path to nowhere
Much thanks to www.edwinleap.com for bringing this to the (at least some) public attention.
There's this one quote that really gets to me . . . "The goal, Daschle’s book (link mine) explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments' . . ." Hopeless diagnoses - now that's an interesting little snippet. I hate that term. The diagnosis has no bearing on one's hope unless the only hope is to find a physical cure. And if we forgo experimental treatments then the new bugs and nasty things that kill us in unseen ways will just get worse. In another 10, 20, 30 years the mortality rate for anything will approach medieval times.
I don't want the folks taking care of my parents, children, wife, family, friends, etc. to " give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners'” because some new beaurocracy (the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology - created to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor’s decisions (pp 442, 446 of the bill).) decided it wasn't cost-effective. I'll pay the freakin' bill if I have to work three jobs and sell the dog if that's what it takes to get my loved one quality care.
I hate politics, but even worse, I hate the fact that our government feels the need to stick their noses into everything under the sun. If it's not the constitution, it's basic human compassion.
Consider this little smidgen from the article, "In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. "
Anybody else see the slippery slope of euthanasia popping up it's ugly head here?
I'm not one to protest in public. I'm not likely to walk around some gubbermint office with a picket sign shouting curses at people not intimately involved with matters at hand, but if it was one of my family members . . . somebody would be getting a phone call and maybe a personal visit explaining the finer details of compassion.
I am not in favor of socialized medicine. I am not in favor of the tack that everyone gets what they can afford.
I am much more in favor of our entire country developing an ethic that values human life and works to make people's lives worth living.
Of course, I still think the gubbermint can only fail, and miserably, at developing that ethic. I have never thought it was up to them in the first place.
Because it's not.
There's this one quote that really gets to me . . . "The goal, Daschle’s book (link mine) explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments' . . ." Hopeless diagnoses - now that's an interesting little snippet. I hate that term. The diagnosis has no bearing on one's hope unless the only hope is to find a physical cure. And if we forgo experimental treatments then the new bugs and nasty things that kill us in unseen ways will just get worse. In another 10, 20, 30 years the mortality rate for anything will approach medieval times.
I don't want the folks taking care of my parents, children, wife, family, friends, etc. to " give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners'” because some new beaurocracy (the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology - created to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor’s decisions (pp 442, 446 of the bill).) decided it wasn't cost-effective. I'll pay the freakin' bill if I have to work three jobs and sell the dog if that's what it takes to get my loved one quality care.
I hate politics, but even worse, I hate the fact that our government feels the need to stick their noses into everything under the sun. If it's not the constitution, it's basic human compassion.
Consider this little smidgen from the article, "In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. "
Anybody else see the slippery slope of euthanasia popping up it's ugly head here?
I'm not one to protest in public. I'm not likely to walk around some gubbermint office with a picket sign shouting curses at people not intimately involved with matters at hand, but if it was one of my family members . . . somebody would be getting a phone call and maybe a personal visit explaining the finer details of compassion.
I am not in favor of socialized medicine. I am not in favor of the tack that everyone gets what they can afford.
I am much more in favor of our entire country developing an ethic that values human life and works to make people's lives worth living.
Of course, I still think the gubbermint can only fail, and miserably, at developing that ethic. I have never thought it was up to them in the first place.
Because it's not.
posted by Raymond at Friday, February 13, 2009
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home