Posted on 11/13/2015 6:34:01 PM PST by conservativejoy
WASHINGTON : Does Ben Carson have a "death panels" problem?
Before he was a 2016 presidential candidate, Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, frequently raised questions about the high cost of end of life medical care ,and asked whether patients should be able to pursue every available treatment. The statements touched on many of the most sensitive questions about care for the elderly.
"Do people just get to choose on their own, you know, I've been, you know, completely devoid of any mental faculties for 10 years, but want to be kept alive regardless of anything that comes down the pike?" Carson asked at a September 2004 meeting of the President's Council on Bioethics.
When President Obama and congressional Democrats proposed five years later allowing Medicare to pay doctors to talk with elderly patients about their desires and expectations for end of life care, conservatives blasted them for trying to set up "death panels."
But a STAT review of Carson's statements , first as a member of President George W. Bush's bioethics council and later in one of his books , found that the candidate in some ways went further than Obama in calling for society to carefully weigh the value of providing aggressive treatments for the gravely ill.
At a June 2004 meeting of the bioethics council, for instance, Carson wondered whether "we need to make a distinction between just using resources on people who are ill and using resources on people who are terminal." He also noted in September 2005 that the ability to prolong the lives of the elderly has "significant implications in terms of population, and in terms of jobs for the next generation."
While some of his remarks on end of life care have been previously reported, others have received no scrutiny , and could come back to hurt Carson with his base of Christian conservatives.
"They could provide a problem for him with pro lifers if he doesn't contextualize them," said Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, N.C. "It's one thing for individuals and families to make these decisions. It’s another thing for government to make them. That's what Dr. Carson needs to amplify."
In an interview with STAT, Carson said patients should be allowed to make their own decisions by using their own money through special health savings accounts. If they want to pursue aggressive and expensive treatment, "they can," he said.
But, he noted, "the whole concept of people who have terminal illnesses spending all that money at the end and really not accomplishing much doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most people, if you ask them, they would much rather be kept comfortable than to be poked and prodded until they give up their last breath."
Carson's aides said his comments at the bioethics council meetings were only meant to raise questions that should be the focus of a broader discussion , not to outline a policy prescription.
"Dr. Carson was simply pointing out that as technology to keep us breathing and our hearts beating have seriously advanced our ability to cure, the result has created the great medical ethics issue of our time," said campaign spokesman Doug Watts. 'These questions confront more and more families across the country each day. We need to have a national discussion about these issues. He has not advocated a solution but simply highlighted the ethical dilemma." Still, Carson has shown that he isn't afraid of tackling ethical questions that would make many people squirm.
During a September 2006 meeting of the President's Council on Bioethics, members debated whether it's appropriate for a surgeon to remove organs for donation from a patient who isn't dead, but is on the verge of it.
"You know the surgeon in me says, you know, if somebody is irreversibly injured, they are not going to come back to a functional state, and if [there is] somebody else who could use their organs, we should take the organ and give it to the one that can stop going through all this silliness," Carson said in remarks that have not been widely reported. "But I recognize that I'm not speaking as a surgeon today. I'm speaking as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics."
The question of whether to extend people's lives as long as medical technology allows is a subject Carson raised in council meetings and repeated in his 2012 book, "America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great." In the September 2004 meeting, for example, Carson asked: “Because we have the ability to keep elderly people going now for long periods of time, even though there may be significant quality of life issues … should we do it?"
In his book, Carson returned to the theme and suggested he was worried about the consequences for society.
"The emotional answer would be, yes, of course, we should use our knowledge to extend every life, and we can worry about the consequences later," Carson wrote. "A more rational response would include examining the effect on the entire population of such action and perhaps advocating a more measured course of action."
The issues Carson raised are hardly radical in the medical community. Doctors have spent years debating the right balance between offering patients the full range of advanced medical treatments and not raising false hopes when those treatments are likely to have minimal benefit. But in the political arena, those same questions can sound like ominous threats about government power over the most personal medical decisions , as Obama found out the hard way.
David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the group hasn't had a chance to ask Carson about the questions he raised. But he said the organization, which is mainly known for opposing abortion, is "just as concerned with protecting medically dependent people and older people who need lifesaving care."
"People who want lifesaving treatment should be able to get it," O'Steen added. "We think the decision should be the individual's, not the government's. We don't think the government should put impediments in the way."
Obama had proposed that Medicare pay doctors for end of life conversations as part of the Affordable Care Act. After the provision sparked heated controversy, though, the administration dropped it from the proposed bill.
Since then, the Obama administration has revived the policy without stirring much controversy. Some Republican lawmakers even say they like the idea. In late October, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that in 2016 it will start reimbursing for services associated with end of life planning.
Before the decision, Carson himself seemed to have realized that his statements could revive the “death panels†issue. In his book, he acknowledged the possibility but insisted issues related to end oflife medical care deserve a serious discussion.
"Again, I can hear some people screaming after reading this that I am advocating for 'death panels,' " Carson wrote. "ome people like to put forth terms like this because they stir up emotional responses rather than encouraging people to engage in rational dialogue aimed at resolving issues."
This shivers me timbers....I’m long in the tooth and I ain’t ready for anybody to decide if I live or die....except God Himself.
If the government is not involved, you are free to go with an insurance company that fits your preferences.
There are 3 health insurance cost blips.
Pregnancy and birth are a minor blip.
Prolonging death is another. Everyone is going to die. The only question is how much is spent to keep the person alive just a little while longer.
Lifestyle costs between those two is the 3rd blip few want to talk about. Alcohol, tobacco, legal and illegal drugs, STDs, and other lifestyle choices are a major health cost.
