It’s funny: The more some Obamacare supporters deny that it would lead to health care rationing, the more it is advocated among the bioethics set and in the Medical Intelligentsia. Now, there is an explicit call to deny very early premature babies life-sustaining treatment because of the cost. From a letter to the editor published originally in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
Rationing and providing only comfort care should be considered not just at the end of life for adults, Freeman maintains, but also in instances of extremely premature births. He cites studies showing that intensive care for infants born at 22-23 weeks resulted in more than 1,700 extra days in intensive care, with less than 20 percent surviving. Of those 20 percent, less than 3 percent survived without profound impairment that required expensive interventions.
That might fly in some places, but not in America. If you disagree, just imagine HMOs doing it. It will be no more palatable if the refusal to try and save very premature babies came to be imposed by bureaucratic fiat. Moreover, once such babies were rationed out of treatment, it wouldn’t take long before some began to agitate for infanticide as the more humane alternative–as is now committed in the Netherlands.
January 20th, 2010 | 1:02 pm
Today’s babies are the world’s future adults, if we ration their health care are we not rationing our future.
In my opinion every baby no matter how premature should be given the medical intervention required to provide him or her with a fighting chance of life.
January 20th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, J. Robert Howell. J. Robert Howell said: Obamacare: Rationing Against Prematurely Born Babies http://is.gd/6Gi1T [...]
January 20th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
If those babies were too stupid to allow themselves to be born premature – well, that’s just too bad. They should have had more faith in god and stopped making deals with the devil.
I side with big insurance and fully support terminating coverage of premature babies as they clearly have a pre-existing condition.
Republicans need to stop this attempt by Democrats to prevent denials due to pre-existing conditions. How else are we supposed to kill off our poor people and the sick? With missles? We need those for the Middle East…
January 20th, 2010 | 2:37 pm
David obviously cannot process what he reads on this blog due to ideological interference with his reading comprehension. That aside, this disgusts me, particularly since my nephew was born at only 25 weeks.
January 20th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
(Watching troll David go off the deep end….)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 20th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
No trolls here, holyterror. All views are welcome, assuming respectfully stated.
January 20th, 2010 | 5:47 pm
David: are you serious? Or are you just trying to gain attention from people? Do you really believe what you say or do you feel utterly insignificant and invisible by the human race that you feel you must present such views? My questions are, by the way, written with absolute seriousness; I am not ironic.
Emina
January 20th, 2010 | 6:28 pm
Now I’ve seen it all. If he’s serious, which at this point I highly doubt, he must be twisting himself into a pretzel.
January 20th, 2010 | 7:03 pm
I am not a troll!
I do not live under a bridge and demand a toll!
I am a human being, created in god’s image, with free-will. I didn’t evolve from monkeys and I’m not a series of chemical reactions. I’m an extra-special person who seeks to do god’s will and share his love. I demand to keep all the money I make, pollute as much as I wish, and bomb the heck out of whomever I choose regardless of civilian atrocities (Ganzi), but I’ll be doggone if any of my money has to go to helping my own people here at home by giving preemies healthcare. Oh, and all rich people (especially anonymous, arrogant, agnostic, annoyed, impatient doctors) should pay no taxes. Amen.
But seriously, go help people in the US who are members of the working poor and have families (not leeching bums). If it doesn’t make you angry and impatient and intolerant, I’m not sure what will. Prayer has not helped them, but medicine and science have.
January 20th, 2010 | 7:40 pm
David’s fond of lampooning people who do not exist.
January 20th, 2010 | 9:36 pm
Ummm, I’m not lampooning people who don’t exist.
There are people who’d rather spend money on missiles and look for WMDs than spend it on their sick neighbors. I seem to recall the Bush years, does anyone else?
For those of you can’t see the double-speak and sarcasm in my comments, and you can’t exercise a little bit of healthy skepticism, well, I guess that just provides evidence as to why Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh are listened to.
