In a previous post about the new House version of Obamacare, I concluded that the end of life counseling provisions had been improved but could still use further clarification. But I have a concern about assisted suicide in an area not connected to end of life counseling or advance directives.
There is a section deep in the bill that would appear to pay for “advocacy services,” provided to beneficiaries receiving “home or community based services,” starting at page 1593. I wonder whether this section could permit back door assisted suicide advocacy in states where it is legal. The key question comes up on page 1594. From the bill:
(e) ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE COUNSELING.—An agreement entered into under subsection (a)(2)(A)(iii) shall require the entity to assign, as requested by an eligible beneficiary that is covered by such agreement, an advice and assistance counselor who shall provide an eligible beneficiary with information regarding—(1) accessing and coordinating long-term services and supports in the most integrated setting; (2) possible eligibility for other benefits and services; (3) development of a service and support plan; (4) information about programs established under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 and the services offered under such programs; (5) available assistance with decision making concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and the right to formulate advance directives or other written instructions recognized under State law, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care, in the case that an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable to make health care decisions; and (6) such other services as the Secretary, by regulation, may require.
It seems to me that this could be construed as permitting an advocacy group like Compassion and Choices to be paid to help eligible people who want assisted suicide to fill out the required forms and advise about assisted suicide services. Note, there is no prohibition on this section for “promoting” assisted suicide as there is in the advance directive section. Moreover, relevant to both this and the previous post, Compassion and Choices says that assisted suicide of the terminally ill by physicians isn’t assisted suicide, but “aid in dying.” It is even facilitating a lawsuit in CT to have a judge legalize assisted suicide by redefinition.
The ridiculous “aid in dying” scheme aside, I certainly don’t know that this was the intent of the drafters or, indeed, whether my concern is warranted. But I don’t see anything in this section of the bill that would preclude payment for assisted suicide advocacy services in states where it is legal. The devil would be in the regulatory details. Indeed, with Compassion and Choices is striving to become the Planned Parenthood of death, I have little doubt that it and other such groups would seek payment for assisted suicide advocacy services they now offer for free if Obamacare passes.
October 30th, 2009 | 4:12 pm
[...] reconciliation loophole and Top 10 health care questions for President Obama Secondhand Smoke: Obamacare: Could Assisted Suicide Promoters Be Paid to Fill Out Death Request Forms? Gateway Pundit: Fearmongering First Lady Pushes Nationalized Health Care (Video) and Far Left Crank [...]
October 30th, 2009 | 4:29 pm
[...] Obamacare: Could Assisted Suicide Promoters Be Paid to Fill Out … [...]
October 30th, 2009 | 6:28 pm
Based upon my past service in high level government posts I’d say it’s a certainty that anything can be construed to mean anything.
October 30th, 2009 | 6:49 pm
[...] Obamacare: Could Assisted Suicide Promoters Be Paid to Fill Out … [...]
October 30th, 2009 | 8:35 pm
People about to die or believing they are about to die (and later recover) very often change their minds. I have not read about any provisions ensuring that changes of mind are observed.
October 30th, 2009 | 9:10 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lisa Correnti, Ann Neumann. Ann Neumann said: Smith tries to make case that "deep in" HCR bill is "backdoor" way to pay assisted suicide advocates. http://bit.ly/3VdXVl [...]
October 30th, 2009 | 11:04 pm
The phrase “end of life” and its acceptance is an immense problem in the first place. It smarmily opens the door to huge trouble. With its acceptance, the door is open to ending life, and that’s why it’s been created and pushed on us as a euphemism. It means death. This is like saying “I have a problem with…” rather than “I don’t like”; the language reflects the lack of guts of those who use it. With “end of life” accepted as a legitimate phrase (another example of back-dooring), “advanced directives” and the rest of the accoutrements of making sure people leave the planet when those who made up and have accepted the phrase think they should become considered legitimate. As for “advance directive,” it’s amazing that anyone could fail to realize that one simply cannot know what one will want in circumstances whose exact nature one does not yet know and which one has never experienced, and that they are being tricked into signing their own death warrant. It’s a trick — making people think they are exercising control when in fact the document wasn’t their idea in the first place, just something presented to them as a legitimate necessary document, and it’s really handing control over to those who want a way to get one off the planet without it being called murder, when it really is back-door murder. The culture of death taking hold is no surprise when people can’t even see through this.
October 31st, 2009 | 3:50 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by otherspoon: Smith tries to make case that “deep in” HCR bill is “backdoor” way to pay assisted suicide advocates. http://bit.ly/3VdXVl...
November 1st, 2009 | 5:25 pm
Sometimes people try to act more sophisticated than they actually are by making extremely ill-informed comments. That’s precisely the case with Welsey Smith’s article. He ought to leave interpretation of proposed federal legislative language to the professionals.
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:31 am
“Could”? Do I sense a bit of desperation there, as if someone were casting about frantically for some new scare tactics? Lots of things are possible; and most of them are very unlikely.
November 2nd, 2009 | 11:14 am
HW,
The problem is, as Mason stated, if you give them a hole an inch wide, they’ll drive a semi-truck through it full of explosives to blow it open a mile wide. Courts and policy activists will twist meaning of even simple terms. Why abortion is such a hot topic in this, as current experience shows, some states are required by courts to fund abortion because there was not clear language (and even then, clear language never stops legal positivists from throwing it away and making it up as they go along).
When we live in a culture than disregards laws, rules and tradition, you have to make things that much more airtight. For goodness sake, we have judges who willfully ignore the simple grammar and clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment if it suits their own ideology.
November 2nd, 2009 | 11:49 pm
Aid in birth is one thing; I don’t believe in it, or in life being easy to get into as if it were deserved just because one is trying, but at least it’s something that doesn’t automatically happen easily, and for the sake of logic here, that’s important. But aid in dying? A person’s going to die no matter what, with or without help. There goes their rationale. These people are full of manure. But then that was already obvious.
November 10th, 2009 | 3:16 pm
[...] withhold food and fluids, even though it will not pay to “promote assisted suicide” (the nuances about which I discussed here) in the end of life counseling provision (revised and made better from the original version, as I [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact