Death Panels will decide who lives or who dies, so what's wrong with that? by Raven West
(libertarian)
Friday, August 14, 2009
Fact - we all have two choices in life; to live to a ripe old age, or to die. Wait, that's not true. In this country we do NOT have a legal choice to die. In fact, doctors and hospitals will do whatever they can to keep human bodies "alive" for years, even if they have to be plugged into machines with tubes plugged into every orifice to do so.
There is a huge difference between quality of life and quantity of life, but since we have the medical knowledge and capacity to use machines to simulate body organs, keeping a person animated long after they would without these intrusive machines has become the norm. With Sarah Palin terrorizing the elderly with claims of "death panels" and town hall meeting turning into panic events, the new debate regarding Obama's heath care bill has turned into his plan to "kill grandma", when the cost to keep grandma alive becomes too high.
Well, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Just because we can do something, that does not necessarily mean that we must.
Pulling the plug, so to speak, is never an easy decision for family members to make. Coma patients have been hooked up to machines for decades because the family holds on to some unrealistic fantasy that their loved one will miraculously wake up one day and be the same person they were before. "Miracle" recovery television shows don't help the delusion, but try telling a grieving mother or daughter that the show they watched on Lifetime was a script and the patient who miraculously recovered was an actor who was never sick in the first place, and they'll cry over their rosary and insist that God will someone answer their prayers.
Meanwhile, the only ones who prayers are being answered are the hospitals, the nursing homes and the doctors who make millions off the false hopes of these desperate families.
Life is precious, but it is not eternal. We are mortal. We get sick, and we die. Sometimes the brain ages faster than the other organs and once it outlives its time, dementia overtakes the body.
So, who decides when to say the final good-bye? And at what cost?
No one wants to put a price tag on a life, but it is a fact that the longer one lives, the more medical services they are going to need and the more expensive it is going to be. The longer we use medical technology to keep bodies alive, the more the bills are going to pile up, so the medical community wants to keep those bodies alive until the very last drop of cash is drained from the family's bank account. Let's keep the sick and elderly locked away in nursing homes, slumped over a wheelchair, drooling and urinating uncontrollably, and keep pumping them full of expensive drugs, especially if their insurance or the government pays the bill.
So, why not have a cut-off point? Let's pick an age to cut off insurance payments, maybe 84, 94, 101? Is it really more merciful to keep these nearly dead bodies alive then it is to let them die
We can't keep sick people on the public toll forever, can we? The insurance companies don't seem to think so when they decide which claim they'll pay for and which one they'll deny, or which prescription drug will be covered and which one won't. I don't know of any insurance company that pays for Viagra.
Doctors swear an oath to do no harm, maybe it's time we force the insurance companies to do the same.
Or maybe we should just kill grandma.
Fact - we all have two choices in life; to live to a ripe old age, or to die. Wait, that's not true. In this country we do NOT have a legal choice to die. In fact, doctors and hospitals will do whatever they can to keep human bodies "alive" for years, even if they have to be plugged into machines with tubes plugged into every orifice to do so.
There is a huge difference between quality of life and quantity of life, but since we have the medical knowledge and capacity to use machines to simulate body organs, keeping a person animated long after they would without these intrusive machines has become the norm. With Sarah Palin terrorizing the elderly with claims of "death panels" and town hall meeting turning into panic events, the new debate regarding Obama's heath care bill has turned into his plan to "kill grandma", when the cost to keep grandma alive becomes too high.
Well, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Just because we can do something, that does not necessarily mean that we must.
Pulling the plug, so to speak, is never an easy decision for family members to make. Coma patients have been hooked up to machines for decades because the family holds on to some unrealistic fantasy that their loved one will miraculously wake up one day and be the same person they were before. "Miracle" recovery television shows don't help the delusion, but try telling a grieving mother or daughter that the show they watched on Lifetime was a script and the patient who miraculously recovered was an actor who was never sick in the first place, and they'll cry over their rosary and insist that God will someone answer their prayers.
Meanwhile, the only ones who prayers are being answered are the hospitals, the nursing homes and the doctors who make millions off the false hopes of these desperate families.
Life is precious, but it is not eternal. We are mortal. We get sick, and we die. Sometimes the brain ages faster than the other organs and once it outlives its time, dementia overtakes the body.
So, who decides when to say the final good-bye? And at what cost?
No one wants to put a price tag on a life, but it is a fact that the longer one lives, the more medical services they are going to need and the more expensive it is going to be. The longer we use medical technology to keep bodies alive, the more the bills are going to pile up, so the medical community wants to keep those bodies alive until the very last drop of cash is drained from the family's bank account. Let's keep the sick and elderly locked away in nursing homes, slumped over a wheelchair, drooling and urinating uncontrollably, and keep pumping them full of expensive drugs, especially if their insurance or the government pays the bill.
So, why not have a cut-off point? Let's pick an age to cut off insurance payments, maybe 84, 94, 101? Is it really more merciful to keep these nearly dead bodies alive then it is to let them die
We can't keep sick people on the public toll forever, can we? The insurance companies don't seem to think so when they decide which claim they'll pay for and which one they'll deny, or which prescription drug will be covered and which one won't.
I don't know of any insurance company that pays for Viagra.
Doctors swear an oath to do no harm, maybe it's time we force the insurance companies to do the same.
Or maybe we should just kill grandma.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Raven West only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Raven West is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-08-14 03:56:44
Say, I have an idea. How about if we agree that it's better to follow the wishes of the person lying in the bed, and that the government should play no role in the matter, including not funding or encouraging funding the decision to live or die in any way.
So, why not have a cut-off point? Let's pick an age to cut off insurance payments, maybe 84, 94, 101? Is it really more merciful to keep these nearly dead bodies alive then it is to let them die
And who's going to make that decision? The government?
Sarah Palin wasn't "terrorizing the elderly" with talk of death panels. She wasn't referring to the provision in the health care bills mandating counseling on medical advance directives. She was talking about the rationing of health care that will inevitably follow a complete government takeover, and about who will make the decisions about who will get it. I talk about this in the second part of my article, Those Town Hall Protests on this site.
I agree with Walt, such decisions should be made by the individuals affected by them. I am a firm believer in medical advance directives. (And so is Sarah Palin, as Rachel Madow reminded us last night, although Madow was trying to show that Palin is a hypocrite for talking about "death panels" after earlier advocating MADs.) But they should be the province of patients, their doctors, and their families, not the government.
We opened a deadly Pandora's box when we let government get into the health insurance business through Medicare and Medicaid. When government becomes the only source of health insurance, government will make all the decisions. At least a private insurance company is contractually bound to pay for procedures it has agreed to pay for. Government doesn't face such a constraint.
BTW, I personally know a woman who did wake up from a coma her doctors said she would never come out of. Her husband's request to take her off life support was denied by a judge, and a few days later she came out of the coma. No, she wasn't totally the same person she was before. But she was fully functional, and a few years later started her own business.
I think most everyone agrees that decisions concerning the patient should be under the control of the patient. That only makes sense.
The difficulty arises when we decide when to "pay" and not to "pay" in a life sustaining situation. If the patient makes the decision to receive care, then the financial aspect arises. denying funding to those who need care and don't have the funds is allowing the wealthy to live and the poor to die.
From one angle, we "force" the better off to pay for the care of the poor. From the other angle, we force the poor to choose death in order to avoid the first use of force.
I don't know the definitive answer, but I do know we are engaged in force when we choose either option. One has to do with wealth and the other with life.
... yeah, maybe we should just should have killed grandma prior to her birth... or just after... or when we realize how smart she's not going to be... or that she has a predisposition toward a particular illness... or if her chances of coming out of that diabetic coma are slipping... or....
I think there are many people in nursing homes who would like to take the "Kervorkian" option if it was available. But because of government it is not available to them. It should be available at the choice of the individual. But no one should be killed against their will.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-14 19:34:23
Hi Raven West,
It looks to me like we've mistaken the right to life for an obigation to live. I don't see how something can be called a right when one is forced to exercise it against their will. The two things seem mutually exclusive to me.