Little advice… don’t go to a used car dealership or visit a new age bookstore with credit card in hand… we already have enough stupid debt in the US.
Are folks beginning to see our duplicities and logical inconsistencies as a country?
I’m not saying the Senate health care bill is perfect (and Allah or Jupiter knows what the House is up to), but has anyone NOT seen or not known someone who’s been screwed over by their health insurance or denied? Reform failed under Teddy, failed under Nixon, failed under Clinton, Bush did nothing, hmmm, notice a trend, anyone?
Wisen up to the fear tactics and rhetoric (death panels? give me a break). Cut through the nonsense. We badly need reform (in energy and finance as well as health). The Senate bill will improve things for most uninsured IF we are willing to make fiscal sacrifices and take more personal responsibility for our health and education (all things Americans hate and are mostly incapable of, so maybe I am the delusional one). This means fewer bombs, guns, and tanks, and fewer Big Macs, I know, I know, hard to give up… I’m a big fan of Hamburgler, Aegis, the F-22 Raptor and the Osprey, but, ya know, cataract surgery for children is, like, kind of important… I mean, they like, should learn to read and stuff. Even the NBA (the sports league where guys take guns into the locker room, not the steroid league, though) knows that “reading is fundamental” (yes, children with cataracts from poor families have been denied for ‘pre-existing’, yes, I am infuriated by it).
Soooo, yeah, if we spent less on war and killing, and sacrificed a little, we probably could afford health care for our country. Heaven forbid we take care of each other. (anyone take a look at the military budget lately?)
January 20th, 2010 | 9:52 pm
The problem with David is that he doesn’t state his beliefs respectfully. Instead, he acts like he’s consumed too much weed. But, I’m glad we don’t censor opinions here.
January 20th, 2010 | 10:05 pm
As educated as Freeman is, my guess is his push for the rationing of healthcare isn’t so much about the statistics as much as it is a promotion of his worldview. Certainly, there must be other ways to rein in spending without curtailing care.
January 20th, 2010 | 10:36 pm
David, if you insist on seeing everything in black and white, I can’t stop you. I can tell you that any real charity half as corrupt as Congress would shortly be defunct. So yes, I’ll try to preserve as much of my money as possible from the tax man. Rest easy knowing it is being used with maximum efficiency by World Vision in Haiti rather than to buy off Ben Nelson. I’m sorry that fine distinction appears lost on you.
January 20th, 2010 | 11:01 pm
The problem is everything is not that black-and-white. With any humanitarian crisis, there is no such thing as money to waste, which is what Congress reliably does. Charity is best left to, um, real charities that are efficiently run.
January 21st, 2010 | 1:30 am
As educated as Freeman (neurologist noted in the link) is, I think his push for healthcare rationing has more to do with his worldview than his medical opinion. Surely, there must be a way to rein in spending without curtailing care.
January 21st, 2010 | 10:15 am
David:
Stay away from satire. I don’t think it’s working for you.
If you wish to be a more effective advocate for your views, I’d advise you to learn more about opposing viewpoints, to help focus your own.
If your intention is to make yourself feel superior by tearing down poorly-constructed strawmen, however, I’d say you’re doing just fine.
January 21st, 2010 | 11:49 am
We will adopt the very worst traditions of both Athens and Sparta and call it civilized.
The whole reason people are arguing theoretically for Universal Health Care is so no one would be denied. This book’s reasoning regarding premies flies in the face of that motive.
Why if the goal is coverage for everyone, would premies be singled out? Why would the advocates suddenly get fiscally prudent when it came to those who needed the care most?
What refusing aid and medical care to the infirm at any stage of life does, is raise the bar at which one would “grant” aid and medical care and as budgets get tighter and resouces get more scarce; the sample that would get care will become more restricted. It must if the system would not grow bankrupt.
This sort of thinking leads to great malice and mischief. It leads to bureacracies deciding what treatments will and won’t be rendered that have no appeals process. This is just Government Darwinism.
