Skip to comments.The Unspoken Diagnosis: Old Age (NYT Barf Alert!)
Posted on 12/31/2011 1:35:33 PM PST by wagglebee
Dr. Alexander K. Smith is a brave man.
It has taken physicians a very long time to accept the need to level with patients and their families when they have terminal illnesses and death is near and we know that many times those kinds of honest, exploratory conversations still dont take place.
Now Dr. Smith, a palliative care specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, who also practices at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and two co-authors are urging another change, one they acknowledge would radically alter the way health care professionals communicate with their very old patients.
In a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine, they suggested offering to discuss overall prognosis, doctorspeak for probable life expectancy and the likelihood of death, with patients who dont have terminal illnesses. The researchers favor broaching the subject with anyone who has a life expectancy of less than 10 years or has reached age 85.
(Excerpt) Read more at newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com ...
The New York Times just hates the fact that Zero's plans for rationing and death panels got exposed.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
I can’t wait untill All The News That’s Fit To Slant gets relegated to the dustbin of history!
No offense but I don’t want any doc treating me that has already made up his mind I’m not going to live beyond “x” amount of time. Guy’s already got that in his head I’m not going to make it and quite frankly that doc may have already determined what they won’t do for me to beat the odds. Because it may go beyond what I should rate for care, they could get penalized for doing more than what they’re told is acceptable for a person my age.
Screw this. This world is not going to be running this way much longer.
So they are saying, give up “hope” and the doc will brief you with “change”? Cool!
Well their CEO resigned unexpectedly.
"Palliative Care Specialist" is just a euphemism for DEATH PANEL MEMBER.
I’m fine with people living long lives, as long as they are living at least something that remotely resembles a quality life.
I don’t mean lives have to be perfect. Bedridden is even ok.
But when I’m non-verbal, non-conscious, fully demented, joints contracted, bedsore ridden, have to be turned every 2 hrs, my wastes contantly cleaned, fed through a tube, etc, don’t even know who I am or who anyone else is anymore, and there is no going back ... It’s ok to let me go ...really. No reason to TREAT that. I think the fact that technology allows people to live long enough to get into these states is really NOT a blessing or a great advancement to us.
I’m telling this to my kids. I do NOT wish to be such a burden on others. I didn’t save for all of that expense for that sort of care. No one can, unless they’re very wealthy.
The problem here is, MANY people refuse to let go of their loved ones when they are in these states, and it’s a HUGE cost to society. They want FULL AND CONTINUED TREATMENT, for ALL problems, big and small. If my mind was gone ...why go on? I’m not even “in there” anymore.
As a nurse on a unit that cares for mainly elderly and many with dehabilitating diseases such as demtentia and stroke, I’ve seen so much. I think people would think much differently about this issue if they saw the type and number of folks who are in this condition.
I think every case is unique and every factor should be weighed. I’m not for one size fits all solutions, like Obummercare — but I’m not for letting people live on and on at society’s expense when their lives are essentially over already. It’s not even fair to them. In a lot of cases, it’s being done so the “kids” can continue to receive the society security benefits.
Perhaps if everyone took their elderly relatives into their OWN care at the end ...sort of like we all used to do — things would be so different. We’ve pushed the care of our elders onto others, and we’ve pushed the costs onto others. We need some other way.
“”Palliative Care Specialist” is just a euphemism for DEATH PANEL MEMBER.”
In the old days, they would call this person “the guy with the club”.
In principle that is more or less correct. It means his treatment goal is comfort in dying rather than maximizing life.
So, are you advocating:
A. Death panels
C. Both of the above
This is similar to a caller on Mark Levin- posted on FreeRepublic previously-— pretty scary.
When my husband was diagnosed with cancer, the doctors told me he had only months to live. Well, that scared me, since I had four children, the youngest of whom was only one year old. These were doctors from a well-known university medical school. Well, he lasted nine years, in comparatively good health. So much for the scare tactics. Needless to say, we found another doctor.
And yet you object to even allowing Medicare coverage for counseling of the family by a doctor about costs vs. benefits. If you want absolute freedom to decide, do it on your own dime, otherwise there needs to be a system-wide mechanism for addressing the issue. Call that rationing if you will, but it seems only common sense (from both an economic and personal perspective) to me.
Yes, this is a PRO-LIFE forum and we object to the "counseling" by Zero's death panels.
If you want absolute freedom to decide, do it on your own dime, otherwise there needs to be a system-wide mechanism for addressing the issue.
So, people are forced to pay into Medicare, but you think Medicare should be allowed to kill people?
Call that rationing if you will,
Is there any other term?
but it seems only common sense (from both an economic and personal perspective) to me.
You sound like a pro-death, pro-death panel, pro-Obamacare troll, so I'm sure it does seem sensible to you.
Dr. Smith is quite the hero, isn’t he?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.