Assisted Suicide Consequences

[89Hen]

Interesting read and a little disturbing...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/c ... le_sidebar

The media frenzy over the Maynard story has made it almost impossible for a legitimate opposing view to be heard, and many people believe that any opposition has to come from religious extremists or right-wing busybodies.

I am neither. As a disability rights advocate for over 40 years as well as a person living with a disability, I am deeply troubled about the Maynard media swarm.

Assisted suicide legalization isn't about Brittany Maynard. It's about the thousands of vulnerable ill, elderly and disabled people who will be harmed if assisted suicide is legalized...

In 2008, cancer patient Barbara Wagner was prescribed a chemotherapy treatment by her doctor, but Oregon's state-run health plan sent a letter which denied coverage of this chemo, yet offered to cover other "treatments," including assisted suicide.

The same scenario happened to another Oregon resident, Randy Stroup. The Oregon assisted suicide reports tell us that over 95% of those who supposedly received lethal prescriptions in Oregon had insurance, but how many got a denial like the one sent to Wagner and Stroup?

When assisted suicide is encouraged, it becomes a covered "treatment" and ultimately removes choices from patients.

Assisted suicide's supposed "safeguards" are hollow. Nothing in the Oregon, Washington and Vermont laws prevents an heir or caregiver from suggesting assisted suicide as an option, taking the person to the doctor to sign up and witnessing the consent form. Once the prescription is obtained, with no further witness required, nothing in the law ensures the person's consent or self-administration at the time of death.

[Skjellyfetti]

The problem seems to be is why the chemotherapy treatment prescribed by her doctor wasn'tt covered, imo. Not with assisted suicide. Assisted suicide should be an option for terminal patients with no treatment.

[SDHornet]

Meh. If “assisted suicide” is going to be considered a legitimate treatment, then one can expect the insurance companies to take full advantage of it. Sounds more like an Obamacare/insurance/medical cost issue to me. Another option to cancer treatment is medical marijuana, but I’m not surprised you conveniently left that out.

Also on the last part, sounds more like personal responsibility issue. Same argument can be made about any prescription drug sent home with a patient. It also brings to light the importance of power of attorney to remove those issues of consent in the latter stages of ones life. If an heir has that in hand then there is really nothing more to discuss.

I see where people are coming from on the assisted suicide thing. Me and my family cared for my ailing grandparents for years (round the clock care/supervision, grandma had multiple strokes and slowly deteriorated over a 10 year span), and personally I would never want to burden my kids/grandkids lives in that manner. I want assisted suicide to be an option to me in the event my health takes a turn for the worse and I don’t want my spouse/kids to hesitate to put me under in the event I become a vegetable.

[89Hen]

The problem seems to be is why the chemotherapy treatment prescribed by her doctor wasn'tt covered, imo. Not with assisted suicide. Assisted suicide should be an option for terminal patients with no treatment.

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

[89Hen]

Another option to cancer treatment is medical marijuana, but I’m not surprised you conveniently left that out.

I didn't write the article.

[SDHornet]

Another option to cancer treatment is medical marijuana, but I’m not surprised you conveniently left that out.

I didn't write the article.

[89Hen]

I didn't write the article.

BTW, I guess you were also assuming I am opposed to the legalization of pot.

[SDHornet]

BTW, I guess you were also assuming I am opposed to the legalization of pot.

You are quick to blame mj for certain acts of violence.

[YoUDeeMan]

The problem seems to be is why the chemotherapy treatment prescribed by her doctor wasn'tt covered, imo. Not with assisted suicide. Assisted suicide should be an option for terminal patients with no treatment.

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

What if suicide is a cheaper alternative, and less painful, for the family than medical treatment? Does a family have to throw away their entire fortune to grant a family member another year of painful living (if you could call it that)?

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

What if suicide is a cheaper alternative, and less painful, for the family than medical treatment? Does a family have to throw away their entire fortune to grant a family member another year of painful living (if you could call it that)?

The Vatican condemns assisted suicide. That is the same as God himself condemning assisted suicide. You have no argument here - move on.

[89Hen]

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

What if suicide is a cheaper alternative, and less painful, for the family than medical treatment? Does a family have to throw away their entire fortune to grant a family member another year of painful living (if you could call it that)?

This was more, what if the insurance companies only paid for the cheaper alternative. Guess you didn't read any of it.

In 2008, cancer patient Barbara Wagner was prescribed a chemotherapy treatment by her doctor, but Oregon's state-run health plan sent a letter which denied coverage of this chemo, yet offered to cover other "treatments," including assisted suicide.

[SDHornet]

What if suicide is a cheaper alternative, and less painful, for the family than medical treatment? Does a family have to throw away their entire fortune to grant a family member another year of painful living (if you could call it that)?

The Vatican condemns assisted suicide. That is the same as God himself condemning assisted suicide. You have no argument here - move on.

[89Hen]

BTW, I guess you were also assuming I am opposed to the legalization of pot.

You are quick to blame mj for certain acts of violence.

Ugh, go read the threads if you'd like to know where I stand on that topic. This has zero to do with pot.

[Skjellyfetti]

The problem seems to be is why the chemotherapy treatment prescribed by her doctor wasn'tt covered, imo. Not with assisted suicide. Assisted suicide should be an option for terminal patients with no treatment.

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

But, the problem is still with the health care plan denying her coverage for chemotherapy, imo.

That shouldn't be an option with assisted suicide. It shouldn't be an option unless the patient is terminal and there are no viable treatments... according to a doctor. JMO.

[89Hen]

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

But, the problem is still with the health care plan denying her coverage for chemotherapy, imo.

That shouldn't be an option with assisted suicide. It shouldn't be an option unless the patient is terminal and there are no viable treatments... according to a doctor. JMO.

I've read this three times, but I'm not getting what you're saying.

The op-ed seems to indicate that a person in Oregon was denied chemo, but was offered suicide as an alternative and that gave the author pause as to whether an insurance company could basically make the decision for a patient.

[ASUG8]

I think this opinion piece is saying the "why" is because there is a cheaper alternative of the insurance companies... suicide.

But, the problem is still with the health care plan denying her coverage for chemotherapy, imo.

That shouldn't be an option with assisted suicide. It shouldn't be an option unless the patient is terminal and there are no viable treatments... according to a doctor. JMO.

We're in agreement. IMO, just as she moved to Oregon to take advantage of the right to die legislation maybe the people being denied treatment in Oregon could move to Cali or elsewhere to find state coverage that included chemo.

[89Hen]

But, the problem is still with the health care plan denying her coverage for chemotherapy, imo.

That shouldn't be an option with assisted suicide. It shouldn't be an option unless the patient is terminal and there are no viable treatments... according to a doctor. JMO.

We're in agreement. IMO, just as she moved to Oregon to take advantage of the right to die legislation maybe the people being denied treatment in Oregon could move to Cali or elsewhere to find state coverage that included chemo.

Wow, I can't agree with that.

[ASUG8]

We're in agreement. IMO, just as she moved to Oregon to take advantage of the right to die legislation maybe the people being denied treatment in Oregon could move to Cali or elsewhere to find state coverage that included chemo.

Wow, I can't agree with that.

It shouldn't have to be that way, but that's how it operates now. If my Oregon doctor is pushing suicide because he can't get the chemo treatment he'd prefer to give me past your provider (assuming I still have the desire to live) why wouldn't I go somewhere where I have the ability to obtain the level of care I want? People stream into the Mayo clinic, regional cancer centers, etc. when that level of care doesn't exist where they live.

Insurance will always do the least they are obligated to do, and will fight doing even that level of care. I'm dealing with some of that now. As a doctor I would hope there would be some way of escalating a call like this to make the insurance companies begin offering him something other than euthanasia as a treatment option.

[89Hen]

It shouldn't have to be that way, but that's how it operates now. If my Oregon doctor is pushing suicide because he can't get the chemo treatment he'd prefer to give me past your provider (assuming I still have the desire to live) why wouldn't I go somewhere where I have the ability to obtain the level of care I want? People stream into the Mayo clinic, regional cancer centers, etc. when that level of care doesn't exist where they live.

Insurance will always do the least they are obligated to do, and will fight doing even that level of care. I'm dealing with some of that now. As a doctor I would hope there would be some way of escalating a call like this to make the insurance companies begin offering him something other than euthanasia as a treatment option.

Going somewhere because the treatment is better is completely different than going somewhere because your insurance won't cover you.

Your last statement goes without saying BUT what if they don't? Again, that was the point of the article. You are going to tell somebody gravely ill that they have to move?

[89Hen]

For the record, I am not opposed to assisted suicide as an option. I posted this because of the possible unintended consequences that could arise. Had never thought of this one.

[93henfan]

Why do people have to make shit so difficult? A 12 gauge shell costs about 50 cents and is roughly 99.999% effective.

[YoUDeeMan]

What if suicide is a cheaper alternative, and less painful, for the family than medical treatment? Does a family have to throw away their entire fortune to grant a family member another year of painful living (if you could call it that)?

This was more, what if the insurance companies only paid for the cheaper alternative. Guess you didn't read any of it.

In 2008, cancer patient Barbara Wagner was prescribed a chemotherapy treatment by her doctor, but Oregon's state-run health plan sent a letter which denied coverage of this chemo, yet offered to cover other "treatments," including assisted suicide.

I read the article...but it didn't provide a lot of detail. Perhaps the particular chemo treatment was experimental, or one with a very slim margin for success. Insurance should not pay for every possible treatment under the sun...that would be extremely expensive and would also lead to possible abuses from the doctor's side (advise more expensive treatment, often to simply extend a life...a painful one, in order to get paid more money).

In the end, insurance companies should not be forced to cover everything, so you will have some choices to make as a consumer. Same thing with life insurance, or any other product.

Want more, pay more...and be sure to read the small print.

[andy7171]

Speaking of suicide, anyone seen or heard from dback? He was in all out pro-gay facebook posting yesterday pushing for the blue side to win. Anyone?

[SunCoastBlueHen]

would also lead to possible abuses from the doctor's side

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah, this article gives more info on the treatment.

Small liklihood of extending life for a short amount of time. And very expensive. Makes sense now.

When it became clear that first and second-line therapies had failed and her prognosis was grim, Ms. Wagner's oncologist recommended a costly, third-line cancer drug called Tarceva. Research indicates that 8 percent of advanced lung cancers respond to Tarceva, with a chance to extend life from an average of 4 months to 6 months. The likelihood of no response to the drug is 92 percent, yet 19 percent of patients develop toxic side effects like diarrhea and rash. Based on the low indicators of effectiveness, Oregon Health Plan denied coverage.

The irresistible ingredients of sensationalism included a distraught patient, a doctor deeply opposed to Death with Dignity and an insensitive letter of payment denial. The media was called in and the rest is history.

Ms. Wagner received Tarceva, anyway, when the drug's manufacturer, Genentech, responding to the media firestorm and provided it at no cost. News stories never mentioned that when Wagner bet on the remote chance to prolong life, she probably turned her back on hospice care, widely recognized as the gold standard for end-of-life care. Sadly, it turned out Tarceva didn't help Wagner and she lived only a short time after starting the drug.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... se_ch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;