Oregon-The land of subsidized suicide.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:01 pm
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?
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?