Death Panels... real?

[gumOnShoe]

This is about to be one hell of a face palm moment. You ready? Put foam on your desk in case you should happen to crash face first into it upon reading.

Back when Obama wanted to pass health care reform, Palin and other right wingers went on and on about "death panels." At the time, this was a gross misunderstanding of dr & patient conversations about end of life plans. Basically, talking about exit strategies. If you have cancer do you want to be hooked up to life support or go to hospice? That kind of conversation. The idea is that every person might not want to be a vegetable for the rest of their life. But, the law never said there would actually be a panel reviewing whether people should live or die. It was supposed to just enforce a conversation between patient & doctor.

The media blew it up and a lot of conservatives used it as evidence to hate the bill.

There never really was a death panel though... or was there? There wasn't a death panel in Obama's legislation. On that point we are clear, but there is death panel legislation out there. And its actually at the state level. In the heart of conservative territory.

And it was signed in to law by none other than George W. Bush.

Linky

Texas of all states has death panels.

I just... :( wow...

[poxpower]

Nah that's ok since it's at the state level!
If the Federal government does anything tough, DAMN THEM!

[Iron-Hampster]

how the hell do you defend that.

[adrshepard]

At 6/11/11 03:47 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: how the hell do you defend that.

If the person's bills are being paid by the state, and his condition is terminal, and expensive procedures only delay the inevitable for a few weeks or month while he's a vegetable, that's how.

These aren't the death panels people were upset about. In these cases, the medical futility of treatment is the main issue, whereas the feared death panels were driven purely by cost and not medical judgment, since the health system would be rationed.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/11/11 06:17 PM, adrshepard wrote: the feared death panels were driven purely by cost and not medical judgment, since the health system would be rationed.

The funniest thing is how people think these cost driven death panels are more likely to exist in the government than in profit/cost driven private insurers...

[Ericho]

I knew he was a heavy proponent of the death penalty but I had no idea it ever got this bad. The best part is that at least we don't have this going on with the guy who is currently in charge. Of course, Bush himself didn't look for making death panels when he was in his Presidency. Trust me, with all the criticism he took, that would have been the first thing they'd mock him for. Given all the hypocrisy of his administration, I'm not surprised.

[RydiaLockheart]

The "Baby Joseph" thing going on in Canada is an example of what some folks in this country might call "death panels." I saw some panic on the internet over it.

link

The Ontario court in this case basically decided it was futile to spend any money on a kid that would die anyway. There are clearly way more issues in this story that are better suited for other threads, but I think you get the point.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 6/11/11 06:17 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 6/11/11 03:47 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: how the hell do you defend that.

If the person's bills are being paid by the state, and his condition is terminal, and expensive procedures only delay the inevitable for a few weeks or month while he's a vegetable, that's how.

These aren't the death panels people were upset about. In these cases, the medical futility of treatment is the main issue, whereas the feared death panels were driven purely by cost and not medical judgment, since the health system would be rationed.

well no i have nothing against pulling the plug or anything but i was wondering how they were going to defend their hypocrisy in this situation after all the fear mongering about the dems bringing this in when all a long the last guy they had in charge did exactly what they said the dems would do but didn't.

[satanbrain]

If medical facilities can decide to give treatment and save patients' lives against their wishes why is stopping them from killing themselves different?

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/12/11 12:57 AM, satanbrain wrote: If medical facilities can decide to give treatment and save patients' lives against their wishes why is stopping them from killing themselves different?

Sounds like your somewhat voicing the arguments of right to death abvocates like the late dr koverkian.

To me though, I have a hard time seeing how adrshepherd seems to be failing to address one of the more germane points of what is being brought up with this law: That being that the hospital is empowered to IGNORE an advanced directive (meant to legally set in stone the wishes of the patient) and then potentially be 100% protected against consequence for such actions.

[gumOnShoe]

At 6/11/11 06:17 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 6/11/11 03:47 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: how the hell do you defend that.

If the person's bills are being paid by the state, and his condition is terminal, and expensive procedures only delay the inevitable for a few weeks or month while he's a vegetable, that's how.

These aren't the death panels people were upset about. In these cases, the medical futility of treatment is the main issue, whereas the feared death panels were driven purely by cost and not medical judgment, since the health system would be rationed.

& Rydia

I completely understand that there are advanced situations where the state is paying all the money and there is no hope of life and the person is no longer beneficial to society. I understand that there is a difference between killing someone and letting their body decompose as it would naturally without intervention. It isn't murder in my opinion.

