The above title was on the cover of a National Review magazine a while back, and it has stuck in my mind as overly appropriate. Because euthanasia does creep, very quietly and behind the scenes. It isn't just for the National Socialists of Germany in the 1940s. It's not just for patients who are terminal and in pain. It's not just for the future when the "death panels" of Obamacare are fully implemented. It's here and it's now, and has been for a while.
As our cultural norms are "progressing" so also is our expectation of end of life care. There are plenty of "death with dignity" folks out there working to legalize euthanasia--even infant euthanasia, which is now legal in several European countries. And you don't have to have a terminal condition: 1% of all deaths in Belgium are now due to euthanasia. Voluntary suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. But laws are not necessary--euthanasia happens all the time in hospitals. One by one, "progressive" healthcare practitioners have been changing the landscape of medical treatment with end-of-life decision making. At least 30% of total healthcare dollars spent on a person during his lifetime are during his last year. So if you shorten the life by one year, you can save a whole lot of $. Liberals operate on that principle all the time. How do I know this? I've seen it.
I have worked in six different ICUs in three different states over 20 years, but the first place I worked was a Medical unit. This was the mid-80s, and it was just becoming commonplace for a physician to order "Do Not Resuscitate" status for patients who were very old and sick or who had a terminal illness. One physician infuriated us by admitting terminal, dying patients to the hospital but refusing to write DNRs. So we'd end up doing CPR on them when they died: a futile and violent nonsense.
But the culture changed, and end-of-life discussions and plans now commonly go along with terminal diagnoses, which is good. But in emergency situations there is often no opportunity to consult the patient about his wishes, and the family is guided by the physician. I noticed a direct correlation between the treatment decisions of doctors and nurses that I knew to be more liberal, and a haste in withdrawing or minimizing treatments for their elderly patients. One very liberal nurse (that I had many arguments with at 3 a.m. when things were quiet in the unit) even went so far as to say that "It's a waste of resources to admit old people to the ICU." Not "Old people shouldn't be admitted because it doesn't do them any good--poor outcomes and suffering--quality of life--etc." but "It's bad for society."
One of my co-workers was actually caught attempting to "euthanize" a patient by administering massive doses of IV morphine--this was in the news, and she did get in big trouble. Yes, the patient would have died anyway--probably within the next week. But it's a very short trip in the mind of a progressive from letting someone die, to helping someone die more quickly to save resources. And she was the most liberal of anyone I've ever worked with--she told me that her teenage daughter's form of rebellion was to stop having sex with her boyfriend and "find Jesus"--she was very disturbed about that. Just a window into her mind.
On one occasion (I can't give too many details because of confidentiality) I took care of an active older man (driving, golfing) who'd had a small heart attack and developed pneumonia and was put on a ventilator. He did great during the night and his chest X-ray looked better in the morning. I was shocked when I came back the next night to find that he was dead--they'd put him on a morphine drip and taken him off the ventilator and let him go. I'd stop breathing too if I had pneumonia (which I did a few years ago) and was put on a morphine drip! But his doctor was one of the liberal ones and had told his family that he would probably not recover--he'd only been in the ICU for 2 days--so they consented.
And patients are also quietly euthanized outside of the ICU. I took care of a young-ish woman who had brain damage from an accident, but who was stable and off all treatments. She had decent reflexes but would probably never recover much brain function. The doctor and family decided that she wouldn't want to live that way, so they stopped her tube feedings and she died of dehydration. This was a Terri Schiavo case that never made it to the Supreme Court, not even to the hospital's Ethics Committee--it was just done. And it's done all the time.
To be clear, I am not in favor of administering every treatment to every patient all the time--comfort, yes, life-sustaining drugs, no. But withholding food and liquids is murder in my mind. What usually happens in these cases is that before too long the patient contracts pneumonia or a UTI, then gets septic, and, without antibiotics, passes away. And that's OK in many cases where there clearly is no hope of a meaningful recovery. But it takes too long for many of my liberal colleagues, who are in such a hurry to have a tidy, inexpensive death.
And that takes us back to the main point here. When we have "socialized medicine" we are all pulling from the same bank account for our treatments. Rationing becomes the name of the game, since healthcare is an unlimited demand on a limited pool of resources. So if Patient A gets a treatment, Patient B will not get it, because the "powers that be" decide how many doses of each drug to purchase, how many salaries to pay, how many hospitals to build and equip, etc. and it will never be enough. So if you receive a diagnosis of cancer and think you'll probably not make the five year survivor mark, you may, in the depression of the first stages of post-diagnosis grief, make the "heroic" decision that it's simpler and more altruistic to die rather than to fight for your life. What a good socialist you are! Bring on the suicide cocktail!
Cultures are changed by many forces and incentives. But one undeniable one that is on our horizon is the pressure that "rationed medicine" puts on individuals and their life-or-death decisions. Euthanasia goes from unthinkable, to a repulsive option only to be used in a few selected circumstances, to an acceptable option for many circumstances, to the desired "final solution" to the problems of having an aging population and not enough money or personnel to care for them. Socialized medicine definitely weighs in on the euthanasia balance scale, tipping it toward death.
When I was a missionary/nurse in Peru we would avoid taking sick missionaries to the "free" (government) hospitals, because people would DIE while standing in the long lines there; we would use the for-profit hospitals instead. But I went to one once, and the level of grunge and despair shook me to my soul, and I remember thinking "Thank God we don't have socialized medicine in America." .......... :-(
So what the heck does this have to do with my starting point--Ken Cuccinelli? In my fantasy world it goes:
Elect Conservative Leaders at the State Level>
The Conservative State Legislatures call a Convention (following Article 5 of the Constitution) to Propose Amendments to Strip the Federal Government of much of it's Ill-Gotten Power>
The States Repeal the 17th Amendment and Roll Back the Powers of the "Federal" (National) Government, including Obamacare>
Sensible Legislature is Proposed to Reduce Healthcare Costs, mainly based on Deregulation and increasing Competition
I know it would be an uphill battle, but following the events of the last three years (Obamacare passed over the objections of the majority, Obamacare challenge defeated in the Supreme Court, attempt to defund Obamacare defeated in Congress) I don't see an alternative. A quote for you:
"Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have." -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
No comments:
Post a Comment