Michelle Malkin » Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

By Michelle Malkin • August 9, 2009 11:36 AM

Sarah Palin’s warning about the effects of Obamacare on the elderly and infirm have been met with derision and ridicule. William Jacobson has a good round-up.

Meanwhile, the effects of socialized medicine in Britain — engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels on which Obamacare would be modeled — continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm:

*Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions

*Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

*Elderly suffer in care shambles

*Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer

*NHS neglects elderly depression.

*NHS failure on Down’s screening kills healthy babies

*‘I said to the nurse, please feed her:’ Pauline Pringle’s mother went into hospital for a hip operation and came out close to starvation. And as Blake Morrison reports, hers is not an isolated case

Last year, my mother-in-law fell off her Stannah and broke a hip. If that sounds like the cue for a Les Dawson joke (“I was hoping it would be her neck”), it isn’t: I’m fond of my mother-in-law and the result of her little accident, not funny in the least, was that she nearly died. After a belated but successful operation, she developed c diff (clostridium difficile, the nation’s favourite hospital killer bug after MRSA), and three courses of antibiotics failed to clear the infection.

Suddenly a robust, cheerful woman of 79, whose only mobility problem had been climbing stairs, began to talk of never leaving hospital again but of being “laid out on a marble slab” – and when the hospital asked for our permission not to resuscitate her should she lose consciousness, we realised this was no paranoid fantasy.

Thanks to the efforts of her five children, who travelled long distances to see her, brought food, pleaded with staff not to write her off and eventually – because the pleas were falling on deaf ears – moved her to another (I’m afraid, private) hospital, my mother-in-law is still around, less active than she used to be, but alive to see in another new year. She was lucky. We were lucky. But as I’m beginning to discover, many people with elderly relatives are not.

Pauline Pringle wasn’t lucky. Her mother Sarah Ingham died around the same time and in similar circumstances, on January 6 last year: a badly dislocated hip was missed and after the operation that eventually followed, Sarah spent 12 weeks in Tameside hospital, Manchester, failing to shake off a post-operative infection and – denied a proper diet – losing three and a half stone in weight. She was then sent home, where the local GP knew nothing of her discharge and didn’t recognise her as the same woman he’d seen three months earlier. She died within a fortnight. At the inquest the coroner, John Pollard, said that he would be writing to the hospital to demand an explanation for Sarah’s malnourishment: “It is totally unsatisfactory in a major city in a western democracy that families have to bring food into a hospital because their loved ones are not being fed properly by staff.”

…One much quoted figure suggests that up to half a million elderly people in the UK are being abused at any one time. Unlike child abuse, elder abuse is rarely reported beyond local newspapers, and those who inflict it are less likely to be held to account.

When a House of Commons health committee produced its report, Elder Abuse, in 2004, it suggested that “abuse in domiciliary settings is the commonest type”. Overall, though, whereas the old are more likely to be robbed of money or possessions by their nearest and dearest, they’re more likely to starve to death in a hospital or care home. Dr Adrian Treloar, a specialist in geriatric psychiatry, caused a furore in 1999 when he applied the phrase “involuntary euthanasia” to the way in which elderly patients in NHS hospitals were being deprived of food and water and “left at the bottom of the pile”.

*Shame on the doctors prejudiced against Down Syndrome

[D]espite all the progress which children with Down Syndrome are now making in schools and homes up and down the country, the medical profession in general still has a visceral bias in favour of eugenic termination, which its practitioners are often startlingly crude in expressing. This is not based on a realistic and up-to-date assessment of the possibilities open to those with Down Syndrome, still less of the happiness which such people can and do bring to families and even communities as a whole: it is a function of the fact – which is undeniable – that people with Down Syndrome are likely to cost the NHS more in subsequent medical treatment than a child without any disabilities.

