets denied care at the end of life should not be dependent on government cost controls.
Presidential health care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and chairman of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health, has argued that independent government boards should decide policy on end-of-life care. He also has defended rationing care more strictly for older people because “allocation [of medical care] by age is not invidious discrimination.”
It is in that light that House Republicans warn against draft Section 1233 of the House Democratic health care bill as an area of deep concern. It provides for seniors, every five years, to be provided “advance care planning consultation” for “end-of-life services.” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan warn that the provision “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”
[More]
See Also:
Galganov has really gone after Obama in the “Founding Fathers” link. Most tmes I find him a bit extreme but today he gives us much to think about (and nothing we haven’t thought about before).
My feeling is that health care systems all over the world can use some improvement, especially as populations age, but I do not agree that change should be rushed through in a couple of weeks on the back of a thousand page document that nobody has read, including the President.
Obama would make a great used car salesman. Unfortunately that isn’t his job description right now and it is a well known fact that nobody should sign a contract they have never read.
Remember the old legal principle “Buyer beware” and call the bozo’s you elected who want to do just that. Obama has to be stopped.
My grandmother died in a medical facility that was determined to keep her alive, she had advanced Alzheimers and was completely out of touch with everything and every one. She developed very serious diabetes and by the end had to be fed via IV, her circulation deteriorated and try as they may they could not fix it, gangrene set in, and they amputated one foot, then they had to take off the leg up to the knee, then the other foot went, then the other leg.
Ultimately medical science could not keep up with how fast her organs and body were failing and started losing the fight they were so determined to try and win. She died a pale husk of the robust, somewhat over weight, witty, and full of wisdom and knowledge, woman who enriched every life she touched, who taught me so much, and who I loved so very much.
Courtesy of a medical system that refuses to quit that wonderful woman died strapped to a bed, for her own safety and well being of course, not knowing where she was, why she was strapped down, who was around her, what was wrong with her, or why her legs had been amputated…… and I remain very (very) angry at the system for treating her that way.
How long to keep people alive is a discussion that needs to take place, both in America, and in here Canada, and hyper-partisan fear mongering (which what the article you linked is) is less than helpful.
Just because we have science can keep people breathing (even if they do have to be strapped to a bed, fed through tubes, and hooked to machines to remain in that state) well passed their natural lifespan should we do so?
– and if we should what favours are we really doing people like my Nana?
Just exactly what is wrong with sitting down and having a frank conversation with the elderly and seeing what they want to have happen when they are at the end of their life and dying? Does their opinion of what they think should happen have no value?
Frankly, given the current alternatives, I would welcome that discussion with open arms.
Pingback: Jack’s Newswatch » Blog Archive » Debbie Purdy ‘ecstatic’ (2)
Stageleft:
I recently lost an Aunt. She had very specific health “contract” that explicity outlined the kind of care she wanted to recieve and it was pretty much nil. When she was going to die she did not want to have a bunch of procedures done to try to keep her alive. Her choice and she made it.
Thats a simple solution to the disaster you describe above.
Far better to have the individual determine the amount and type of treatment they want to recieve – and they can now – than the government.
My sympathy to anyone out there who has made an end of life decision regarding the care of a loved one. In my family we have had two in 10 years. This a draining, mind numbing experience that we prayed and cried over. Every family makes hard decisions and there is not one medical solution fix for all. But my question is this, if we are not going to prolong life and instead encourage euthanasia, why would the public support Cancer research, Aids organizations, Kidney Societies, Heart and Stroke Foundations etc. ? Seems to me that under these circumstances, we should conserve our money for non medical charities. Why pour money into cures when cures and relief from suffering will not be a priority? Isn’t this the ultimate aim of this end of life medical care, to free up resources? Your greatest contribution to society will be to die before you cost the country money. Hope my children are not fined for allowing me to live one day longer than a government pencil pusher deems necessary.
This is a sensitive issue and I see both sides. Some people really would rather die with dignity and do not want to burden their families. There should be a way for them to be assisted in their goal without criminal charges pending. On the other hand, greed and other factors could cause some people in the medical establishment to decide that life X is not worth preserving because the person appears to be incapable of having whatever is deemed a “decent” life. Ultimately, it seems like a slippery slope to make any declaration outside “let the individual decide”.
We have no say about entering this world but we should have a say about leaving it. Its a personal matter/choice. My family knows exactly what I want and when.
@UV: Are you saying that you believe that the state has an obligation to keep me alive for as long as the science at its’ disposal possibly can if that happens to be my wish?