Oregon-The land of subsidized suicide.

[Diogenes]

In case you didn't believe health care+government control=A really bad idea...

Fix this medical ethics glitch
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Oregonian

Opponents of physician-assisted suicide are fired up this summer, and rightfully so, over an ethically questionable provision of the Oregon Health Plan.

The conflict came to light in a recent report in The Register-Guard of Eugene. The newspaper described the sad plight of Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Springfield woman with lung cancer.

After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, "Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

That presents an unacceptable conflict. The state health program should not be in the position of denying chemotherapy to terminally ill patients while offering to pay the cost of helping them die.

The dust-up over this conflict comes at a poor time for backers of a Washington state initiative that mirrors Oregon's aid-in-dying law. That's too bad, as Wagner's story could cloud what Washington voters really ought to know about Oregon's 10 years of experience with the law.

Critics' dark warnings about it have not panned out. Instead, the debate over it has revolutionized public attitudes about palliative care at the end of life, and Oregon now stands at the forefront. Just this month, researchers at the University of Wisconsin rated the pain-management policies of Oregon and four other states as best in the nation.

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.



http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/or ... xml&coll=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe this 5 in 5 rule is a good idea. Maybe not. But is it really the government's buisness to decide?

Or to subsidize suicide?

[Mikey]

Do you ever do anything but bitch?

Actually, I imagine you spend a good deal of time looking for things to bitch about.

[Q, West Coast Style]

Do you ever do anything but bitch?

Actually, I imagine you spend a good deal of time looking for things to bitch about.

He needs to remember that a man worth while, is a man who can smile, when his pants are too tight in the seat.

Sin,

You all should know that one so I'm not going to bother and post a link.

[Diogenes]

Do you ever do anything but bitch?

Quit bitching.

Bitch.

[Derron]

Oregon government will fuck it up some way I am sure..

If we could only get all those bicycle faggots in Portland involved..I am sure they would solve it..

[Diego in Seattle]

What can you say about a state that trusts you to properly decide whether or not to live, but not to pump your own gas? :?

[Diogenes]

That presents an unacceptable conflict. The state health program should not be in the position of denying chemotherapy to terminally ill patients while offering to pay the cost of helping them die.

No, it doesn't. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Period. EOS.

Of course it's the beureaucrats who call the tune while the taxpayers are paying the piper.

[Diogenes]

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."

-Voltaire

[Diogenes]

Neither party rises to the level of good, so that one falls flat. There is no meaningful difference between the two.

Only if you're braindead.

[Diogenes]

The same type of analysis is done with every form of health insurance. It may or may not be that 5/5 rule, but no insurance covers everything.

The real problem was including the assisted suicide info in the denial letter, that was just dumb.

Actually the problem is that with the government controlling insurance, there is no competition and no choice.

[Diogenes]

No choice? Employers don't offer health insurance as a benefit in Oregon?

It's Oregon, all bets are off. And I doubt a 64 year old w/ cancer is holding down a job anyway.