Sunday, November 15, 2009
Doctors Confirm God's Miracles with Medical Data!
Labels: prayer and medicine
"Culture of Death" in Health Care Bill: A Summary.
- School-based health-clinics: Sec. 2511 (p.1352) prohibits school-based health clinic grants from being used for abortion, and specifies that eligible clinics are those that do not perform abortion. However, no language prohibits school-based health clinics from giving school-girls referrals to an offsite abortion facility. [Source:GOP.gov ]
- Expanded access and funding for abortifiacient contraception (Sec. 2526)
- Sections 258 and 259: though containing some conscience protections, the bill does not clearly extend to health-care entities and workers that object to contraception, esp. abortifacient contraception. Thus health-care providers with these moral objections, such as Catholic hospitals, would be affected. [Source: GOP.gov]
Pro-life advocates fear that H.R. 3962 will effect health-care rationing on a scale that does not yet exist in the United States, but is a way of life in countries with socialized health care such as Canada and the United Kingdom.
- The law of supply and demand: Congressional Budget Office forecasts that H.R. 3962 will insure an extra 36 million non-elderly individuals between 2013-2019. Some analysts conclude that, since the supply of health care professionals will not be able to keep up with such a sudden influx of demand, that this will likely lead to rationing.
- Price controls: Section 104 allows the Health Insurance Exchange Commissioner has the authority to kick out insurance companies participating in the health insurance exchange that he judges have "excessive or unjustified premium increases." Private insurance companies face the choice of going out of business altogether or rationing health care services as a way to absorb the revenue loss. [Source NRLC]
- Lack of protection in balancing cost and quality: Sec. 2401 establishes a "Center for Quality Improvement" that has four prime responsibilities: one, identifying existing "best practices;" two, create new ones; three, evaluate the old against the new; and four, implement the best practices in health-care. The bill does guard against "quality-adjusted life year measures or any other methodologies that can be used to deny benefits to a beneficiary against the beneficiary's wishes on the basis of the beneficiary's age, life expectancy, present or predicted disability, or expected quality of life." However, as NRLC points out, the stipulation applies only in the "development" of such practices, and advances no such safeguard regarding the center's other three roles.
- Sec. 1159 commissions the creation of Medicare reimbursement standards that ostensibly provide incentives for "high value care;" it, too, does not guard against "quality-adjusted" rationing.
- "Nudging": Section 1233: offers to pay for voluntary consultations once every five years on end-of-life options. As many critics have pointed out, in principle, this provision gives a financial incentive to doctors to take advantage of uncertainty or vulnerability on the part of the patient in order to "nudge" him or her towards options that would cost less.
- The Assisted Suicide loophole: Sections 240 and 1233: Health-care providers are forbidden from disseminating literature that encourages "assisted suicide", "mercy killing", or "euthanasia." However no section defines what the terms mean - opening up a serious loophole. States like Oregon and Washington do not use the term "assisted suicide." Instead the term is "physician assisted death." In effect, this bill fails to prevent assisted suicide options from being presented under another name.
EXPANDED SEX EDUCTION
- Federal funding of Planned Parenthood-style permissive sex education programs “to prevent teen pregnancy” (section 2526), similar to that stipulated in the Senate version of Obama
Philip Nitschke's Office Raided.
Reports say the lethal drug Nembutal was found during the search of properties linked to Dr Nitschke’s organisation, Exit International, on Thursday.
Dr Nitschke has previously come to Britain to demonstrate his suicide techniques.
When in the UK, Dr Nitschke told people where they could obtain Nembutal.
Queensland Police, who were responsible for carrying out the raids, confirmed they was part of an “ongoing investigation” but did not add further details.
Read more here.
WJS Warned of Gloom and Doom; We Got Doom.
Indeed, I worried that "the people now in power have views that are inimical to the sanctity and equality of human life."
