NYT Encouraging Old Folks to Give up and Die


The Times approaches euthanasia in order to support Obamacare

Hey, grandma, hurry up and die so that Obamacare can pay for healthcare for more worthy, younger folks. That seems to be the message that The New York Times is selling in order to smooth the waters for the nationalized healthcare system that president Obama is trying to peddle to us all.

The Times is running a series titled “Months to Live” in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama’s healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

In a July 8 article reporting on the end of life care afforded Catholic Nuns in Pittsford, New York, the Times hailed the “dignified” way that nuns end life there with particular emphasis on how many of them refuse extraordinary efforts to keep themselves alive. Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.

But, even in its first few paragraphs the Times displayed several conflicting talking points one being that the nun that serves as the article’s initial subject may be uninterested in life saving procedures, but her sister is definitely not of that same opinion. This tends to show that not everyone wants to just wither way and die without fighting to stay alive as the Times seems to be suggesting we should be.

The Times also tries to make a point on how many elderly people “are often overmedicated” and showcases how this nun refused most of the “23 medications not essential for her heart condition,” but then adds that these medications were winnowed by a geriatrician. So, was she prescribed these medications or not? It isn’t quite clear. This makes a poor case for the claim of overmedication and seems more like an assertion by the writer that is not germane to the case.

The Times goes on to describe how the sisters and several priests along with the church pay for this hospice-like care of those at the end of their lives, the story making it all seem like the perfect system. But one cannot help but realize that we are talking about a system built to serve a small handful of people with the support of the church behind them. How this financial burden can be translated to 300 millions of citizens is never addressed.

Misleadingly, the Times also tries to make it seem as if the church system being described quells any talk of both rationing of care and euthanasia of the elderly.

Laura L. Carstensen, the director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University, says the convent setting calms the tendency for public policy discussion about end-of-life treatment “to devolve into a debate about euthanasia or rationing health care based on age.”

“Every time I speak to a group about the need to improve the dying process, somebody raises their hand and says, ‘You’re talking about killing old people,’ ” Dr. Carstensen said. “But nobody would accuse Roman Catholic sisters of that. They could be a beacon in talking about this without it turning into that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”

The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system, then the patient’s choice in the matter will be summarily dispensed with as rules and regulations prescribing procedures will take over.

In short, the second these ideas become the norm, government MUST by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are “worth” saving and which aren’t worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won’t be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those “not worth” the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

So, while the process of dying practiced by these nuns described in the Times might have something going for it, translating it to a nationalized healthcare system is fraught with eugenics styled evils.

But, if it soothes suspicions about Obamacare, why the Times is happy to oblige.

Category: , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

30 Comments Leave a comment

How times change!

bk Monday, July 13th at 7:58AM EDT (link)

In 1995 Newt Gingrich was accused of wanting to let Medicare patients “wither on the vine” - That’s not what he said, but the lie was repeated often enough to become a KnownFact. Now we have ObamaCare where people will be forced to wither on the vine and people like the Times are rapturous about it.

 

Okay, let's all follow the nuns' example...

Uma Richie Monday, July 13th at 8:11AM EDT (link)

Everybody stop having sex and become practicing pro-life Catholics who take a vow of obedience to the Bishop of their diocese.

Pick and choose those liberals do.

……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa

 

The "problem" is already here...

luko Monday, July 13th at 8:28AM EDT (link)

“The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system…”

Medicare is already federalized. And the problem is the growth of the cost of providing health care outpaces both inflation and GDP growth over time. So what are you going to do about the cost? You can make the argument that cost doesn’t matter - no expense should be spared. And Americans can decide to spend 12% of GDP on Medicare. But then there are consequences and you have to figure out how to pay for it.

Otherwise you can: a) lower prices; b) cut benefits; c) change the way you approach end-of-life care.

