Hey, grandma, hurry up and die so that Obamacare can pay for healthcare for more worthy, younger folks. That seems to be the message that The New York Times is selling in order to smooth the waters for the nationalized healthcare system that president Obama is trying to peddle to us all.
The Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.
In a July 8 article reporting on the end of life care afforded Catholic Nuns in Pittsford, New York, the Times hailed the "dignified" way that nuns end life there with particular emphasis on how many of them refuse extraordinary efforts to keep themselves alive. Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.
But, even in its first few paragraphs the Times displayed several conflicting talking points one being that the nun that serves as the article's initial subject may be uninterested in life saving procedures, but her sister is definitely not of that same opinion. This tends to show that not everyone wants to just wither way and die without fighting to stay alive as the Times seems to be suggesting we should be.
The Times also tries to make a point on how many elderly people "are often overmedicated" and showcases how this nun refused most of the "23 medications not essential for her heart condition," but then adds that these medications were winnowed by a geriatrician. So, was she prescribed these medications or not? It isn't quite clear. This makes a poor case for the claim of overmedication and seems more like an assertion by the writer that is not germane to the case.
The Times goes on to describe how the sisters and several priests along with the church pay for this hospice-like care of those at the end of their lives, the story making it all seem like the perfect system. But one cannot help but realize that we are talking about a system built to serve a small handful of people with the support of the church behind them. How this financial burden can be translated to 300 millions of citizens is never addressed.
Misleadingly, the Times also tries to make it seem as if the church system being described quells any talk of both rationing of care and euthanasia of the elderly.
Laura L. Carstensen, the director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University, says the convent setting calms the tendency for public policy discussion about end-of-life treatment “to devolve into a debate about euthanasia or rationing health care based on age.”
“Every time I speak to a group about the need to improve the dying process, somebody raises their hand and says, ‘You’re talking about killing old people,’ ” Dr. Carstensen said. “But nobody would accuse Roman Catholic sisters of that. They could be a beacon in talking about this without it turning into that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”
The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system, then the patient's choice in the matter will be summarily dispensed with as rules and regulations prescribing procedures will take over.
In short, the second these ideas become the norm, government MUST by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.
So, while the process of dying practiced by these nuns described in the Times might have something going for it, translating it to a nationalized healthcare system is fraught with eugenics styled evils.
But, if it soothes suspicions about Obamacare, why the Times is happy to oblige.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
the NY Times should blaze the path.....
July 13, 2009 - 03:24 ET by Paarlbut refusing heroic care from mexican billionaires and other sources of financial medications and go quietly and QUICKLY into the dark long night and join the Journal American and Herald Tribune and other newspapers who knew how to die with dignity!!! ;>)
I will lay flowers at the door of NY state subsidized NY Times tower and wire condolences to Pinchie and Kellor.
RIP NY TIMES...please and quickly !!!
Paarl of Rhodesia
WTH -- this is also a
July 13, 2009 - 03:52 ET by Jack BauerWTH -- this is also a phenomenon I've noticed for years in TV hospital dramas, like ER, Greys Anatomy, et al.
The DO NOT RESUCITATE storyline, usually involving old folks who should be allowed to "die with dignity" as it is put.
Rather than have those pesky procedures for which they've spent a lifetime PAYING FOR. And for what? Just a "few more months of life."
Just die already, why doncha.
Jack you are right those
July 13, 2009 - 05:16 ET by Dan The Man 2Jack you are right those little things to extend life is importatnt. My mom had inoperable brain cancer and she was told she had 2 months with radation and 3 or 4 w/o. She chose to have it and she closed up a lot of family ties she cut or neglected a long time ago.
My dad has had prostrate cancer for quite a few years and he is doing teh drug thing and in teh meantime he contracted bone cancer. He is 86 now and if the prevailing wisdom was in effect he would be gone.
I am afraid of my country.
Bingo, it's adding insult
July 13, 2009 - 06:54 ET by dscottBingo, it's adding insult to injury to place expectations upon the senior to up and die because their utilitarian value is not evident. Especially when the individual PAID into the system their entire lives and then is expected to die for a group of people who PAID NOTHING.
