Charles Krauthammer writes today about the "death panel" issue, shooting down the worst invective while insisting that if docs were reimbursed for end-of-life discussions, they would have an incentive to press patients to skip treatment and die sooner.
On Sunday, we'll have an op-ed from a local lawyer about his experience with a couple who prepared advanced directives before encountering a potentially terminal illness.
So, let me tell you about my experience.
My father was diagnosed as terminally ill in April, and my family went through five weeks of fear, confusion, unity and grief. Well, the grief has lasted more than five weeks.
But during those five weeks, we had several sessions that certainly would fall within the scope of the "death panel" debate - and they were among the most humane moments in a situation that no one is adequately prepared for.
I don't know if the doctors, case managers, nutritionists and nurses we met with were reimbursed or not; my dad was covered by Medicare.
Three different doctors who were involved in his care explained treatment (and non-treatment) options, answered all our questions and made themselves available by phone for further questions, or for family members who weren't able to be present for the appointments. I don't think any of felt as if we were directed toward a particular option.
We also met twice with a team at the convalescent hospital to go over his condition and care. Again, we got all the time we needed. Our questions were answered. Information was provided, and our wishes were followed.
Of course, it helped that we understood my dad's wishes.
So, have other people had different, less satisfactory experiences? Sure.
Do I believe for a minute that ensuring doctors were reimbursed for this time would lead to death panels, mandatory euthanasia and Soylent Green? No. I wish I believed this was all cynical political posturing, but there are some gullible people out there.
- Jim Sweeney
Sorry to hear about your father and your family's grief. In the end, a good man is marked by love.
However, juxtaposing your recent experience(with maximum availability of Medicare for your father) with experiences that could change in the future when available medical care may be spread thinner to an expanded medical population) is semantically dishonest. One can never know the future by comparing it to the present. and blatantly accusing those who have concerns about their medical futures as "gullible" is, frankly, offensive. Most of these so-called "gullible" people are senior citizens currently on Medicare who fear that under Obama-Care their medical future will deteriorate because medical resources will be spread thin. If you have as much compassion for other senior citizens as you have had for your own father, you owe the "gullible" an apology.
I am sorry for your loss, and the grieving process does takes some time. I lost my mother ten years ago, she had a living well, which she had made sometime before she became ill with heart disease. It made it easier for myself, I have no siblings, and my family to follow her instructions and let her leave us knowing that this is what she wanted.
I encourage everyone to make a living will while you are of sure mind and before you are too ill to make decisions for your self.
A living will is available at any store that sells stationery
and does not have to involve an attorney or notary public and should be on file with your Doctor's office.
Pray tell, where do I say that there's no reason to fear that care could be spread thinner in the future?
Obviously that's one of the major themes of this debate, even if it's seldom said quite so bluntly.
What I did say is that anyone who really thinks that reimbursing a doctor for discussing all options will suddenly create platoons of Dr. Kevorkians urging old people to give up is gullible. And they are.
The public wouldn't stand for it. And neither would the docs.
But if this debate continues to focus on sideshows like this one, it's a good bet that we do end up with less care for every one, whether it's public, private or some hybrid (as we have now).
"Pray tell, where do I say that there's no reason to fear that care could be spread thinner in the future?" -- Jim Sweeney. You may pray all you want, Mr. Sweeney, that seniors will receive the care that your father did under Obama's Utopian medical scheme, but you did not "tell" anybody (in your piece) about your fears about health care being spread thinner in the future. A sin of omission is, more often than not, a sin of acquiescence.
And what happened to my response to Mr. Sweeney's response? Lost in translation or lost in painful relevance?
Let's face it, Koepf's assertions are as irrelevant to the discussion as he is--desperately tired of liars like him.
Loric, Michael is often the only poster who bothers to reply to Sweeney's posts. That makes him more relevant than you realize.
I find his comments an excellent counterpoint to Jim. Of course, I may be more open minded about differing opinions...
BUT, you weren't doing it at the directive of a federal government law. BIG difference.