The other thing that seems all twisted up to me is that rights and entitlements are being taken as the same thing. Rights are things that individuals exercise or oppose with force, entitlements are things that others are forced to provide. Entitlements are like anti-rights.
I'm with Walt on this one. Show me an increasing demand for free health care and I'll show you an increasing supply of doctors who will volunteer to provide basic care...which is all they can hope for under the unlimited need plan.
End of life is difficult issue to discus, especially since none of us are in those shoes yet. Advanced directive is the best option of expressing ones decision, but in certain circumstances they are suspended - planned or emergency surgery and DNR orders will be temporary suspended, since from physicians point of view (as I am one) iatrogenic effects (like induction of anesthesia, resuscitation during the surgery and temporary homeostatic changes will require temporary ventilatory and hemodynamic support ( Igive 24-48 hour window). So if patient chooses the surgery, I always inform about that, or otherwise there is no point of doing the surgery - which otion they ALWAYS REFUSE.
So, In my opinion, patient or POA should choose, but partial financial responsibility should lie on their shoulders as well (10% of the bill) - since otherwise patients and their families are abusing the system and keeping their relatives on ventilators and multiple dripps, just because of guilt (have not seen their parents or visited them for years) or greed (want to collect SS or disability payments and etc.)
Yes there will be discrepancy between rich and poor, but its individual decision was weather to be poor - missed school, no education, spending into oblivion and at the end of life realizing that pockets are empty. Just like the Aesop's fable about the ant and the grasshopper. As a foregner, I can say - there is no hunger in US, there is laziness, excessive laziness and stupidity. So when we choose to be poor, its a choice with its consequences. SO if they cannot pay that 10% bill - unplug the plug after 48hours - no lawsuits, no questions. Don't rich drive safe cars like MB and BMW, versus chevy aveo or schooter (though I drive Civic).
Agree almost totally with this article. One thing that was not mentioned is a Living Will. Anyone can do one and it should be done while you have the facilities to do it. A person writes out directives about what life-sustaining measures they want and designates a person to act on their behalf if they are not able to do so. As a nurse, I have seen entirely too much suffering in the name of "saving" an individual's life. I believe in quality of life not quantity. If I become unable to care for myself I do not want to be tube-fed, hooked up to machines or any such measures. I have been a supporter of Death with Dignity and assisted suicide for those who desire it for a very long time. Each person must be allowed to make this decision for themselves and no government should force anything upon individuals or prevent individuals from their choices. We do this now actually because assisted suicide is a crime. No one is suggesting "death panels" or killing any elder or disabled person. Sarah Palin is just an agitator with a big mouth and small brain. Wish she would sink back into obscurity. Maybe she could try to be a stay at home mother. It is a big commitment!!!!
Be very careful who you decide is in charge of your living will or advanced directive. Does that person stand to inherit money when you die? Are you sure they have your best interests at heart? Will you wake up from a temporary coma to find yourself dying of thirst while your medical power of attorney is out spending your money? Is being brain dead specified in your living will or will any semi-unconscious state in which you are temporarily unable to communicate pass as a good enough reason to remove your IV. Is it fun to wake up gradually while realizing you cannot speak because your tongue is swollen from dehydration and that the person you placed in charge of your well being is nowhere in sight and the doctors and nurses around you are "just following orders"?
The distinction has to be made between the machines that force your chest to breathe or a feeding tube forced into your stomach and an IV or exterior oxygen tube. An IV is not going to keep anyone alive for lone if they are critically ill but it ill keep them from dedydrating while the person has a chance to recover from a temporary semi-conscious of unconcious state. Let's say you have cancer. You might live another 5 years before it kills you. But you are in a car crash and knocked out for a few days. Meantime your advanced directive tells your physician to withdraw the IV. You wake up dying of thirst and unable to speak because your tongue is swollen and dry. You're not dying of cancer you're dying of thirst. You could have lived another 4 years with the cancer. You might have lived longer if the chemo and radiation you were undergoing had had the chance to work. You're not Grandma, you're only 27. Oh well, don't want the insurance companies paying for any extreme measures now do we?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
