Assisted Suicide Consequences

[YoUDeeMan]

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

Do they have loaner guns?

AL's PUT YOURSELF DOWN LIKE A DOG GUN RENTAL
Wanna' go out with a bang? Wese got shotguns, pistols, TNT...you name it.
Rental cost is in 5 minute increments (we understand you might want to do some thinkin') and comes complete with one shell or explosive.
Guaranteed results...plenty of back up shooters available to snuff out any last remaining signs of life.
Clean up costs included...your mess will be put into a bag. Minimal charge to burn remains next door at ma cousin's place, READY, AIM, FIRE.
Mood setting, depressing country music is included free of charge.
If you want your end filmed and distributed to loved one...that'll cost extra.

[ASUG8]

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?

I don't think you and I are really that far apart on this. I think assisted suicide should be an option but it's a slippery slope that needs to be addressed with safeguards so that this can't be abused by either physicians or insurance companies.
Like I said, in an ideal world terminally ill patients shouldn't have to worry about moving like this woman had to do. It would be great to see all options on the table instead of a decision tree that immediately moves to suicide vs. legitimate treatment options. End of life care is expensive as Cluck noted, but when a person reaches the decision that enough is enough I think they should have that option on the table when they're ready, not when the insurance says you've had enough care.

[89Hen]

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.

I don't think we're going to agree on this Cluck.

[89Hen]

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.

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.

It's also another op-ed piece Jelly as evidenced by the part I left quoted. So odd to see you on the side of the big, bad insurance companies. Doesn't really become you.

[89Hen]

I don't think you and I are really that far apart on this. I think assisted suicide should be an option but it's a slippery slope that needs to be addressed with safeguards so that this can't be abused by either physicians or insurance companies.

[Ibanez]

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;

92% have no response to the drug? Then what good is that fucking drug?!

[AZGrizFan]

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.

It's also another op-ed piece Jelly as evidenced by the part I left quoted. So odd to see you on the side of the big, bad insurance companies. Doesn't really become you.

He's just another big-hearted donk.

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

I don't think we're going to agree on this Cluck.

As noted in the article, the drug has a very small chance of working...and it only extends life by a few months. What is the quality of that life? And at what cost? In the end, someone has to pay for the drug...should we all be given the very latest in radical drugs, regardless of cost? Who pays for that? Who decided who gets the latest treatments while others don't?

Who gets to play God? Patients? Doctors? Insurance companies? Lawyers?

Again, we aren't talking about an aspirin here. We are talking about a drug with limited success...with the, "success" part defined by extending a life for a few months, with no indication of the expense or quality of life.

We may not agree, but you have no real answers to legitimate questions.

[89Hen]

I don't think we're going to agree on this Cluck.

As noted in the article, the drug has a very small chance of working...and it only extends life by a few months. What is the quality of that life? And at what cost? In the end, someone has to pay for the drug...should we all be given the very latest in radical drugs, regardless of cost? Who pays for that? Who decided who gets the latest treatments while others don't?

Who gets to play God? Patients? Doctors? Insurance companies? Lawyers?

Again, we aren't talking about an aspirin here. We are talking about a drug with limited success...with the, "success" part defined by extending a life for a few months, with no indication of the expense or quality of life.

We may not agree, but you have no real answers to legitimate questions.

Cluck you're buried in the minutiae. This specific case/drug was just used as an example of what could happen. I'm talking big picture.

"Who gets to play God? Patients? Doctors? Insurance companies? Lawyers?"

I'll go with patients and doctors. You are obviously going with insurance companies and lawyers. That's why we're not going to agree here.

[CAA Flagship]

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.





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

92% have no response to the drug? Then what good is that fucking drug?!

It generates earnings for Genentech.