Yesterday the BBC News website ran a selection of comments on this issue by members of the public. One in particular, by Heather of Livingston, Scotland, is worth reproducing in full here: “I was told that my daughter had Down’s when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and every doctor, gynaecologist I saw tried to convince me a termination was the best option. I was still offered this at 26 weeks! One reason given to me by a cold-hearted consultant was that ‘these babies put a strain on the NHS’. My daughter was stillborn and when pregnant again, I refused all tests apart from a scan. It’s not society who are looking for the ‘perfect baby’, it’s the medical profession.”

Death panels? What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels.

***

Ann Althouse…

She doesn’t say that the government will kill disabled (or elderly) persons directly, but that death will occur as a result of the decisions of cost controlling bureaucrats with the power to determine who can receive various treatments. I don’t know why “level of productivity in society” is in quotes, nor do I know whether it is the plan to ration care on this basis. Those are actually serious matters, and I’d like to know the answers. What Kleefeld is doing is trying to sweep Palin aside as a big crazy wacko.

Yes, she used a colorful expression “death panel,” but it’s a good and fair polemical expression if in fact life-saving care will be rationed on this basis. I have found myself saying, in conversation, “I’m afraid Obama is going to kill me.” Now, I’m not picturing him or one of his minions coming over to murder me, but I am afraid that as I get older and need expensive care to keep me alive that I will be told I cannot have it, because at my age, in the government’s opinion, there’s not enough life left in me to be worth the money that I would take from the system that needs to pay for everything.

***

Another reality check from Deroy Murdock.

And concern about the Obamacare end-of-life provisions from Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Health care,Sarah Palin

Printer Friendly

comments (222)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#201

On August 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, spaceycakes said:

Um, well, I didn’t couch in your nice terms…
#202

On August 10th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#195):

What is at the root of this whole question is this: who makes the decision about the allocation of scarce resources? You, or government?

It won’t be you unless you’re self insured. Otherwise it will be the insurer, a for-profit insurance company or the government. That’s how it is now and that’s how it will stay, reform or no reform.
#203

On August 10th, 2009 at 4:33 pm, Ragspierre said:

It won’t be you unless you’re self insured. Otherwise it will be the insurer, a for-profit insurance company or the government. That’s how it is now and that’s how it will stay, reform or no reform.

But, once again, you prove your voluntary stupidity.

My insurance company has contractual duties to me. Those are enforceable by me (or, in some circumstances my survivors). I have nothing of the sort to use against a government bureaucracy.

Regardless of whether my insurance company had a duty to pay for something, I have the choice of paying for it myself…or with the help of others who may care for me. That, of course, includes many thousands of people who scarcely know me…or don’t know me at all.

Still, that is MY choice. It does not belong to the government…or to people who have their earnings taken from them against their will.

You always provide such a good foil. Thank you for your consistency.
#204

On August 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm, Ragspierre said:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/10/video-how-obamacare-will-ration-care/

It isn’t like we have no models for statist health care.

We do. They are ugly.
#205

On August 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm, Ragspierre said:

The Left’s challenge to the legitimacy of its opponents stands reality on its head. In truth, there is no greed as boundless and vicious as a politician’s lust for power… and unlike the energetic pursuit of the profit motive, the greed of a Nancy Pelosi produces nothing useful as a side effect. There is no class of people less qualified to run any industry than the political class, whose priorities never include the health of the industries they run into the ground. No one cares less about their “employees” and “customers” than a liberal politician. No one should be allowed to “buy” controlling interest in any industry with a stack of ballots, because the Constitutional restraints on government were not meant as minor inconveniences for the State to navigate around. Elections may have consequences, but the suspension of anyone’s right to property or free speech should never be among them.

In the end, health insurance is like any other commodity. There are only two ways to obtain it: buy it, or force someone else to give it to you. The people who understand this cold truth do not sacrifice the legitimacy of their dissent by acting outraged in the face of an outrage.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/10/legitimate-criticism/

Dr. Zero is a national treasure.
#206

On August 10th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#203):

But, once again, you prove your voluntary stupidity.

Once again you insult me at the same time you agree with what I say.

My insurance company has contractual duties to me. Those are enforceable by me (or, in some circumstances my survivors). I have nothing of the sort to use against a government bureaucracy.

