I was away and completely off the grid when President Obama made his health care pitch. But several people sent me e-mails questioning whether he pushed futile care theory as a method of cost containment and health care reform. As usual with our president, it is hard to tell exactly what he wants as he tends to speak in overly broad generalities or take both sides of an issue at the same time. Here is the report from the LA Times:
President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don’t stand to gain from the extra care. In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don’t unthinkingly approve “additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.” He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
It all depends on who gets to decide, doesn’t it? If people are to be educated about these matters, it is one thing. If they are going to be coerced, as in Futile Care Theory and rationing, it is quite another. The devil will truly be in the details–especially with this president.
By the way, this isn’t the first time Obama has a point about end-of-life care that is similarly wide-open to interpretation–as dutifully reported here at SHS.
July 6th, 2009 | 12:35 pm
Here’s another story on the topic of care for the elderly. By the title, you think it takes a dim view on trying to prolong and save life, but the story itself is pretty fair.
/www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20090706_For_America_s_aged__surgery_at_any_price_.html
July 6th, 2009 | 8:47 pm
I think he is both cold enough and detached enough from humanity in his own snobbery to use such a method in order to subsidize his other plans.
July 7th, 2009 | 11:10 am
Wesley,
You write: “It all depends on who gets to decide . . . . If people are to be educated . . ., it is one thing. If they are going to be coerced, . . . it is quite another”
Is it coercion where Medicare does not cover an intervention with a very low probability of giving the patient any benefit that she can appreciate?
I mean the choice itself is not (legally) foreclosed. The patient may herself (or her family may) decide to forgo the intervention given its out-of-pocket cost. But that is the patient’s (or via her surrogate) own choice and decision. Contrast a classic medical futility dispute where the only available healthcare providers refuse to provide requested treatment.
July 7th, 2009 | 12:46 pm
Professor Pope: That’s like saying I can buy Monaco if I want. If someone is denied coverage for ICU life extension, and if the hospital is empowered to force an end to the intervention based on a qualitative futility determination, it is indeed coercion and a denial of autonomy.
August 8th, 2009 | 7:31 am
[...] research seem like a pretty good idea. Who, after all, wants to waste their taxpayer dollars on treatment for old folks who are going to die soon anyway? Wouldn’t it be better to allocate the bulk of [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact