Are Euthanasia Advocates Taking Over America's Hospice Industry?

LifeNews.com ^ | December 19, 2003 | Kathy Dial

[A. Pole]

"We're all going to die—but there's a legitimacy to the process. It shouldn't be accelerated for an economic goal."

Free market bump.

[John Beresford Tipton]

I don't understand, and the article doesn't explain, what the financial incentive is for a hospice operator to kill off patients. Don't they get paid on a per diem basis, and therefore have every incentive to keep beds full. To do that wouldn't you want to minimize bed turnover?

[Petronski]

Don't they get paid on a per diem basis, and therefore have every incentive to keep beds full. To do that wouldn't you want to minimize bed turnover?

Your analysis makes perfect sense if the motive is profit. But if the motive is to liquidate useless eaters (vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens), high-turnover rate is a mark of efficiency.

The title says "taking over" and that's accurate enough, but somehow "infiltrating and subverting" says it better for me.

[bvw]

Well, I'm not up on the economics either, but taking your "per paid diem" for a turn, I'd venture that *cost* per diem is a factor, and as long as a cow is milkable you milk it, but once it degrades costs more to feed and keep then that per diem paid, you slaughter it.

It's a disgusting way to think about it, but you have to think like your enemy would think to beat him in some situations.

[John Beresford Tipton]

Well, I can see that if it is low level nurses with a personal agenda, like the guy in NJ, killing off the patients. But if it were the owners, they would be costing themselves money, and risking prison to do so. That part of the article I don't believe. I'm a "follow the money type" and I would possibly believe it if the author showed how it benefitted the bottom line.

[Petronski]

Ping.

[madprof98]

I was on a panel not long ago with a woman who is very involved in hospice work here. Since the evening was sponsored by the Catholic Church, I had expected her to uphold our teachings against euthanasia. But in fact, she did not seem to be familiar with those teachings at all. In response to questions, she said things like, "I have no idea what the Church teaches, but I know what I think." And what she thought generally had the word "compassion" repeated in it several times. I really think there may be an ideological bias in favor of killing-as-compassion among others who choose this line of work, just as there obviously is among those who choose to work in the "reproductive health" area.

[Gringo1]

Are Euthanasia Advocates Taking Over America's Hospice Industry?



I hope so.....time to take the lunatic god-shouters out of other peoples decisions.

[mabelkitty]

Just as Hitler and the Nazi party called it Quality of Life Choices.

Hospice should watch some of those old Nazi propaganda movie and then explain why they are different. They aren't.

[John Beresford Tipton]

" I really think there may be an ideological bias"

there very well might be, but it seems to me that such a bias would be met, and overcome by the "Prime Directive" to enhance the bottom line.

If there's some other financial angle to this that makes acting out on that bias profitable I surely couldn't find it in the article.

[Hildy]

Bingo. This makes no sense. If you follow the money, the financial gain from stopping hospice care would go directly to hospitals. All I have to say is THANK GOD for hospice care. I've had two experiences with hospice. The first was when my brother died and he was able to die with dignity in a beautiful room with all the people he loved around him. 2) In-home hospice when my Father died. He was able to die at home, with the people he loved, not hooked up to machines or anything like that. If hospice sped up his death, I don't care. And I think they did. SO WHAT? They gave him drugs that dehydrated his body and lots of morphine. I'm grateful that he was finally out of the pain he was in. That's all he wanted in the end and I was glad there was someone who was willing to oblige.

[Gritty]

time to take the lunatic god-shouters out of other peoples decisions

I've never heard the term "god-shouter". I suspect that means anybody who believes in the worth and sanctity of life?

[Joe Bonforte]

The writer paints all advocates of assisted suicide with the same brush, and tries to demonize the opposition. That's the kind of arguing position done by liberals and other idealogues that don't have the facts on their side.

Look, I feel very strongly that I do not wish to impoverish my family, just to live a few extra weeks in pain. I do not even wish to impose large costs on society via Medicare. It is wasteful, undignified, and I think morally wrong to briefly extend one's on life at a large cost to others.

So I would like the choice to be able to end my life at that point. But in most places, there's no way to do that legally. Thus, as with everything that is made illegal even though people want to choose that option, it is done surreptitiously. If it were out in the open as a choice, we could separate the legitimate cases from those where relatives are simply trying to get rid of a burden. But as long as the whole thing is hidden, it's not possible to do that.

[Gringo1]

"I've never heard the term "god-shouter". I suspect that means anybody who believes in the worth and sanctity of life?"

No, it means the sanctimonious retards that stand around shouting about how only THEY know what god wants for someone else.


Hope that cleared things up for you.

[RussianConservative]

What about charge high up front for medical service expected...then kill off patient so that monies not actually spent on patient?

[RussianConservative]

Buy buy Troll bate.

[drhogan]

the unseen factors that push towards euthanasia could be more subtle.
possibly the medicare feds review overall expenses at different hospices and find that some cost more per patient than others. the feds might prefer the hospices that cost less per patient, which would include those that kill off the patients. (i'm just speculating here.)
more likely: i think that the people who work in hospices look at life and death differently than other people. they don't see death as a bad thing, but as the end of suffering. a lot of the hospice work seems to be aimed at helping the patient and family accept death. once the patient gets to a certain point in the dying process, the hospice worker gives him a morphine shot that is sufficient to ease his pain. the shop also kills him.
i'm not necessarily against this, except in cases like the schiavo one where the patient isn't terminal and there is a profit motive.
in terminal cases, the morality is more ambiguous. if a terminal patient is in severe pain, and the only level of morphine that will stop the pain will also kill him, i would prefer to get the injection if it were me.

[I_saw_the_light]

As a home health nurse that works side by side with hospice organizations and nurses I find this article repulsive. Hospice nursing is HARD stuff. you dont do it for the cash, these nurses care about the dying and their comfort, and helping the families, not killing them off. Some in the medical field do develop a callous or offhanded approach to dying, and I am sure there are sick individuals out there as well. But to imply an entire specialty field is dedicated to killing people off is ridiculous.

[henderson field]

Yes, if you want to decide what other people do in the last days of their lives, or whether they want to end them, then you want to be a communist.