Well, here I go again. I will send my Op-ed to those folks and it will not be published.
The contention of Congress, Barack Obama, and others that legislation does not mandate end of life discussions might be literally be truthful, but lacks credibility. Sarah Palin points out that fraud.
Health care reform means government intervention to control health care, and not only through legislation, but by application of Congressional intent. As with any other commodity or service the two control methods are price or technical allocation methodologies. Governments specialize in the latter.
The stimulus bill created the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Health Information Technology Research Centers. These bureaucracies duplicate private sector information bases, utilizing computer technology for coordination and flow of recommendations and policies for medical knowledge. Now passage of HR 3962, and passage of Senate legislation, adds over 100 new boards, commissions and programs. These bureaucracies provide the framework for boundless regulatory masterpieces constraining human freedom. The HHS Secretary will use the bureaucracies to implement Congressional intent.
Regulations developed reflect the momentum of congressional intent; not the will of the people. The regulations would utilize disquieting legislative provisions, selected legislator speeches, and selected expert testimony to incorporate ideas politicians consider too sensitive for public debate. Medical professionals would join other private sector professionals such as education financial aid directors and CPA’s I know, who often serve as federal agents instead of client advocates.
Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer recently presented in the New York Times Congressional intent without equivocation. “Rationing health care means getting value for the billions spent by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse….There’s no doubt that it’s tough – politically, emotionally, and ethically - to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way….If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades….The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for resources they have been allocated….If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving that life gains 70 years, whereas a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will gain of only 5 life-years. That suggests saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds”.
Peter Singer’s rational, scientific approach reminds me of the Geneva Conventions, which attempt rational, moral threads to grasp during the barbarity of war. For my experience pulverizing a major enemy base camp in Vietnam, I especially like the clear and obvious reading of Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The VC were responsible for any civilian deaths on that base. Those civilians qualified as Protected Persons within the enemy’s physical control, and could not be used to render certain points and areas immune from military operations.
The passages formed the basis for rules of engagement we followed when attacking a legitimate military target. I was also blessed by not having to clean up after-wards for the mess I helped make. Our task force was certainly an effective “death panel”. We permanently shattered that VC main force unit, forcing it to surrender control of the region.
Physicians currently discuss end of life issues when explaining proposed procedures and drugs, so new legislation only confiscates privacy and freedom. The result of regulations would be to place everyone on pathways to federally defined, cost effective, approved treatments. Seniors and the disabled would reside in second class citizenship. Popular philosophies as discussed above allocating scarce health resources find these people deficient in societal contributions compared to active workers and youth.
Worthwhile initiatives would locate dialogue and diagnosis with families, nurses, and doctors; not with lawyers, insurance companies, academics, and bureaucrats. Worthwhile initiatives would also free the private sector from government constraints preventing greater supply at lower cost. However, such suggestions are not contemplated or appreciated.
Kudos.
The odor of eugenics permeates gov’t provided healthcare but they have to keep that hidden from the public.
This is what blows my mind. Singer (Jewish), Rahm and Ezekiel Emanuel (Jewish) All three advocate the abortion and rationed healthcare, (i.e. death panels) I have read so much Jewish writings from the Talmud to I. B, Singer. Where does this come from? In Jewish writings, life is a blessing. I read Singer’s parents fled the Nazis, but he seems to agree with their end of life ethics. And here are the Emanuels, one the new Dr. Conti and the other counseling Zero to fiddle while Iran comes closer to destroying the Jewish homeland. Did they skip a few to many history lessons? So we have three liberal Jews and a closet Muslim managing Americas ethics in healthcare. Where have all the Puritans gone?