Futile Care Theory Metastasizes: Terminal Cancer Patients’ Lives Not Worth Extending

First Things/Secondhand Smoke ^ | 9/27/11 | Wesley J. Smith

[wagglebee]

Bottom line: By accepting the philosophical premises of Futile Care Theory, bioethicists have opened the door to now imposing greater restrictions in the name of “fairness.” We should not let utilitarian central planners to take away hope and create a putative “duty to die.”

Unfortunately, the utilitarian death mongers are getting louder by the day.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[FrdmLvr]

I’ll bet that won’t apply to those with connections. Just the hoi polloi.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

the recommendation of a committee of doctors "

"Death panels?"

Can't be. Sarah Palin predicted Death Panels.

... and we all know that she's soo-ooo-ooo stupid.

[metmom]

“Get out of the lifeboat you expensive terminal cancer patients! Sure, your lives could be extended months, maybe even years,–but it isn’t worth the money! You’re going to die sooner or later, so it might as well be sooner. We need the money for more important and productive patients.”

Hello. Everyone is going to die some day, sooner or later.

By their twisted reasoning of productivity, then, they should be denying medical care to those on welfare, criminals, and illegals, those who are not be holding down jobs and paying taxes as productive members of society.

[Notary Sojac]

"Terminal Cancer Patients’ Lives Not Worth Extending by extracting money from taxpayers and employers under the threat of imprisonment"

There, fixed.

[Notary Sojac]

it should be up to the patient to decide

As long as the patient is spending his own money, I could not agree more.

[silverleaf]

AIDS is terminal.

Will they pull the plug on life extending treatment for AIDS patents, too?

What about cystic fibrosis?

Any death panel member should be faced with quantifying what one more year of life for their child or their spouse or themselves, is worth.

[wagglebee]

"Terminal Cancer Patients’ Lives Not Worth Extending by extracting money from taxpayers and employers under the threat of imprisonment"

There, fixed.

Just a few questions:

1. Do you have health insurance? YES or NO

2. Do you now or have you ever had payroll taxes withheld from your pay? YES or NO

3. Do you pay ALL of your medical expenses out of your own pocket? YES or NO

4. Are you aware of a single state where employers are required by law to provide health insurance? YES or NO

[ronnie raygun]

Let those who support and implement it to be the first to use it on themseves and thier family! It’s great to open your mouth and sh## comes out until you have to eat that sh##.

[hinckley buzzard]

Funny how "bioethicists" seem universally to advocate the culture-of-death agenda. Hey, Life is terminal. And basically, besides some palliative care, all treatment is Life-extending treatment.

What else would it be for?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

it should be up to the patient to decide

As long as the patient is spending his own money, I could not agree more.

Health insurance is a private contract between the enrollee and the health insurance company.

Yet you "compassionate libertarians" would deny them care if in any way you think it might somehow cost you a penny.

A society that refuses to properly care for its sick and dying is not worth preserving.

[Nowhere Man]

Any death panel member should be faced with quantifying what one more year of life for their child or their spouse or themselves, is worth.

If this gets implemented, I often wonder what would happen if a death panel bureaucrat would write off someone who has connections to something like "the mob" or even someone like Tony Soprano. Heck, even if not, people do have parents, children, spouses, friends, siblings and so forth. I would not want to be on that panel deciding life and death (I would not be there because of my principles in the first place) because I would fear for my safety. I would be scared everytime I would turn the key in my car for fear of it blowing up, same with my wife or if my kids are late in getting home and the phone rings, it could be someone who would take their lives in lieu of their relative and would "make me an offer I can't refuse." How about if I was waling around some night and I get mugged and a stiff warning of what is next unless I recant if lucky. If I wasn't lucky, I'd be shot, stuffed in a back of a 1989 Chevy chucked into the Potomac and when they drag it out, there is a note pinned to my body, "don't f--- with us" on it.

People love there families and friends and if this would go on, you could see such things like this and deep down inside, maybe we'd be better off, sometimes I think they will not stop until they fear the people. I'm a firm believer in the quote from "V for Vendetta," - "People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people." We are being dragged to this point if we do not stop it.

[Nowhere Man]

I know a 90 year old guy who was told around this time last year that he was dying of cancer during his last hospital stay. The first question out of his mouth was, “when can I return to work?” He receives hospice care at home everyday and on days he works, after they leave, he hops into his car and goes to work, shopping or whatever he need to do. He looks a bit better the last time I saw him. I think there is a lot more to this, the will to live and so on.

[Notary Sojac]

Do the sick and dying have an effectively unlimited claim upon the resources of the rest of society?

We're not talking here about the simple care that would have kept Terri Schiavo alive.

We're talking about drugs, surgeries, implants and ICU stays that can consume a single taxpayer's yearly income in three days.

Now if you really believe that the taxpayer has an unlimited duty to pay for those services, a duty that is enforced by the force of law, then say so.

But don't pretend that it's all free, OK??

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Now if you really believe that the taxpayer has an unlimited duty to pay for those services, a duty that is enforced by the force of law, then say so.

The only people for whom this argument would hold true are Medicaid recipients and a small subset of Medicare recipients. We can debate their situation if you like.

Everyone else has paid into a health insurance plan, and has the right to receive adequate health care in return for their investment.

If you'd like to make the distinctions that are proper to your actual argument, we can then proceed with debate.

Otherwise, your claim that taxpayers are responsible for the medical care of private health insurance enrollees is simply ludicrous and unworthy of further reply.

[TLEIBY308]

Six years ago this month I was told I had six months to live even with surgery. I had the surgery but refused the cemo. Went back to work in a week and I am still here with no sign of cancer.

[Notary Sojac]

Since the story was UK-based, the decision making being discussed is almost certainly related to the British NHS, therefore the question of commercial insurance is more of a sidebar.

and a small subset of Medicare recipients

There are some reasonably sound calculations to the effect that the average Medicare beneficiary receives 2-3x the value of his contributions to the program (including interest) over his lifetime. No one will have paid in more than $120,000 or so even at very high levels of taxable income.

And once the benefits received exceed the time value of the money paid in, yes, the Medicare beneficiary is being directly subsidized by today's employers and workers: the aging of the population will make this even more so in future.

Medicaid recipients .... We can debate their situation

Yes, I would like to know whether you believe Medicaid patients have an inherent right to every extremely high cost albeit life saving treatment, and if not, who makes the decisions.

and has the right to receive adequate health care in return for their investment

Now that we've dealt with the "return on investment" by Government, we can also discuss whether private insurance companies should be required to cover the most expensive, most cutting edge therapies to every one of their clients whose doctor desires to provide it, regardless of actuarial soundness. Who shall be assessed for the extra dollars required? Do the existing policyholders get a choice as to whether they want to pay for this coverage or not?

[wagglebee]

Since the story was UK-based, the decision making being discussed is almost certainly related to the British NHS, therefore the question of commercial insurance is more of a sidebar.

As is the question of taxpayers being forced to pay because the British pay extremely high taxes to pay for their health insurance.

Yes, I would like to know whether you believe Medicaid patients have an inherent right to every extremely high cost albeit life saving treatment, and if not, who makes the decisions.

Define "high cost." Is it $1 million? If so, why not $100?

Give us a number where you think a death panel should be permitted to end a person's life.

What about my questions from earlier, you never answered these:

1. Do you have health insurance? YES or NO

2. Do you now or have you ever had payroll taxes withheld from your pay? YES or NO

3. Do you pay ALL of your medical expenses out of your own pocket? YES or NO

4. Are you aware of a single state where employers are required by law to provide health insurance? YES or NO