I don’t think anyone is advocating to restrict spending on whatever care you think you need. It’s just that Medicare can’t pay for it all. And most people just don’t have the cash it takes to pay for this stuff.

Regards.

I don't get what you are saying

Jack_Savage Monday, July 13th at 8:52AM EDT (link)

So you advocate government health care, but then say you are all for spending whatever you want to spend to get the care you need - as long as the government doesn’t spend it? I think the diarist was positing that denying care at the end of life, for those who WANT care at the end of life, is what is about to become federalized.

I really think you make the point of opponents of government run health care. I am just not sure if that’s what you were trying to do. Of course, it could be becuase I am not jacked up on coffee yet, and misunderstood….

And I've had 3 cups...

luko Monday, July 13th at 9:17AM EDT (link)

which could be part of the problem.

I believe the status quo is untenable. If you are OK with the status quo, and some people are, then of course the NYT article is scary.

The nuns are trying to address end-of-life care. The diarist says “Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.” OK. But how do we pay for it? Everyone is saying that we will end up throwing momma from the train, grandpa under the bus, put grandma on an ice floe. But I don’t think the choice is either/or. We need to change the way we administer end of life care or else we go bust.

It’s hard. Just because we can extend life a couple months doesn’t mean we should in all cases. The more ability we have, the more responsibility is required of us. We have abdicated that responsiblility by refusing to make tough choices. And the nuns are trying to take it back.

Anyway, off to work.

Regards.

5 luko

mom2oneson Monday, July 13th at 9:33AM EDT (link)

“It’s hard. Just because we can extend life a couple months doesn’t mean we should in all cases. The more ability we have, the more responsibility is required of us. We have abdicated that responsiblility by refusing to make tough choices. And the nuns are trying to take it back.”

I agree

Warner Todd Huston Monday, July 13th at 10:25AM EDT (link)

That we may not necessarily want to extend life just because we can. But I DON’T want my government making that decision for me. With Obamacare it will.

———-
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

555s WTH w/ the money quote...

6eorge Jetson Monday, July 13th at 12:04PM EDT (link)

“But I DON’T want my government making that decision for me.”

 
 
 

Here is where I have a problem with what you are saying

Jack_Savage Monday, July 13th at 4:56PM EDT (link)

“‘We’ need to change they way ‘we’ administer end of life care or ‘we’ will go bust.

“It’s hard. Just because ‘we’ can extend life a couple of months doesn’t mean ‘we’ should in all cases. The more ability ‘we’ have, the more is required of ‘us’.

If anything should be left to individuals and families, it is how end of life care is administered. Who is this “we” you are speaking of? A committee of nuns? Local doctors? My softball team?

Or government bureaucrats?

We all know the answer to that, and it is telling that if “we” decide “you” should make sacrifices, including the last few months (possibly - maybe more) of your life, well - that’s just what has to be done.

This slippery slope is one that the most incompetent organization among us - the federal government - is rushing toward, without the capacity or the interest in evaluating the ethical ramifications of their actions. In no way, shape or form am I about to cede the decisions that need to be made at the end of life to government.

“Fine” you will say, “Pay for it yourself”. The problem is that under ObamaCare, I HAVE paid for it - time and time again. Just like a auto warranty company that has bitten off more than it can chew, the government will simply cut service in order to attempt to make ends meet. And if the ends are too far apart, they will cut more, and more and more, until end of life care is gone, and near-end of life care is gone, and quality of life care is gone, and basic care is gone and then finally all care is gone.

Slip slidin’ away.

 
 
 
 

Right to Die

erp Monday, July 13th at 9:16AM EDT (link)

For about a year, I went to my doctor’s office once a month to have my PT level checked because I was taking Coumadin after a pulmonary embolism. I was by far the youngest person in the waiting room and the one in the best general health. Most people were upwards of 80 and many were bent with age and in pain.

Yet there was joking and laughter as people made light of their conditions and many of the men who were WW2 vets who had lively stories to tell of those years.

