8mm
Posted on 07/29/2008 2:04:12 PM PDT by AreaMan
Opponents of physician-assisted suicide are fired up this summer, and rightfully so, over an ethically questionable provision of the Oregon Health Plan.
The conflict came to light in a recent report in The Register-Guard of Eugene. The newspaper described the sad plight of Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Springfield woman with lung cancer.
After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, "Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."
That presents an unacceptable conflict. The state health program should not be in the position of denying chemotherapy to terminally ill patients while offering to pay the cost of helping them die.
The dust-up over this conflict comes at a poor time for backers of a Washington state initiative that mirrors Oregon's aid-in-dying law. That's too bad, as Wagner's story could cloud what Washington voters really ought to know about Oregon's 10 years of experience with the law.
Critics' dark warnings about it have not panned out. Instead, the debate over it has revolutionized public attitudes about palliative care at the end of life, and Oregon now stands at the forefront. Just this month, researchers at the University of Wisconsin rated the pain-management policies of Oregon and four other states as best in the nation.
Predictably, critics of Oregon's unique-in-the-nation law are aflame over Wagner's story, some claiming it covers killing but not cancer. That's not exactly true, of course. The program that rations subsidized health care for low-income Oregonians has paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner's cancer care, and it will continue to do so.
It stopped short, however, of paying for a cancer drug that failed to meet the state's long-standing "five-year, 5 percent rule." It won't approve payment for treatment that doesn't provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years.
In Wagner's case, administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that's what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy.
What's unacceptable, however, is that Wagner's rejection letter included the offer of payment for doctor-assisted death. Such notification creates at least the appearance of an ethical conflict: state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure.
As the only state that both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care, Oregon has created a fine ethical line for state officials to navigate. In this case, they stepped over it. For the sake of ethical clarity in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the state health plan should stop offering to pay for those who use it.
Remember kiddies...Soylent Green is people, poor, sick people.
I lived in that state for 5 years. I got out in 1982, while I could still run. We honked the horn, in celebration, for about 10 miles as we left, glad to get out even then.
I'll go ahead and say it...."Coming soon, to a Socialized Medicine Plan near you."
I'll take expensive coverage that's available, over cheap coverage that I can't get, every single time. I can always make more money, you only get one shot at living.
So what? Who cares if 5 guys at the Alpha Delta Phi frat house in Wisconsin thought the pot was especially good here in Oregon?
Correct. It just means that the insurance company can decide they've spent enough on you, and it is time for you to die.
As the economy tightens, you can expect to see more of this. (I suspect more of this has been going on than we know.)
And of course, the so-called 'right to die' folks will find that perfectly acceptable. After all, human life is only valuable as long as it isn't inconvenient or costly.
“What’s unacceptable, however, is that Wagner’s rejection letter included the offer of payment for doctor-assisted death. Such notification creates at least the appearance of an ethical conflict: state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure.”
The champions of socialized medicine never seem to get it through their heads that “state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure” is precisely where these systems of “health care” lead. How many stories do we have to read coming out of Europe or Canada about this kind of thing? Doctors in the Netherlands deciding who lives and who dies and then providing “assistance” in seeing it happens. People in the UK denied critical procedures because they are over a certain age. Patients waiting days, weeks, months, even years for vital medical procedures.
The fools that advocate for socialized medicine never seem to quite get the fact that this stuff will happen to them, to their loved ones and to their friends. Sure, the wealthy and well-connected will always have their private health care networks. But they are a tiny minority. What do the millions of ordinary people who support this stuff think will happpen to them?
Given the abundant evidence of where this stuff ultimately leads there is no excuse for adopting such a system.
And you can bet your life (literally) that sooner-or-later such a system will be used as a means of coercion and control. Humans will run it and humans will act like humans and use it for their own selfish purposes.
She and her family would very likely have made the same choice if they’d been paying for her care out of their own pockets.
Ping...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If Obama Care becomes a reality look for this type of care rationing nationwide.
When you receive a terminal diagnosis should you have the option of using any and all treatments available, without concern for cost or outcome? My health expenses has been almost 90k over the last 7 months. I am luck that the cancer is responding to the treatments. This woman has had several sessions over the last several years and she is running out of options. At what point do you say it is over.
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.