However, it does offend a lot of people, and the Republicans went on for 3 or 4 months about this fake legislation the democrats weren't proposing. They used it as a tactic to bring down Obama's approval and stall congress. And it worked. The sad thing is, they already passed the law in Texas. And it wasn't make believe then.

This facepalm moment for me was all about the hypocrisy.

[adrshepard]

At 6/12/11 02:51 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: To me though, I have a hard time seeing how adrshepherd seems to be failing to address one of the more germane points of what is being brought up with this law: That being that the hospital is empowered to IGNORE an advanced directive (meant to legally set in stone the wishes of the patient) and then potentially be 100% protected against consequence for such actions.

It's not hard to see why; I HATE individual rights!

If I had to guess at the actual justification, I'd say its because public health services are meant for everybody, and no one can have a claim to an undue share of a physicians' or facilities resources. Even if they have the right insurance, the person still takes up the room, the supplies, and the time of the doctor and staff. If that time can be better spent helping people with greater chances of recovery, it makes sense to prioritize treating those patients. Of course, that reasoning alone would mean ignoring a substantial amount of people, but limiting it to the most obviously terminal cases sounds reasonable to me.

[bengroomed]

We just went through this last year when we lost our Pop. He was a WWII veteran who had ample service time, lots of insurance he had paid into for over 50 years. He even went so far as to pre-plan his funeral and final resting place. Mom (still with us) has alzheimers and he was her primary care giver that used up the last of his good health (although we tried to convince him otherwise) and he had bought long term care insurance for both of them to the tune of $12000 a year.
Doctors told us that we were being selfish to try and keep him alive and that we were just torturing him with treatments. After we changed doctors, it was too late. He'd already missed the opportune time for treatment to get his kidney's back to functioning order.
The new doctors we talked to said, "Be thankful, if it was after 1.1.11 we wouldn't even be having this conversation as we won't be allowed to give dialysis to an 88 year old!"
Follow the money. I'm just saying.....

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/11/11 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The funniest thing is how people think these cost driven death panels are more likely to exist in the government than in profit/cost driven private insurers...

By "private" I'm assuming you mean the government created healthcare cartel known an insurance agencies?

At 6/11/11 03:47 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: how the hell do you defend that.

By saying that the fact that conservatives are morons is no reflection upon the supposed merits of universal healthcare and the supposed flaws in private insurance.

[SmilezRoyale]

1. An ostensibly "Socialistic" piece of legislation is more likely to go unnoticed when enacted by a republican and visa versa.

Now unfortunately, for obvious reasons, the DailyKos has it's own agenda and so much of the information that a clear-headed person needs simply isn't available in the article. I'll assume that the fact that a physician does not want to continue the treatment of certain patients is that 1. the hospital is mandated to provide for them 2. the hospital is receiving funds from the state to provide for them.

obviously if this patient was able to fully pay their own weight there would be no controversy.

If the state is mandating that the hospital fund the patient at their own expense, then This 'death panel' is basically a loophole to undo the original mandate.

If the state is funding it, then they are simply exerting additional control over the conditions of the funding.

Regardless The idea of funding healthcare indefinitely and at whatever cost is childish at best and ignores the fundamental reality that trade-offs exist in life. And the more you try to attain more of one thing the greater the relative cost it comes at everything else.

Death panels, as far as I am concerned, are not some politician's or ideologue's insidious invention. [Save for a few lunatics like George Bernard Shaw] But the natural consequence of the original policy of substituting the will of the legislature for prices. At some point the Government officials have to decide who gets medical treatment and who doesn't, because they've prevented normal circumstances from making that decision. This can be in the form of overt euthanasia or the much more dishonest policy of waiting lines.

Gas Rationing was never part of the Government's plan in the 1970's, [presumably] It was simply what was necessary given the government's willing choice to 'make oil cheap'

The rationing factor that influences the decision of a patient on life support [or the patient's physician or family] to continue or discontinue it does exist even on a free market, It is not rationing in the traditional sense in that the 'live or die' decisions are made by individuals given the knowledge provided by a [presumably functional] price system.

However the capacity of an entire civilization to maintain the longevity of their lives is not a measure of their willingness to go to any cost necessary to keep a few unfortunate individuals alive as long as the boundaries of medical science can carry it.

Or in layman's terms you can't make something more plentiful by a policy of making it free to use by anyone at any time.

[ScytheCutter]

At 6/11/11 09:13 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The Ontario court in this case basically decided it was futile to spend any money on a kid that would die anyway. There are clearly way more issues in this story that are better suited for other threads, but I think you get the point.

I disagree. They ruled in favor of the doctors, who believed it would cause unnecessary harm to the child to perform the trach. and send him home to die.