Not one of them ever said they wished to die and I as a tax payer have no wish to ration the care they receive to keep them alive. How dare the Obama thugocrisy even broach the subject.

Our economy is not a finite. It can expand indefinitely if We, the People, are left alone to do what we do best, excel in free trade.

erp

 

trying too hard

mom2oneson Monday, July 13th at 9:31AM EDT (link)

First of all any end of life setting where nuns are involved is going to be excellent care. If we all could be so fortunate to end up in one of the few nursing homes left that still have ties to nun.

” just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living”
There is a really bad example to use with to illustrate how rationing will take place. There is a difference between not trying to hard to keep on living and not making your last few weeks or days hell because you had a feeding tube inserted when your body is shutting down. I sure would not want that for myself or a parent. That really isn’t fair what you wrote.
There are plenty of other nazis practices with elderly or the less than desirable in the healthcare workers eyes that go on in hopsitals that should be called out. I would not call out this out as not trying to keep to keep on living. I would focus on the lack of treatment in acute care situations when there should be extraordinary efforts like feeding tubes inserted or better monitoring of the patient and it isn’t done.

The problem is with being *forced* to go quietly into the night

aesthete Monday, July 13th at 1:05PM EDT (link)

Under private care, that would be a choice among many, and in many cases, an admirable choice to make. But under the NYT-suggested way to reduce costs in a federally administered program, some people *will* be forced to accept this “treatment” or just die–exactly what liberals argued happens in our current “broken” system. If that is the case, what is the point of a public or public-private system, if it doesn’t even have the one tenable benefit promoted by its supporters?

Of course, the NYT solution isn’t the only one, but make no mistake: rationing will become a part of the system. There’s no way around it from an economic perspective. Therefore, I’d rather have healthcare choices made by patients, than by an autocratic and unbendable system more beholden to politicians and special interests than consumers.

Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand

“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC

 
 

What the government really should be going after

Scope Monday, July 13th at 9:34AM EDT (link)

is the fraud, abuse, corruption and duplication in the Medicare Department. Some healthcare providers, as well as the elderly have been abusing the system for so long, it has become normal practice. While I think it is important to point out that Obamacare will ration care, and, especially with the elderly, it is as important to talk about cleaning up a very expensive cesspool within the Medicare Department. Imagine the money that would be saved if someone took the time to get a better check on all the claims being paid. Those truly needing a doctors care, should never be denied that care, but, so many elderly run to the doctor every time they cough or sneeze. I personally know an 88 year old woman who goes to a podiatrist to have her toe nails trimmed. I asked if she paid for that, and she said “oh no, he submits it to medicare.” That is abuse at it’s best. If the Government can’t run medical issues for one group of people, the elderly, how in the heck can they run healthcare for the entire population? It appears that Living Wills will be moot if Obamacare comes to America.

I agree with Mom2oneson above

cars Monday, July 13th at 10:28AM EDT (link)

The critique of this article strikes me as trying too hard to make a case here using an inappropriate example.

There are legitimate issues surround the way we treat elderly people at the ends of their lives. Too often a lot of medical intervention is going on to prevent the inevitable rather than just making people’s lives comfortable and giving them quality rather than quantity.

In a thread that is trying to make a point about reducing care for seniors being inappropriate or unjust - trying to link foot care for the elderly to abuse of the system is somewhat ironic.

I don’t know about you - but at 88 I’ll be darn lucky if I’m able to trim my toenails and properly care for my feet. That requires a level of fitness and flexibility that’s not common at that point in most people’s lives long before their late eighties.

A podiatrist - or anyone doing foot care for the elderly is doing more than just trimming toenails.

They are keeping an eye out for circulatory problems (especially with diabetics - since problems usually show up in the extremities first). They are preventing or addressing ingrown nails and fungal infections that can rapidly become much more serious issues. They may also be dealing with problems caused by bunions, heavy callouses etc. It’s not just a nice pedicure on someone else’s dime.

In my neck of the woods some of the local pharmacies run foot care clinics for the elderly for the reasons I’ve outlined. Keeping their feet in good shape can go a long way to keeping elderly people active and mobile. Becoming inactive and/or bedridden is often the start of an irreversible decline.

There are plenty of things to criticize - but this isn’t one of them.

I’m a (now banned) Canadian socialist troll.

cars- my point was

Scope Monday, July 13th at 11:41AM EDT (link)

that there are plenty of people who do “pedicures” without charging the fees that a podiatrist does. I’m sure they would point out any ingrown toenail problems, or any other problems. Then it is time to see a podiatrist. I understand your point in 88 year olds not being very nimble, and I agree, but, if you believe that a “pedicure” is a medically necessary entitlement, then I guess my 88 year old friend is right in that medicare should be paying for “manicures” also. If you can afford a “manicure” then I believe you should take the personal responsibility to pay for “pedicures” also. Neither are medically necessary in any part of the country.

Scope

mom2oneson Monday, July 13th at 11:54AM EDT (link)

Many times even a RN can’t even cut a patients toenails, Under the current system I have no problems with a physician or PA or podiatrist being paid to cut an 88 yo toenails and I think it’s great if they are getting preventative foot care. You equating to something like a luxury like we might get at the corner salon, this is not a luxury. That is not right that you think a nail tech or cosmotologist should do a medical assessment on someone. I’m sure you would not want your life or independence to depend on your nail techs assessment skills. Maybe your friend is confused about why it’s a dr doing this for her feet and she can’t get it for her hands but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong that a podiatrist is paid to do it.

(BTW I’m sure there have been MANY cosmotologist and nail teach and home health aides and nurses that have alerted people to problems and saved thier limbs. I am not discounting that but that does not mean they have the skills of a physician.)

 

my point

cars Monday, July 13th at 11:57AM EDT (link)

is that it’s more than a pedicure.

And I really don’t think that the average person in nail shop is qualified to accurately assess medical problems - nor should they be relied upon to do so.

I’m a (now banned) Canadian socialist troll.

mom2oneson and cars

Scope Monday, July 13th at 12:36PM EDT (link)

Think about it this way, for all those who have HMO types of insurance, and, I am not saying it is the best, but, a large part of the population has HMO type plans. Those people would not be able to go directly to a “podiarist” even if they know they have an ingrown toenail. They go to their primary physician first, and then must get a referral for a specialist (in this case a podiatrist). In many cases, your primary physician can/does take care of the problem. I’m not saying that it is the best system, but, it is currently a widespead system. When an elderly, not so nimble person goes to their “primary physician” so to speak, I must believe that the physician does an overall assessment of the patient, and knows what elderly problems to check for, such as circulation problems, and anything else that can affect the limbs. At that point, the regular physician can recommend a visit to the podiatrist, if they feel it is necessary. With the current way the Medicare system works, I believe that any Medicare receipent can go to whomever they choose, including directly to a podiatrist, if they accept medicare patients/payments, and it is all paid for by the publics taxes. On the other hand, it is costing me over $400. per month to participae in an HMO healthcare plan, and my primary then decides if I need to see a specialist. I have no problem with anyone going to anyone they wish for whatever, however, I see the taxpayers as being on the hook for something as small as a toenail trim, as pushing it. BTW, my 88 year old friend sees her regular doctor at least once every 2/3 monrths. If a regular doctor cannot trim someones toe nails, then we are in deeper doo doo than I even thought.

That's not correct, Scope. My folks are on Medicare

janis Monday, July 13th at 12:41PM EDT (link)

through HealthSpring and they must first have a referral to see a specialist. The referral comes from their primary care physician. Most Medicare plans that I know of are the same way.

