prev
next
AP Fact Check: No "Death Panel" In Bill
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.
Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:
Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?
A: No.
Q: Then what's all the fuss about?
A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.
Q: Is anything required?
Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.
"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini - then let me go."
Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?
A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions - decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?
A: It already is.
The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.
Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?
A: A living will - also called an advance directive - spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.
A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.
There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.
Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.
Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?
A: It very well could.
Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.
"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."
The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.
"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."
Q: So why are some people upset?
Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.
The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.
"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the group. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person - perhaps unwittingly - to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."
The White House says it is countering false claims with a "reality check" page on its Web site, www.whitehouse.gov.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:
Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?
A: No.
Q: Then what's all the fuss about?
A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.
Q: Is anything required?
Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.
"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini - then let me go."
Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?
A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Q: Who supports the provision?
A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.
Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions - decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?
A: It already is.
The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.
Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?
A: A living will - also called an advance directive - spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.
A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.
There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.
Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.
Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?
A: It very well could.
Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.
"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."
The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.
"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."
Q: So why are some people upset?
Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.
The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.
"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the group. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person - perhaps unwittingly - to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."
The White House says it is countering false claims with a "reality check" page on its Web site, www.whitehouse.gov.
Popular in Health
- Scientists scratch the surface of itching's origins
- Once obese dachshund gets surgery to remove excess skin
- Surgeons remove 4-pound hairball from tiger 10 Photos
- FDA: 7 infections linked to Tenn. compounding pharmacy
- Teens guiltiest of underestimating calories in fast food
- Surgeons remove 4-pound hairball from 400-pound tiger
- How to get in shape for your wedding
- Drinking sugary drinks daily linked to kidney stones
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
15 ?(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
16 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
17 program that?
5 ?(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-
6 holders includes representatives from emergency
7 medical services, emergency department physi
8 cians or nurses, state long-term care associa
9 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
10 agency responsible for senior services, state de-
11 partment of health, state hospital association,
12 home health association, state bar association,
13 and state hospice association.
10 ?(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
11 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
12 treatment or a similar order.
Seriously? A coalition of stake-holders one of which is the State Bar Association? You should do some real fact checking AP before you say those death panels don't exist. Sure the term is political, but it doesn't change the facts that a bunch of lawyers are going to be making HC decisions for seniors.
Also look at the wording... "may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order" doesn't mean they MUST.
Looks like Palin has a little higher level of reading comprehension than CBS and the AP.
Her 'foot in mouth' disease is indicative of a person who opens their mouth before engaging their brain.
We Americans should be thankful that this lady was not elected to the Vice Presidency. With MUCH tutoring on her part she MIGHT be able to fill the shoes of one the most persons in the word. I use the term 'might' because God can and does change people (I think in this case He has a lot of changing to do [editoral comment]).
With Ms. Palin resigning as govenor of Alaska (perhaps to enter the world of paid professional speakers) one would expect that her actions verge on putting herself, as it were, out to political pasture.
As many of us review the previous presidential or vice presidental candidates, Ms. Palin's qualifications quite possibly would be on the bottom attempting to support truly more qualified candidates.
Question: "Outside the medical criteria for prolonging the life of someone who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, or quality of life; or is it just a medical cut off at a certain age?"
President Obama: "Yeah, we're not gonna solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and a society making better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that is not making anybody's mom better that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't gonna help. Maybe you're better off not taking the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/
Quit shouting.
And to address your questions about the health panel--theoretically, these town hall meetings that are *supposed* to be a way to hear the citizens speak about their concerns (they aren't really--they're just shouting matches and fights)--anyway, theoretically, you and I get to sound off about what we want and don't want. The panel will probably not include any deranged people that just want to scream--but at some point in the future, perhaps there will be a federal health option---or two, or three.
Option.
Option.
No one will be forced to enroll in it.
It would be an option.
In the future, even those of us that have health insurance won't be able to afford it if the only option is Blue Cross, or Anthem, or Humana.
Why do you think people go to Canada to get their prescriptions filled....
Didn't anyone ever think that the town hall meetings are a way to discuss the details? Too bad everyone is too mad to discuss anything. The panel will just have to "guess" what the public wants.
She isn't just ill-informed--she is trying to further her own agenda (using her *family* to do it).
Plus--wasn't Palin horrified that anyone would mention her family members to make a joke? She uses her family members to slander everyone else.
When will she just be quiet and go away.