I still believe that is true. But I underestimated the resiliency and determination of those who oppose the development of what is sometimes called a culture of death. Thus, the year didn't go nearly as badly as I feared.
A Reminder of Catholic Law on "Euthanasia."
CCC 2276: Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
CCC 2277: Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
CCC 2278: Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted [in the case that death is inevitable as a result of the current ailment]. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
CCC 2279: Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Patients' Rights In The US.
What if we had a single-payer health-care system and someone like Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin were running the country?
Many liberals remain angry and disappointed that single-payer legislation never stood a chance in Washington. To them, a government-run health-care system seemed an obvious way to put patients ahead of profits.
But a single-payer system would have put us at the mercy of whomever happened to take control of Washington. I'm very happy to have a public plan as an option. But since I don't know who will be in the White House in the years to come, I'm glad that government-run health care won't be the only game in town. If you're not happy about the Stupak amendment, imagine what other limits a conservative government could impose on our health care.
Parts of the country remain more conservative on issues of life and death than many progressives remember. When single-payer advocates imagine single-payer health care, they often look to Canada as an example of how it would work. But America isn't Canada; many of our fellow citizens are more conservative than the average Canadian. Moreover, in the United States we have let the dividing line between church and state blur. Christian conservatives are a political force in their own right, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has felt free to weigh in on health-care reform. Under a conservative president, such beliefs might be reflected in single-payer health policies.
So I want to hedge my bets. I want alternative insurance options, especially from nonprofits such as Kaiser Permanente. And I don't want to find myself locked into an insurance plan run by conservatives -- or Democrats -- who feel they have a right to impose their religious beliefs on my access to care.
Because the US government has failed to properly protect patients' rights, instead favoring ideology or big insurance, I think she has a point. What we see with the imposition of Stupak-Pitts, in an atmosphere where few laws provide for individual patient rights of conscience, is an environment where health decisions are controlled by large health organizations like the Catholic church (which operates under Ethical and Religious Directives set by the Vatican) and greedy big pharma corporations who have a reason use aggressive care.
Her point then is that some governments have enough patient protections to ensure that access to services is considered a right.
The political dynamic in the US, a conservative bartering of patients' rights for the sake of ideology or corporate independence, does make Mahar's point worthy of discussion.
Aside: I'm not sure her point about Canada being less conservative than the US is valid. Note the incredible struggle they are having there regarding end of life care and aid in dying.
Britain and Assisted Suicide.
In September, he published a list of factors to help lawyers to decide whether to prosecute people for assisting suicide. The rules have been interpreted by some campaigners as a way of “legalising” assisted suicide.
The DPP has now launched a consultion on the guidance which says that families who help terminally ill loved ones to end their lives are unlikely to face prosecution as long as they do not encourage them and assist only a clear and settled intention to die.
But the group - which also includes Lord Walton of Detchant, Professor Sheila Hollins, a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Baroness Campbell of Surbiton - says the new guidance is “not fit for purpose”.
The group has signed up to a hard-hitting response to the proposals from campaign group Care Not Killing, in which it warns that changes to the law could mean that the lives of stroke-sufferers, disabled people and those with arthritis, could be at risk.
It says: “Among the factors proposed as tending against prosecution are that the deceased was seriously ill or incurably disabled or had a history of suicide attempts. In Care Not Killing’s view these proposals are discriminatory as well as dangerous.”
In all, 11 of the 29 specific criteria proposed for deciding whether to prosecute or not to prosecute were judged to be “unacceptable in any circumstances”.
Dr Saunders added: “We recognise the attempt that the DPP has made to carry out a very difficult remit given to him by the Law Lords, and there are several aspects of the guidelines that we can support.
“But current guidelines adopt, however unwittingly, the political assumptions of the pro-euthanasia lobby, that assisted suicide will not be prosecuted if the right boxes are ticked.”
The group suggested that the guidance “should start with a clear statement that assisting a suicide is a criminal offence and that, in the absence of a decision by Parliament to change the law, it will remain so”.