Janis- I stand corrected

Scope Monday, July 13th at 2:55PM EDT (link)

you may very well be right concerning having to go through a primary, before a specialist. Being the only caretaker of my elderly parents until their deaths meant many visits to the “regular doctor” for whatever ailed them. Most times the regular doctor was able to see to most ills. They were mine, and I had no problem with seeing to their nail trimming needs myself. I guess that was before the slip-and-fall, and, ambulance chaser lawyers came to town. My folks had whatever tests they needed to make diagnoses, without the necessity of having to have every test known to man done, so the doctor wasn’t sued. I had no intention of turning this into a “elderly foot care” thread. My last point on this is I cannot buy anyone using medicare dollars for a toe nail trim. It is up to your primary physician to see to all of your needs, and to send you to a specialist for medically necessary procedures and treatments.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

It's the other way around

DamnCat Monday, July 13th at 10:15AM EDT (link)

“…that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”

Dr. Carstensen has it exactly backwards - it is the current system provides the true nuance and gray-area thinking.

Take for example the two sisters mentioned in the article who have different views of what steps should be taken to extend their lives. Each is allowed to pursue her own path according to her own conscience. It is the government system that would impose a rigid “black-and-white” regime on these two women.

 

It's the other way around

DamnCat Monday, July 13th at 10:15AM EDT (link)

“…that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”

Dr. Carstensen has it exactly backwards - it is the current system provides the true nuance and gray-area thinking.

Take for example the two sisters mentioned in the article who have different views of what steps should be taken to extend their lives. Each is allowed to pursue her own path according to her own conscience. It is the government system that would impose a rigid “black-and-white” regime on these two women.

 

It's not about the aged,

johnt Monday, July 13th at 11:03AM EDT (link)

as a moments reflection will recall. More so them in a demographic sense but rationing of care will be spread “liberally”.
Hospitals are already closing, young doctors starting out are not opening their own practices but are opting for full time work in hospitals, hospitallers as they are being called, the trends are there now.
Progressives, [that's what people who emulate the practices of Egyptian pharaoh's call themselves] will for a while think this is a good thing, but less the true statist elite they will awake sadly to the fact that the mess includes them as well as the normal people.

In any case Death and Decay are the provenience of this curse known as Liberalism, so we ought not to be surprised by their macabre desires, their ghoulish lusts.

“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville

 

What is the connection between

mom2oneson Monday, July 13th at 11:11AM EDT (link)

hopsitalists and liberalism? I don’t get it. :(

that was a reply to johnt nt

mom2oneson Monday, July 13th at 11:11AM EDT (link)

The connection, mom2, is that doctors just

janis Monday, July 13th at 11:33AM EDT (link)

starting out on their own already know that they don’t stand much of a chance of success when it comes to opening their own freestanding practice. Instead, they have opted to work on a salary for a hospital where their paycheck is assured and they have no overhead.

In other words, free enterprise under this administration is a zero sum game right now.

 

mom2one son, & thanks Janis.

johnt Monday, July 13th at 11:45AM EDT (link)

No more need be said, I hope !

“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville

 
 
 

‘You’re talking about killing old people,’

Paul_In_Houston Monday, July 13th at 11:57AM EDT (link)

Amazing how the word “KILL” has become the elephant in the room that no one wishes to acknowledge.

Such an “inconvenient” word; it should be purged from the dictionary.

In the Obama Newspeak dictionary, it probaly wont exist.

-

"Babies" already is...

Pomme Monday, July 13th at 12:30PM EDT (link)

why not “octogenarian?”

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views” William F Buckley Jr.

 
 

The problem is.........

duck Tuesday, July 21st at 6:57PM EDT (link)

Who do you want to make life or death judgments on your life, a doctor or someone that just as well could work at the State Department of Motor Vehicle Registration. ??

Odds are with the government, there will be some faceless bureaucrat counting pennies instead of looking at a patient’s viability.

But, as with most things, as long as it is someone you don’t know, the outcome doesn’t matter….

 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.