VA End of Life Document
Listed here is the controversial VA document about end of life care called "Your Life, Your Choices". http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf
Although it does address many issues that patients and families should discuss, many of the questions are very leading and would certainly guide most people towards less aggressive measures.
The primary author of this workbook is Dr. Robert Pearlman who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
This document and the wording present end-of-life choices in a way that steers users toward predetermined conclusions.
The document has provocative questions as well as guilt inducing scenarios that would push most patients to answer a certain way.
It is also notable that when the VA panel of experts that sought to update the document between 2007-2008, they did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. But one organization was invited; the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").
In July 2009 there was a VA directive instructing its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices."
There are better ways to discuss end of life care with patients and families and there should be strong consideration taken regarding their religious beliefs and preferences. Their religious leaders can also play a vital role in this although this documents mentions very little about that.
If Obama wants to be seen as compassionate towards the elderly and disabled, he needs to quit pushing this document and find a better way to address end of life care.
Although it does address many issues that patients and families should discuss, many of the questions are very leading and would certainly guide most people towards less aggressive measures.
The primary author of this workbook is Dr. Robert Pearlman who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
This document and the wording present end-of-life choices in a way that steers users toward predetermined conclusions.
The document has provocative questions as well as guilt inducing scenarios that would push most patients to answer a certain way.
It is also notable that when the VA panel of experts that sought to update the document between 2007-2008, they did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. But one organization was invited; the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").
In July 2009 there was a VA directive instructing its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices."
There are better ways to discuss end of life care with patients and families and there should be strong consideration taken regarding their religious beliefs and preferences. Their religious leaders can also play a vital role in this although this documents mentions very little about that.
If Obama wants to be seen as compassionate towards the elderly and disabled, he needs to quit pushing this document and find a better way to address end of life care.
Labels: healthcare, Obama
posted by Anonymous at 5:31 AM
3 Comments:
Isn't it ironic that when high ranking (elite) Liberals face life threatening health situations, that they seek the best health care available. Senator Ted Kennedy (R.I.P.) when diagnosed with his brain tumor went to Duke University for treatment. He did not go to Canada or UK or Cuba. Connecticut Senator Chris Todd (who bears partial blame for the sub-prime mortgage debacle) has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. I have not heard of any reports of his going to Canada, UK or Cuba for treatment. These are two examples of the hypocracy of the left. None of these elites have stepped forward to say they would give up their golden health care packages funded by the tax payers to get into the "Public Option" so strongly touted by Obamacare (read: Oh, Bomb Our Care.). The Liberals profess to be the champion of the rights of the down trodden. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of their policies and proposals do nothing but create more down-trodden. "Make everyone dependent upon the elites" is the strategy the Liberals are trying to employ to guarantee power forever. Health care rationing is the only realistic outcome for Obamacare.
I cannot understand why the trial lawyers are advocating Socialized medicine. Don't they know that Federal Government forbids law suits against themselves?
Is it not fitting that if the VA omits religious information in its end of life care information pamphlets, that it may be due to the fact that as soon as they do, they will be accosted by the ACLU for a government agency advocating religion?
To touch base on end of life care that disuades "aggrssive measures", many of these people may NOT want aggressive treatments, true enough, many aggressive treatments prolong life by a few months, maybe a year, but at what quality of life?
There comes a time when care to a patient should not be directed at prolonging a life, with no quality of life, but to merely help make passing away a more comfortable option.
Getting upset because information sheets disuade aggressive treatment is not worthy of attention.
Every person will be told what options are available to them if the physicians are doing their jobs right, and at that point the patient will be aloowed to make an INFORMED DECISION, or the patients family will be able to do so.
Squabbling over details like this is exactly what is preventing us from making any real changes to the health care insurance crisis we have in this country today.
I strongly feel we do not have a health care crisis, but a coverage crisis. It is easy for upper middle class professionals to decry the plans to overhaul the system, but in the end, we as a country must strive to protect our weakest members and ensure that demographic has equal access to quality and affordable health care that will not bankrupt them for with one broken leg, or a bad gall bladder
The government is proposing paying for end of life choices and signing living wills etc. Should that not be a legal consultation? Oh, that's right, lawyers would not work for medicare rates!
Post a Comment
<< Home