But we shouldn't be surprised at the arrogance of Obama and liberals, they stole over $3 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund for so called (social) investments that never panned out but actually gave a zero return for the money. The only way to keep the ponzi scheme going is to cull the herd of the feeble and gullible fools after fleecing them to the Nth degree.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Just like the USSR, the USA
July 13, 2009 - 07:24 ET by nadadhimmiJust like the USSR, the USA will start to get rid of the people that worked hard to build the system. They worked their entire lives and these are the people Obama wants to now die. That way, he can afford welfare and free healthcare for the illegal aliens he wants to vote for him. This amnesty will forever change the USA into a socialist state that the progressives want. OBAMA IS AN USURPER, and should be prosecuted but the politicians are cowards, afraid of being called racist by the socialist media. In this way, we are loosing our country.
That's Just What I Was Thinking DS
July 13, 2009 - 08:54 ET by HoosierEm"Especially when the individual PAID into the system their entire lives
and then is expected to die for a group of people who PAID NOTHING."
Excellent point. Not only those who have paid into the system for years, but what about those of us who have had the same health care insurance for years because of steady employment with the same company (as my husband has had) only to have that insurance company destroyed because of the government?
What is it that people do not understand? The senate couldn't even competently manage their own food services without begging for taxpayer assistance and then farming it out to some private company.
http://www.heritage....
What makes anyone think they can run a health care plan? Medicare and Medicaid? Does that ring a bell to any of these idiots pushing for this?
Obamacare is going to be an unmitigated disaster for America
July 13, 2009 - 04:51 ET by R D HelmI just can't believe even the stoopidest among the celebrity-worshiping American sheeple would be ignorant enough to believe that a federal government takeover of our nation's health care system would have any positive results whatsoever.
Sadly, I believe it will pass in some form or other, once Obama has wooed and bought off those currently on the fence, and sent his shin-busters around to deal with the rest.
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." -
Wow. The NYT advocating
July 13, 2009 - 06:57 ET by motherbeltWow. The NYT advocating the beliefs of Catholic nuns! Who'da thunk it!
Does this mean they are rethinking that "celibacy is stupid" thing?
If someone wants a DNR, for whatever reason, that is fine. The problem comes in advocating that course as desirable for older folks. No two situations are the same.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Wasn't that a big part of
July 13, 2009 - 05:26 ET by GeronLWasn't that a big part of the Daschle plan?
health care
July 13, 2009 - 07:54 ET by charlietexasI now fear that I will go into the hospital with a problem and never come out alive.
Why are Democrats so consumed with dying? Now old people can go by the way of unborn. The people in comas (terri shaivo), terminal, retarted, all are vulnerable. A murderer on death row has a better chance of living longer that the elderly under the Obama health care.
Butchers!!!!!!!!!!
natural course
July 13, 2009 - 07:56 ET by AJBWhen you ration healthcare using other than the free market, you will see such choices being made. Some government entity will have to choose which of the population is not worthy of health care in order to give it to others who are deemed 'more worthy'.
Look at the mess in the financial sector caused by governmental financial regulators and ask yourself... "Are these the people I want running my healthcare?"
July 13, 2009 - 09:57 ET by jessieHRemember the movie " Soylent Green"? Sounds a lot like the movie. Let's do it. Let's let the old die. Sorry sen. Kennedy, you gotta go. By, by, Specter. The elected officials go first.
Watch and learn.
July 13, 2009 - 10:50 ET by StogieGuyThis concept is the cornerstone of Obamacare. Of course, he won't tell you this. But this is exactly what will happen. It's why we need to stop his health care program NOW. Because, despite his lies, they'll ration care and it's a no brainer that THEY will decide when enough care is enough for elderly people. In the minds of radical lefties, the elderly are inconvenient and simply use up everyone else's resources. What, grandma needs an aortic bypass? Well, perhaps it would be more compassionate to let her die with dignity. Never mind that with the bypass, she could live another 8 years. That's where this is headed.
The NYT let the cat out of the bag a little bit here, but perhaps they're just testing the waters. To the poster who said Soylent Green, yes the Bamster will head us in that direction. Only it will be conservatives on the menu. He gets far too much credit here, for he is an evil, evil man.
Yes
July 13, 2009 - 11:02 ET by StarAZThese little brainiacs do think they have it all figured out. Did Obama contribute to Gram's care? I think he talked about it--but did he? What about if the babysitter grandmother of his kids gets sick--does she use the WH hosp? Why does she have health care? Is she retired from some job? Or does she have Medicare?
We have overseen Mom's care for 18 years
July 13, 2009 - 11:15 ET by StarAZDon't worry--older people are sort of triaged into last place and shunted in ERs and hospitals. They try to give them a catheter immediately (and at discomfort and cost) to silence their pleas to go to the john. We have to ask when Mom is moved..."Is this the dump ward?" It's not like high-priced doctors swarm over them doing every little thing. You can hardly get a doc to come in for hours, much less swarm. I am 65 and am sensing the beginning of this cursory treatment myself. By all means--check and recheck meds. Everyone is on too much crap! Sometimes older people are in the hospital from a fall or something--and are not in "the dying process." These are some tough old birds, believe me!
"
We also oversee Moms care,
July 13, 2009 - 12:45 ET by general companyMIL actually, she is 81. My wife is a nurse and we are fortunate to have a very good Dr. for her Mom to see. He specializes in the elderly and has been a great benefit to her well being. She was diagnosed with early stages of Alzheimer's, or Dementia about 15 years ago. We were in dread for sometime, until it became quite clear to us that she was just fine. She has never had a great memory, and like my wife can loose her car keys in the car! (Yes she still drives) Unfortunately the false diagnosis, has created a legal problems for her concerning everything from her insurance, pension, and even her Will, and what healthcare medicaid will help out with. Seems the physicians are willy nilly suggesting older folks whom have bad memories have the dreaded disease in order to co-op more public funds for research and such. This is of course a fine line to walk, we of course need to find the cure, but not debilitate those we wish to help. But, I fear if Obama's HC gets approved, this little problem goes away also, as does my MIL's health.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
They slap everyone with an Alz diagnosis
July 13, 2009 - 14:20 ET by StarAZA PET scan or autopsy are the only ways I know of to know for sure they have the dreaded A thing. But even board-certified docs will write in Alzheimer's. We have seen it (you always get your records after being in the hosp, I hope--we always do--and were not amused to see Mom had suddenly become diabetic, when in fact, she is not). And you have not really seen this stuff in action until an ambulance driver keeps yelling, "We will not leave without the DO NOT RESUSCITATE order." DNR, they can't wait to not R.
Alzaheimer's Disease
July 13, 2009 - 19:29 ET by stratmanGC:
Sorry to hear about your mother in law. It is a good that your wife is a nurse to help in the care and to explain things to the family.
Alzheimer's is a subset of the general term Dementia. There are a number of causes for "dementia". A layman's overview of causes of Dementia can be seen here.
Alheimer's Dementia (AD) is a progressive disease. If your MIL has not progressed from early AD over the ensuing 15 years, then it is unlikely she has AD. Progressive degeneration of memory and other functions are the hallmark of AD. Obviously I don't have nearly enough information, but you seem to infer your MIL's symptoms as those of normal aging process, not a pathological process. Given your questioning, and the concerns you have about the AD diagnosis making life more difficult concerning legal and medico-legal issues, have you considered a second opinion by a neurologist or other AD specialist like a geritrician or psychiatrist?
Seems there is a new self-test for memory devised by the Brits called "Test Your Memory" test. I just did it and gave it to my mother too. I changed "Prime Minister" to President (to reflect our American political culture) and I think the dating of WWI could be assumed to be later for American involvement, a lost point should not affect the outcome - both my mother and I were wrong about the start date of WWI according to the answer sheet, yet we both scored in the "normal" limits. Maybe WWII start date would be better, but even that might be interpreted differently by Americans since our involvement was later than Europe's. Will be interinsting to see how this test will be formated if used in the USA, if at all.
"TYM was able to correctly detect 93 percent of patients with Alzheimer's disease, while another test, the Mini Mental State Exam - standard method of assessment for the last 30 years - detected only 52 percent of patients.
A perfect score on the TYM is 50 and participants with no history of neurological disease, memory problems or brain injury scored an average of 47. Those with mild memory problems had an average score of 45 and those who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's scored much lower, with an average of 33."
Results of TYM test should only be used as a guide (not a diagnosis) to seek additional testing and diagnosis by professionals.
The diagnosis of Alzheimer's Dementia is still a clinical diagnosis determined from physical exam, history taking, and certain cognitive testing, and lab and radiological testing. Only autopsy provides definitive, gold standard, diagnosis so far as I know. PET Scan using Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) may become standard for diagnosing AD, but is still being studied. MRI is being studied to aid in dignosis of AD via measurements of shrinking hippocampal areas in the brain. Most tests are used to make sure the problem is not something other than AD, important because maybe correct identification can lead to treatment and reversal of symptoms.
While looking up some things on AD, I came across this Australian report on how "Doctors' Attitudes Play Part in Early Alzheimer's Diagnosis." Relationships, education and preconceptions all play a role in the physician-patient relationship. I am glad to hear your MIL has a physician you consider good, as trust is a key component in the relationship.
