More on Rationing Health Care for Elderly
The Administration has argued that the "death panels" are bogus. And maybe the over all panel is, but the idea behind them - that the Federal Government would cut medical costs by encouraging the elderly to not seek life saving treatment in some cases - is very real. Just ask a Veteran.
In the Wall Street Journal, an article by Jim Towey talks about a report / guideline that was released last year titled, "Your Life, Your Choices." (Found via Powerline)
These are decisions that the Federal Government should not be involved in. And these are conversations that I would never wnat my parents to have to have with a physician or insurance company.
I was reading how living wills are really kind of worthless in the end, unless you are a hermit and have no friends or family. Because in the event that you are incapacitated or hospitalized and they want to know about DNR's or special life saving measures ... they ask the family. And regardless of what the living will says, if your spouse or children say, "He would want you to save him," that's what the care giver is going to do.
(Point of note, if the family disagrees, you get yucky cases like Terri Schiavo, where in the old living will may have more weight? I don't know).
Either way ... the governments involvement in health care has been under the guise of trying to cut costs. The elderly are where the bulk of the spending occurs. You spend more in the final years of your life than you do in the 60 years preceeding it, usually. And what better way to cut costs then to encourage people not to have pace makers, but to take pills, and have shorter lives?
In the Wall Street Journal, an article by Jim Towey talks about a report / guideline that was released last year titled, "Your Life, Your Choices." (Found via Powerline)
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."
The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."
These are decisions that the Federal Government should not be involved in. And these are conversations that I would never wnat my parents to have to have with a physician or insurance company.
I was reading how living wills are really kind of worthless in the end, unless you are a hermit and have no friends or family. Because in the event that you are incapacitated or hospitalized and they want to know about DNR's or special life saving measures ... they ask the family. And regardless of what the living will says, if your spouse or children say, "He would want you to save him," that's what the care giver is going to do.
(Point of note, if the family disagrees, you get yucky cases like Terri Schiavo, where in the old living will may have more weight? I don't know).
Either way ... the governments involvement in health care has been under the guise of trying to cut costs. The elderly are where the bulk of the spending occurs. You spend more in the final years of your life than you do in the 60 years preceeding it, usually. And what better way to cut costs then to encourage people not to have pace makers, but to take pills, and have shorter lives?
Comments