The Joys of Socialized Medicine

[Randy Parkinson]

State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
'To say, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel'

Posted: June 19, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.

The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.

But the word from the state was coverage for palliative care, which would include the state's assisted suicide program, would be allowed but not coverage for the cancer treatment drugs.

'To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel,' Wagner told the newspaper. 'I get angry. Who do they think they are?'

(Story continues here)

[Nobilis]

There's information missing from this article.

There comes a time in every terminal patient's life, where further treatment to treat the disease will be more harmful than allowing the disease to run its terminal course. In those cases, palliative care is often the best choice.

Palliative care refers to drugs and other treatments intended to make the patient as comfortable as possible. In some cases, this can be heavy duty painkillers, antidepressants, etc. and in others can include assisted suicide. Both are treatments intended to ease the patient's pain, and are entered into voluntarily by the patient.

Does the doctor in question perform palliative care? Most oncologists don't. Would he be losing a patient (and an income stream) if he were to advise palliative care? Had the doctor "prescribed" the chemotherapy because he thought it was the best option for the patient, or because he wanted the option to be open to the patient, in addition to palliative care? What other options besides assisted suicide are available under the State insurance system?

There's no way to make an ethical analysis of this situation.

[Dani Cutler]

Well, it seems that even though it's not the first time it's happened, it's still a rare occurrence and a glitch in the Oregon system. It doesn't mean that universal health care as a whole is a failure. The perspective of a universal system is to provide care for what will keep the largest amount of the population healthy. Unfortunately cancers and terminal illnesses are not the top priority of this system, because this coverage isn't what the majority of the population needs.

Fix the problem, improve the system. There are always going to be problems, just like there are many MANY problems with our current system of health care/insurance.

Unfortunately that's not what articles such as this one are aiming for. The goal of this article ( as with most of the articles on the World Net site) seems to be more of an anti-progressive view vs. actual news and information.

[Randy Parkinson]

When I hear someone say we need universal health care in the United States the first two things to pop to my mind are the VHA (Veterans Health Administration) and Medicare. I am eligible for benefits from both systems but I want nothing to do with either of them. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who feel the same.

What is wrong with our current system of health care? Is it over-litigated? Is it simple economic discrimination? Do you have a fix that doesn't require that I hand over even more of my own personal wealth to the government?

You don't believe World Net is any more anti-progressive than Think Progress is anti-conservative do you? :)

[Nobilis]

I think we need to get away from the idea that it's okay for people to make money making decisions about who lives and who dies. A person's personal wealth shouldn't depend on how many people he can get away with allowing to suffer.

[Randy Parkinson]

How do you make that change?

Would you force a doctor (a person) to perform a service they know they will not be compensated for?

Would you force a hospital (a business) to perform services they know they will not be compensated for?

We are already (sort of) there when you look at emergency care.

What about the supplies used in treatment? They have a tangible value that has to be paid for. Who should pay? The doctor? The hospital?

The most common answer I hear is that I should pay through even higher taxes. That bothers me.

[-=topper=-]

: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

I wonder with that definition you would consider euthanasia an option for dealing with patients that can't pay for the care they need. You know, just to save you that precious commodity you call money.

-=t=-