Posted on 11/03/2007 1:05:51 PM PDT by wagglebee
A national debate on balancing the right to life with skyrocketing health-care costs could endanger services for the elderly and fuel demands to legalize euthanasia, some experts say.
Dr. Robert Cushman, CEO of the Champlain Local Health Integration Network in eastern Ontario, stirred a hornet's nest this week with a call for a serious debate on the right to die with dignity as a matter of public policy.
He said seniors deserve independence and dignity in the twilight of their lives, and the debate should take place in the context of ballooning health costs.
His comments drew swift condemnation from Physicians for Life. The group says "dying with dignity" is often code for allowing frail, elderly and often helpless people to take their own lives, or let strangers do it for them.
The doctors' group says Cushman is playing into the hands of right-to-die advocates who want to legalize euthanasia, which Canadians have already rejected.
And tying the issue to the rising cost of health care is a rather ingenious way of broadening its appeal.
"Those who say people have a right to die with dignity are saying you have the right to demand death at a time of your choosing," Will Johnston, president of Physicians for Life, said from Vancouver. "Dr. Cushman seems to be hinting at a personal bias toward legalized suicide and he is trying to open the debate. He is softening public opinion by raising a false issue of costs. Our health- care costs are not high because of a lack of assisted suicide. He is doing the work of the extremists."
But others say, with seniors now consuming about one-third of health- care resources, a healthy debate is needed to get a grip on ballooning health costs.
"It is clear that the cost of health care is not sustainable for our society and the society is going to have to make some tough decisions. Dr. Cushman is right to open up the debate," said Andrew Falconer, deputy chief of staff at Ottawa's Queensway-Carleton Hospital. "I would assume that a debate like that is going to lead us in the direction of caps on some services but, quite frankly, it is a debate that ought to go on."
Ottawa Hospital chief of staff Chris Carruthers acknowledges the debate could veer into taboo subjects, such as the right to die and caps on some treatments. But the debate is still necessary.
"If you come to our hospital and say, 'Don't put me on a ventilator,' we won't put you on one even if we know it will save your life," he said. "But on the other side of the coin, if you are very sick and elderly and you continue to want all the care, no holds barred, what should happen? At the present time we will treat people. But with limited resources, how do you manage that? We have not had that discussion."
This is EXACTLY what will happen if we get socialized medicine in the United States.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Canada Ping
YOu’ll feel guilty wanting to live and believe you should END your life so others can live with “scarce medical resources.” They will use COST as a weapon when, not if, socialized health care comes.
I received in the mail today a flyer from AARP calling a meeting to bring the community together to discuss "affordable" health care for all and "income security" for all. Don't think I will go as I am sure that dissenting opinions will not be allowed.
I have very mixed feelings on this. Over two-thirds of our medical expenses are spent in the last 6 months of life here in the US. I see it happen over and over again with patients who aren’t really doing anything except prolonging their stay in the hospital and sedating their final days.
Families hold on, and all that’s really accomplished is the blowing of thousands upon thousands of dollars expenses.
I’m a strong proponent of life. But I’m also a strong proponent of knowing when to let go. Cancer treatment may be the biggest example of this I can thing of.
The examples you bring up of stent placement and cataract surgery are absolutely absurd, though. There’s no reason to withold those treatments, as they provide definite improvements in quality of life.
Today’s “right to die” will become tomorrow’s “duty to die”, if governments have a health care monopoly (as they do here in Canada).
That would mean battle ax in hand, pile of enemy heads at feet. Anything less is not dignified.
You are absolutely correct.
I agree with you regarding the effort spent on the last 6 months of life as in many cases it takes a lot of resources. I for one would hate to be the one to decide, to tell someone that there is no hope for a loved one so we will make them comfortable but no effort to prolong life. At times life just sucks!
Euthanasia embedded in Universal health care is just one of the dangers in the Pandora’s Box of the New World Order.
I hate to break this to you, but we already have socialized medicine for seniors. The reality is that we, the taxpayers, are responsible for paying the medical costs of seniors. It is the last months of life, where the costs reach the highest amount as well.
I am more than willing to provide these services to our elderly, as I believe their lives are important. Only God should take a life.
I do think this is a major point. How do we pay for the increasing costs of keeping the elderly alive and comfortable in their last months? Are most of the taxpayers in this country willing to do this?
Interesting how they try to link assisted suicide with health care costs. Actually, those who want to die just refuse further expensive treatment, so then there are no high costs. They couch it this way to open the door to people thinking about mandated euthanasia when people cost more than the govt. thinks they should. Right to die turns into duty to die turns into forced to die.
An 80 year old has just as much right to medical care as a 20 year old does.
I was talking about this.
We aren’t paying for it. The ones that need it the most have already paid the bill. It’s not their fault if their money isn’t there.
Another fact is that the fastest growing segment of the population is the 85 and over group. The life for many of these patients is 4 - 6 hours a day of semi-lucid consciousness enabled by a cornucopia of expensive drugs and continual doctor visits. I don’t know what the answer is, but free (taxpayer funded) elderly care with no quality of life may not be supportable forever.
I agree, but not only isn’t the money there, there wouldn’t have been enough, even if the money hadn’t already been spent. Therefore, it will need to come out of the taxpayer’s pocket, which won’t make some of them very happy. It is a sad situation, but this battle isn’t going to happen if we get socialized medicine. We already have socialized medicine, and these decisions already belong to the government.
I pray every day that the American people will have compassion when considering the availability of healthcare for the elderly, even if they are dying. I am very scared that they won’t.
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.