January 21st, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Argh, I will retract the troll label because I actually don’t understand it very well. I thought it meant people who just come around to stir up trouble. Mostly I have seen it hurled at people who pop up to disagree with the prevailing thought of some insular internet group.
Perhaps, David, Spark Varc has the best advice. If that was your attempt at satire, please try being more straightforward.
I again implore those regular scoffers here to try to dislodge some stereotypes and engage in sharing and discussion of the viewpoints. Sure, I have a lot of lofty ideas about why that is important but I also wanted to add that I am a mother of four small holyterrors, all boys, and I have *very* little free time. I spend a lot of it here at SHS and sometimes I spend a great deal of my visit trying to wrestle my heart rate down and my charity up.
So if I am willing to do that (albeit sometimes poorly, but I am trying)…can’t you?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 21st, 2010 at 4:10 pm
holyterror: As I understand it, a “troll” is someone who goes to a site where heterodox opinions are not welcomed, e.g. Sarah Palin commenting at the Daily Kos. It may also be someone who just tries to cause trouble without any intent of engaging or debating. This site has no trolls, at present, because we welcome all opinions and I don’t sense anyone just pulling chains. Thanks.
January 21st, 2010 | 4:26 pm
We pay at least twice as much per person on healthcare than do other wealthy nations (we pay 2.5 times the average). Other countries provide high quality healthcare to ALL their citizens for about half or what we pay to cover less than 90%. Total expenditures in the US (2007) were $7290 per person, and for some other countries, Switzerland $4417, France $3601, Ireland $3424, Australia $3137, Japan $2581 etc. We pay double the French, and our health care is not as good! But have you ever heard this on CNN or in the NY Times? How is it we know about Tiger Woods’ sex life than we do about health care?
This unnecessary transfer of over $1 trillion from the working class to healthcare corporations is a horrific drag on America’s global competitiveness. In addition, the long-term effects of a substandard healthcare system on our populace will (and is) harm productivity.
January 21st, 2010 | 5:45 pm
This is very personal to me because I went into labor, including a full membrane rupture, at 22 weeks.
They were able to stop my labor for 7 weeks, and my son is now a healthy 4 year old.
I read a story a few months ago about a British woman who presented to the hospital in a similar circumstance. Not only did they refuse to stop her labor (they judged doing so futile) they refused to giver her 22 week old child any medical care.
I see this happening more frequently if we stop routinely caring for children at the lower ends of viability. Labor is generally only able to be stopped for a few days or weeks. Why deal with the expense if the child will just be left to die at the end of it?
January 22nd, 2010 | 2:19 am
I saw a March of Dimes commercial, ON ABC SATURDAY MORNING CHILDREN’S CARTOON PROGRAMMING: A view of audience seating in a theater as seen from the stage. Not adults, but babies (naked except for diapers), occupy all the seats – except that one third of the seats are empty. The announcer’s voice rambles on about “preventing birth defects” – presumably the 1/3 are premature babies prone to the birth defects – going below the audience’s radar with the implication that the March of Dimes offers prenatal diagnosis which results in abortion. (M.O.D. correctly expects that the average adult won’t object; the point is to propagandize young children to this view.) NO MENTION THAT ABORTION CAUSES INCREASED RISK OF PREMATURE BIRTH. March of Dimes’ “cure” isn’t worse than the disease – it is the disease.
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:36 am
I’m glad that we all seem to agree on at least one thing: the present state of health care and related insurance costs here in the US leaves much to be desired. On the other hand I don’t think there will ever be anything done about it until all of us (myself including) agree to stop pushing our private moral and ethical agendas and try actually solving the problem in a constructive, practical way.
There’s a saying that politics is the art of the possible. It’s also the art of accommodation, of “give-and-take.” As long as people refuse to bend even a little we’re not going to see any progress, ever.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact