Comments on: Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon http://www.healthcare-blog.com/2008/death-drugs-cause-uproar-in-oregon/ Consumer Directed Healthcare News, Health Advice, and Industry Opinions Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:18:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Lenore http://www.healthcare-blog.com/2008/death-drugs-cause-uproar-in-oregon/#comment-41554 Lenore Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:14:28 +0000 http://www.healthcare-blog.com/?p=137#comment-41554 People do not seem to understand, that this CHOICE we all speak of is a slippery slop. First it is the issue of Choice for abortion. It will trickle down in this country, and you will see that more and more people will get told no, your life is not worth saving, it costs to much money. We will not have Choice at all. Yes, keep the choice in abortion the ins. companies say as they don't want to pay for the birth and life of a baby, it is cheaper to pay 300 - 500 for the abortion, and believe me, that is just the way Planned Parenthood wants it. Wake up people, first we kill babies, next the elderly, then anyone who gets to sick and ins. chooses not to pay. It is right in front of our eyes, yet we don't see. God Have Mercy on Us. People do not seem to understand, that this CHOICE we all speak of is a slippery slop. First it is the issue of Choice for abortion. It will trickle down in this country, and you will see that more and more people will get told no, your life is not worth saving, it costs to much money. We will not have Choice at all. Yes, keep the choice in abortion the ins. companies say as they don’t want to pay for the birth and life of a baby, it is cheaper to pay 300 - 500 for the abortion, and believe me, that is just the way Planned Parenthood wants it. Wake up people, first we kill babies, next the elderly, then anyone who gets to sick and ins. chooses not to pay. It is right in front of our eyes, yet we don’t see.

God Have Mercy on Us.

]]> By: Gloria http://www.healthcare-blog.com/2008/death-drugs-cause-uproar-in-oregon/#comment-36838 Gloria Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:22:34 +0000 http://www.healthcare-blog.com/?p=137#comment-36838 Bad letter, good law. This case plays into scare tactics, but really just reinforces that only the terminally ill patient - not the government and not insurance company bureaucrats - should make decisions about end-of-life care. Oregon's Death with Dignity law gives patients that choice. The Oregonian newspaper has the best response to this situation: http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1217289319150190.xml&coll=7 "Predictably, critics of Oregon's unique-in-the-nation law are aflame over Wagner's story, some claiming it covers killing but not cancer. That's not exactly true, of course. The program that rations subsidized health care for low-income Oregonians has paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner's cancer care, and it will continue to do so. It stopped short, however, of paying for a cancer drug that failed to meet the state's long-standing "five-year, 5 percent rule." It won't approve payment for treatment that doesn't provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years. In Wagner's case, administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that's what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy. What's unacceptable, however, is that Wagner's rejection letter included the offer of payment for doctor-assisted death. Such notification creates at least the appearance of an ethical conflict: state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure. As the only state that both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care, Oregon has created a fine ethical line for state officials to navigate. In this case, they stepped over it. For the sake of ethical clarity in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the state health plan should stop offering to pay for those who use it." Bad letter, good law. This case plays into scare tactics, but really just reinforces that only the terminally ill patient - not the government and not insurance company bureaucrats - should make decisions about end-of-life care. Oregon’s Death with Dignity law gives patients that choice.

The Oregonian newspaper has the best response to this situation:

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1217289319150190.xml&coll=7

“Predictably, critics of Oregon’s unique-in-the-nation law are aflame over Wagner’s story, some claiming it covers killing but not cancer. That’s not exactly true, of course. The program that rations subsidized health care for low-income Oregonians has paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner’s cancer care, and it will continue to do so.

It stopped short, however, of paying for a cancer drug that failed to meet the state’s long-standing “five-year, 5 percent rule.” It won’t approve payment for treatment that doesn’t provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years.

In Wagner’s case, administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that’s what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy.

What’s unacceptable, however, is that Wagner’s rejection letter included the offer of payment for doctor-assisted death. Such notification creates at least the appearance of an ethical conflict: state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure.

As the only state that both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care, Oregon has created a fine ethical line for state officials to navigate. In this case, they stepped over it. For the sake of ethical clarity in Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, the state health plan should stop offering to pay for those who use it.”

]]>