Back in the 60s the courts stopped an insurance company that wanted to score all lifestyle costs into its underwriting decisions. But certain lifestyles are very costly.
Thank you for your diligence in getting the word out about Dr. Carson. He appears so caring and many good Christian people have been taken in by him—these quotes portray an altogether different mindset and a disregard for the sanctity of life, and the value of the last days of life...When my mother was dying of cancer after a two year fight I was struck with the realization that it was HER battle. I had no right to ask God, “Why now?” “Let her stay”, or even “Take her quickly”. The walk toward the “valley of the shadow of death” was hers, not mine, and not any physician’s. It was the most difficult yet the most sacred time I’ve ever experienced. Doctor Carson speaking so callously about end of life issues shows his true character, and it’s not good.
” He also noted in September 2005 that the ability to prolong the lives of the elderly has “significant implications in terms of population, and in terms of jobs for the next generation.”
That’s the disturbing statement. My mother is 93 years old and thanks to some surgeries over the past 10 years she is healthy and able to live in her own home, clean her house and drive her car to the grocery, church and out to lunch with friends. She is as sharp as a tack. So would good old Ben have denied her those procedures which are allowing her to live a long and happy life?
Carson at a Glance
Moral Issues:
Carson agreed with the courts that Kim Davis was wrong for taking a stand on her religious beliefs (A court just found in favor of a muslim truck driver who refused to deliver alcohol based on religious belief- but bakers apparently aren’t allowed to object on religious beliefs, nor are county clerks according to Carson) http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/armstrong-williams-ben-carson-kentucky-clerk
Carson Thinks same sex marriages are just ducky- declaring the ruling the “law of the land.†- http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/carson-huckabee-gay-marriage/2015/06/26/id/652379/
Carson apparently thinks abortions are just ducky too- he said that he “would never advocate it’s illegal for a person to get an abortion.†- http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-09-30/news/1992274113_1_abortions-obstetrics-dr
Carson approves of using baby parts from ‘tissue banks’ “To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?†- https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ben-carson-says-it-is-foolish-not-to-use-already-aborted-babies-tissues-in
Carson apparently refers mothers with fetuses with birth defects to abortion clinics- “he [Carson] believes in quality medical care, No. 1, and secondly, he believes in people making their own decisions based on facts and information.†- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456.html?hp=t3_r
Carson believes abortions for rape are just ducky- “I would hope that they would very quickly avail themselves of the emergency room, and in the emergency room, they have the ability to administer RU-486 and other possibilities before you have a developing fetus.†- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456.html?hp=t3_r
Gun Control:
Carson is for banning “Assault Rifles†http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/28/dr-ben-carson-on-gun-rights-some-weapons-probably-not-appropriate-like-tanks/
Carson has stated conservatives need to be open to the idea of compromise on gun control measures - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/28/dr-ben-carson-on-gun-rights-some-weapons-probably-not-appropriate-like-tanks/
Carson has stated that local governments should be allowed to ban guns under certain conditions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NM0lldmplM
Carson thinks guns should only be allowed in certain places:
“I had hoped that my NRA speech this year would clarify my position on the second amendment, which I believe is vital to our freedom. As I stated in that speech, Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher when talking about tyranny in Europe, stated that America would never suffer such tyranny because the people were armed. The point that I clumsily was trying to make on the Beck show was that, we should be looking for ways to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable individuals. It was not a well thought out comment by any stretch of the imagination. All of my writings and in-depth statements clearly state that in no way do I wish to compromise the second amendment. I have subsequently had meaningful discussions with the leadership of the NRA concluded that any law-abiding American should have access to any legal weapon for protection, recreation or whatever other legal purpose they may desire. I am now a lifetime member of the NRA. I realize that some people will never believe that and will not go back and research my writings and statements to satisfy themselves.†- https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/05/exclusive-ten-questions-with-dr-ben-carson
Energy:
“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market,†but then Carson continued, “therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations.†- http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/kathie-obradovich/caucus/2015/05/05/ben-carson-climate-change-renewable-fuel-standard/26945261/
Personal Gain:
“it is naive to count on the honesty and integrity of people responsible for our markets when they stand to gain so much by manipulating the system to their advantage.†(Ben Carson, America the Beautiful, 78-79) -
Taxes:
Carson has stated that he’s for government wage control- http://www.cnbc.com/id/102658083
More on Carson at the following link: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/ben-carson
I think he is looking at a ‘class’ of people who have a health condition that is deteriorating and we’ve invented great science to prolong this deterioration. It’s like being told you are suddenly (out of the blue) in stage four of cancer. There’s treatment that didn’t exist thirty years ago and they can burn through $50,000 of cost in a matter of six weeks to give you that treatment and buy you two to six months of extra time. At some point, you will ask where the $50,000 came from, and it’s from the big pot of money for Medicare and regular insurance.
Science does a lot of things and there’s a price-tag attached to each plus-up.
As long as people have a quality of life, I don’t have much discussion on this topic. It’s when they don’t have a quality of life and science bumps into the issue....giving us options that don’t have much real value unless you had a quality of life attached.
Thanks for your comments and your personal experience with this issue. Life is precious and should not be treated in the callous manner that Carson’s views depict.
Glad to hear about your mom. Thanks for sharing!
I don’t believe in heroic efforts if there is no hope for recovery either.
But now we have a lot of things that can make people live longer and if you look at what Carson said he said this impacts the labor market. That’s eugenics.
By the way if anybody is still upset at the remarks made by Donald Trump about Carson go on Youtube and watch what Reverend Manning has to say. Trump pales by comparison.
He’s no conservative.
God bless you.
Thanks, Bob434.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.