Ever since Sarah Palin raised the ghastly prospect of government-sponsored "death panels" that would presumably decide whether it was more cost-effective to "unplug Grandma" than to treat her, the debate over the inclusion of language regarding end-of-life provisions in the proposed health care legislation has raged on. But, nobody believes the intentions of a bunch of lawyers-turned-politicians in Washington, when they can read the language for themselves.
Despite Barack Obama's protestations that the idea of bureaucrats deciding the fate of others based on nothing more than the bottom line was not going to happen, I believe that he is being disingenuous once again. I'm not trying to argue that the plug would be pulled on Grandma if the government did end up funding the end-of-life provisions that were proposed. What I am saying is that they would probably not bother to put the plug in, to begin with.
Arlen Specter (RINO/DINO-PA), Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats insisted that the end-of-life provisions were "as pure as snow". They insisted that they just wanted to cover an optional conversation between doctor and patient, at the patient's request, when he or she decides the time is right and that resources and instructional materials would be provided for living wills, advance directives and durable Powers of Attorney.
That, along with Obama's denials sound so reasonable on the surface. If the negotiations over these provisions had occurred in a vacuum, that is. For a glimpse of just how far the government might intrude into end-of-life decisions, should they still end up in the final version of any health care reform legislation, one need look no further than a real-life example already in use at the Veteran's Administration.
In 1997, during Bill Clinton's Administration, a little-known manual was published under a VA grant, made part of VA treatment protocols and given to veterans. Discontinued in 2007 by then-President Bush, who found it objectionable, it is currently under revision and scheduled to be re-implemented as part of VA treatment programs in 2010, presumably as part of health care reform.
This so-called "Death Manual, "Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for future medical decisions: How to prepare a personalized Living Will" morbidly obsesses over specific medical conditions, such as dementia, coma, dependence upon mechanical ventilation and various forms of terminal illness. It delves into how the veteran might actually feel and what he/she could expect if inflicted with one of these conditions. It repeatedly admonishes the veteran, not just to think about what their wishes are, should they be rendered incapable of making their own decisions, but also has them complete a series of "thought-provoking" exercises, which read more like a veteran's death quiz. It has answer columns for checking off answers to various questions. Questions such as:
I find life: (on a ventilator, in a wheelchair, in severe pain, on dialysis, with confusion, incontinence, depression, etc...)
- "Difficult but acceptable".
- Worth living, but just barely".
- "Not worth living".
- "Can't answer now".
Despite the fact that there are millions of veterans (including myself, rated at 50% disabled), that productively live out their post-service years, raise families, own businesses and do lots of other "normal" things", despite living with severe, chronic pain, traumatic brain injuries, vision loss, amputations, bullet and shrapnel wounds and other horrible, life-altering conditions, there doesn't seem to be a category for simply answering "Excellent". That's because this isn't about advance directives. It's about hastening death.
Specific language is heavily biased in favor of death
The veteran is instructed to write his or her answers to these intrusive questions in the booklet, so that doctors would have a written record of their wishes, as well as the reasoning behind them. But, let's play Devil's Advocate: What if someone checked off that their life was no longer worth living because they have lost bladder control or are depressed? Are we going to pull the plug then?
Although the stated purpose of this manual is to get veterans to think about important family decisions, the specific language is heavily biased in favor of death:
- It features detailed discussions on what it's like to be in a coma, on a ventilator or in the terminal stages of a fatal illness.
- It asks veterans to question whether they'd be willing to endure the pain and side effects of drastic treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation.
- It intrudes into the doctor/patient relationship and attempts to discourage the use of life-saving efforts and technology, such as CPR, mechanical ventilation, dialysis and other conditions in a morbidly patronizing manner, by focusing heavily on their "down side. The bad points of CPR, which could save your life, include a sore chest, broken ribs, or mechanical ventilation afterwards, while the bad points of dialysis include such burdens as traveling to a dialysis center and getting help from others.
- It urges veterans to clarify their beliefs. But, this series of questions instructs the veteran, if they do not agree with the "always" statements, it could very well be that they agree with them some of the time.
- Finally, it asks the veteran to write down plans for their funeral, including what songs to sing, what prayers to read, obituary information and other things to do when they're dead.
The people who wrote this garbage are pretty sick themselves. Hopefully, it's terminal. Not only are the negative aspects of every health condition focused on more heavily, the manual's fictional efforts to keep a loved one alive were met with skepticism and scorn. In one case, the imaginary coma victim's parent's were singled out because they "kept him 'hooked up' for weeks and weeks" to give him every chance. In another case, the authors warned that the treatment of a secondary infection during terminal stages of an illness might "prolong suffering". And in one last example of the mindset of the quacks that wrote this drivel, family members were prejudged guilty for not following their veteran's wishes because he was kept alive a few weeks longer, while final options were exhausted.
There are few certainties in life. Death, taxes, Barack Obama's reliance on TOTUS, his teleprompter, Ted Kennedy's love of alcohol and Nancy Pelosi's hubris. We're all going to cash it in, one way or another. There are certainly no objections to encouraging people to plan for their demise and ensuring their final wishes are carried out. After all, as human beings, we have a solemn responsibility to ensure that when we do die, that our deaths do not become a burden to our families because we failed to plan accordingly. But this insidious garbage goes far beyond providing information, by actually provoking and challenging veterans to question whether their lives are even worth living.
There are 26 million of us. Just because we were willing to risk our lives in defense of this nation, if our enemies weren't successful, that doesn't give you the right to try and take it from us. This program is a disgrace and must not be allowed to be used against our veterans ever again.