The insurance benefits package is mandated by contract, the government minimum will be a set of benefits mandated by law — bureaucrats in both cases.

Regardless of whether my insurance company had a duty to pay for something, I have the choice of paying for it myself…

None of the proposals takes away your right to pay for whatever you want, including unnecessary brain surgery (That poor Canadian woman in the Republican health care ad had a benign tumor that didn’t need immediate action.).
#207

On August 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, Ragspierre said:

The insurance benefits package is mandated by contract, the government minimum will be a set of benefits mandated by law — bureaucrats in both cases.

Please, keep this up.

Benefits provided by law can be changed by law. Any time. Benefits provided by law…and provided by government…are by no means equal to benefits provided by contract. Ever been in a welfare office? I have, and the patronization and condescension toward the “customers” I observed made me sick to my stomach.

Benefits provided by law don’t necessarily get delivered, either. Heard of IOUs in Kulifornia? Heard of amounts owing to contractors that build GSA buildings going unpaid until the contractors have to take bankruptcy? I have, as a direct result of representing the contractors.

Again, an employee of an insurance company and a government teet-sucker are not equivalent units. They are faced with totally different incentives, consequences, and rewards.

If you think otherwise (as apparently you do) you are more stupid than even I have assessed you to be.

As to your “story” about the lady, I think it is a great object lesson. Was her tumor KNOWN to be benign prior to her operation? You didn’t ask, did you? The “story” on your collectivist site didn’t bother to mention that, either.

In any event, she wanted to be treated. She did not care to have that thing living in her brain. Was it causing her problems? You don’t know, and don’t care.
#208

On August 10th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, Socky said:

If the end of life counseling is controversial, why not just take out of the bill? Why are the Obamunists determined to keep it in if it’s not a big deal, as they claim?
#209

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, neocon527 said:

Here’s Sen. Isakson’s response to all this. He was also the co-sponsor of the Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act in 2007.

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that’s because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia “durable power of attorney,” you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you’re unable to make those decisions.

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it’s to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It’s just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

You’re saying that this is not a question of government. It’s for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it’s a voluntary deal.

Cue the references to Nazi death camps in…3…2…
#210

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:17 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#207):

Benefits provided by law can be changed by law. Any time. Benefits provided by law…and provided by government…are by no means equal to benefits provided by contract.

Good point, but private insurance policies are not guarantees either. Insurers can go broke. This would have happened to AIG, and lots of people would have lost their contractual insurance, if Uncle Sambo hadn’t intervened (racist overtones acknowledged — any hypocrite stone throwers here?). Moreover, present health care bills all call for private insurers to compete with the “public option”. They can compete by offering stronger guarantees than the Feds.

As to your “story” about the lady, I think it is a great object lesson. Was her tumor KNOWN to be benign prior to her operation?

Yes.

Dr. Rolando Del Maestro says the lesion Holmes was diagnosed with is benign, and usually slow-growing. It typically does not require urgent attention

Socky said (#208):

If the end of life counseling is controversial, why not just take out of the bill?

1. It’s good for the patient, Republican misrepresentation notwithstanding. People should know all their end of life options and make their own choice — what the present bills call for.

2. It’s a big deal because it benefits all Americans, at least all of them who eventually die.

3. It may save lots of money. A surprising fraction of health care expense in the US is for expensive heroic measures in the last few months of life that often do little more than prolong pain for weeks (try googling this — you’ll see). If the patient doesn’t want it, don’t give it to him/her.
#211

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pm, Ragspierre said:

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, neocon527 said:

Maybe, since you are a fountain of collectivist understanding, you can explain the use of the term ORDER in the House draft.

See, as an attorney I know the term ORDER is not associated with something a citizen asks for.
#212

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pm, Ragspierre said:

Dr. Rolando Del Maestro says the lesion Holmes was diagnosed with is benign, and usually slow-growing. It typically does not require urgent attention, he said.

Funny tense, for a condition she WAS diagnosed to have.

But, regardless, she wanted the procedure.

