Posted by
Eric Jay on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:00:00 AM
There is one aspect of being a Conservative that makes me proud is that we value Life above all else. The sanctity of life is precious and worthy of protection. That is why I reject abortion as an abhorrent birth control measure, and want embryonic stem cell research limited and neither should receive Federal funding; on a side note I believe adult stem cell research holds out the best chance of medical miracles (actually not miracles but real treatments/cures).
The greatest fear that I have regarding HealthCare Reform, or Health Insurance reform as it now seems to be called, as one more arena for the government to decide life. The scariest aspect of any bureaucracy deciding the who/what/when/where medical decisions, leaving the patient and doctor on the sidelines to abide by the whims of some committee. There is no question that when the bureaucracy makes decisions based on economic factors the lives of those who should be most protected will fall by the wayside. The elderly, the infirm and the youngest will suffer the greatest. Is it worth saving an elderly grandmother if her life is in jeopardy? Should the committee accept treatment and not merely make the patient comfortable, but should they allow treatment to cure the ailment? In Oregon, the answer is "no." This is the reality of a bureaucracy making decisions. The Universal Healthcare of Oregon has run into the dilemma, and the result is not pretty:
|
By Michael Laprarie on Health Care
(July 31, 2008) Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time. "I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.
Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.
[...]
Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.
"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said. (emphasis added)
|
Source: Wizbang
|
This example is one of the best arguments against socializing and/or nationalizing our healthcare system. If the government steps in to rule on life or death situations based on a set of bureaucratic rules, do you think that they will make the 'right' decision? Will those decisions be politically motivated? Will the lives of the elderly and say the very ill young be valued the same as a working 30 year old? If the life of an 80 year old is put up against the 30 year old whose life will be chosen? These are not decisions I want made by some green shade wearing bureaucrat.