Thanks Stratman
July 13, 2009 - 19:57 ET by general companyIf your MIL has not progressed from early AD over the ensuing 15 years, then it is unlikely she has AD.
We went through this for a few years, the MIL has always been a bit of a scatter brain (I say that with all the endearment I can muster) she is famous for being all over the place with her conversations.
Given your questioning, and the concerns you have about the AD diagnosis making life more difficult concerning legal and medico-legal issues, have you considered a second opinion by a neurologist or other AD specialist like a geritrician or psychiatrist?
Absolutely, in fact her new Dr has been a huge factor in helping resolve these problems. She had been giving these test yearly, and because she was not able to remember half of her previous answers. They assumed she was in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Anyone who knows her isnt surprised, but she thinks very clearly and can resolve problems very rationally. I will send your test over to her, she will get a kick out of it.
I am glad to hear your MIL has a physician you consider good, as trust is a key component in the relationship
You are right, He is a family friend as well. We asked him his opinion at a social gathering when he informed us the elderly were his specialty. We always knew he was a physician, just never thought to ask what kind?
Thanks for your post, great info here and we will use it, thanks again.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You are most welcome,
July 13, 2009 - 20:58 ET by stratmanYou are most welcome, general company.
Sounds like you have a good handle on the situation.
Best wishes.
It's kind of strange that a
July 13, 2009 - 11:25 ET by ConservativeMissourianIt's kind of strange that a story like this was even written. Some people have been denying life-extending medicine forever; there is no need to highlight who is and who is not. The thought of the government or anyone regulating or even suggesting that people enact the use of this method is ridiculous.
Convenience And Inconvenient Truths
July 13, 2009 - 12:05 ET by stratmanInteresting how the NYTimes uses religion when it's agreeable with their views of the world. The rest of the time, it seems the NYTimes has a profound bias against religion, especially Christianity.
It is also ironic that the NYTimes highlights Nuns that forego intensive end of life care when a recent study concludes religious people use more resources in this specific situation.
A March 18, 2009 study published in JAMA entitled "Religious Coping and Use of Intensive Life-Prolonging Care Near Death in Patients With Advanced Cancer" concluded that people that use religion to cope with end of life cancer issues utilize more resources. One potential reason given was that religious people believe God will cure them, so, I guess, these patients prolong life in order to receive this Heavenly help.
The authors do state that denying a patient's religious coping beliefs have devastating consequences. Yet, the authors conclude that clergy should help define "shared goals" of the patient and their physicians. Sounds like code to me for re-educating the patient to use less resources, though the stated avoidance of a worsened death "experience" is a reasonable goal.
The study's authors are from Harvard and other intitutions in Massachusetts, the state that has Socialized Medicine ()AKA RomneyCare) which is hemorrhaging millions of dollars due to the utopian malfeasance of politicians and Liberals.
Makes me wonder if this study is not a conduit for rationing care (ie saving money) by identifying religious patients and then refining an approach to convince them (re-educate) to use less resources.
Not hard to connect the dots that studies like this will be used by Libs to further erode religion in Americans as well as shape healthcare policy under Obamacare.
The following links demonstrate the spin the media gives to this study. Both are relatively factually accurate concerning the original article, but each has its own bias:
I am concerned how this data will be used by politicians and healthcare administrators, particularly in a Socialized Medicine system.
I hope the fine people at
July 13, 2009 - 14:57 ET by Kat Outta the BagI hope the fine people at the NYT will do us all a favor and not wear out their welcome when the time comes, then.
This somewhat reminds me of the old Logan's Run series where nobody was allowed to live beyond the age of 30. Remember that one?
Re Logan's Run
July 13, 2009 - 15:34 ET by slickwillie2001Or Children of the Corn...
NYT should die
July 13, 2009 - 15:26 ET by sevensuch an ugly old hag of a former news paper. 572 pounds per year of paper for a shabby subscription.
LUXURY DEATH CAMPS ...
July 13, 2009 - 16:32 ET by Jayke... This is what I predicted back in January:
January 23, 2009 - 08:24 ET by Jayke
...
and with the upcoming National HEALTHY Care only the healthy will get
care. The weak and the sick will be encouraged to PLEASE DIE and save
us all some MONEY. I predict the establishment of LUXURY DEATH CAMPS
where sick people can go and DIE HAPPY.