Are you suggesting that the bad, running-dog capitalists at the Mayo Clinic raped this lady by operating on her????

And, please, keep this up.
#213

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, neocon527 said:

The frequent use of the term “order” in Section 1233 of the bill is exclusively used in regards to the patient’s orders, be that an advanced directive or a living will. But I’m sure that’s just my hive thinking at it again.
#214

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pm, Ragspierre said:

1. It’s good for the patient, Republican misrepresentation notwithstanding. People should know all their end of life options and make their own choice — what the present bills call for.

2. It’s a big deal because it benefits all Americans, at least all of them who eventually die.

3. It may save lots of money. A surprising fraction of health care expense in the US is for expensive heroic measures in the last few months of life that often do little more than prolong pain for weeks (try googling this — you’ll see). If the patient doesn’t want it, don’t give it to him/her.

What a GREAT piece of statist, elitist condescension!!!

You’ve decided what will be good for others.

You’ve decided they are too stupid to know their options, and others are too greedy to help them.

You’ve decided what is good for society.

You’ve decided what will save money.

A-freaking-mazing. Excellent exposition.
#215

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:40 pm, Ragspierre said:

The frequent use of the term “order” in Section 1233 of the bill is exclusively used in regards to the patient’s orders, be that an advanced directive or a living will. But I’m sure that’s just my hive thinking at it again.

Well, yes. It is your hive thinking. If that is what is meant, why isn’t it stated…in those terms. You know, the ones people use for those kinds of instruments (like I draw up for people).
#216

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:42 pm, neocon527 said:

How is it confusing?
#217

On August 10th, 2009 at 7:56 pm, Socky said:

3. It may save lots of money.

Finally, a leftist admits the truth; the purpose of the end-of-life counseling is to persuade or coerce people into choosing to die so that health care costs less.

So, we can safely conclude all denials to the contrary are complete cattlescat.
#218

On August 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pm, neocon527 said:

Finally, a leftist admits the truth; the purpose of the end-of-life counseling is to persuade or coerce people into choosing to die so that health care costs less.

So, one stupid, erroneous comment = the truth? Am I not permitted to go to my doctor and discuss what I want when/if I become terminally ill? You may have a different perspective on the Schiavo case, but I remember the majority of my staff being frightened by the gov’t intervention into her case and took it upon themselves to either get a living will or alter the one they already had because they did not want someone other than themselves or perhaps one or two family members from deciding what happened to them in their final days. These people were not “leftists,” they were not coerced, they simply wanted to be in control. And I doubt they’d have minded if Medicare had covered their consultation.
#219

On August 10th, 2009 at 9:24 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#214():

You’ve decided they are too stupid to know their options, and others are too greedy to help them.

Not my decision. Data show a large overall fraction of US health care dollars spent on people without living will/power of attorney forms and have become unable to make such decisions. As a lawyer, you should have no trouble googling this.

You’ve decided what is good for society.

If you eliminate the 1% of Americans who are pure libertarian, the rest of us are trying to do just this. If you think its better for society for people not to have access to end of life counseling, you could make that case. Or you could just rage on — may I call you ragepierre?

You’ve decided what will save money.

yes. And again, not just me. Look at the health care literature.

Socky said (#217):

Finally, a leftist admits the truth; the purpose of the end-of-life counseling is to persuade or coerce people into choosing to die so that health care costs less.

I don’t know a liberal who said this. I certainly didn’t. But one benefit from not giving people treatments they don’t want is that nobody has to pay for them.
#220

On August 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am, spaceycakes said:

Am I not permitted to go to my doctor and discuss what I want when/if I become terminally ill?

You can do this now. What’s your point?

lgm said: if Uncle Sambo hadn’t intervened (racist overtones acknowledged

What the hell? Is there something wrong with you?
#221

On August 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am, neocon527 said:

You can do this now. What’s your point?

My point is that now, it’s being called a “death panel.”
#222

On August 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am, spaceycakes said:

Rubbish.

The decision is now mine.

When they make the decision, it is no longer mine.