SPRINGFIELD, Ore. — Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.Why, they're the government.
“I’m not ready, I’m not ready to die,” the Springfield woman said. “I’ve got things I’d still like to do.”
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including “physician aid in dying,” better known as assisted suicide.
“I told them, I said, ‘Who do you guys think you are?’ You know, to say that you’ll pay for my dying, but you won’t pay to help me possibly live longer?’ ” Wagner said.
And they're here to
5 comments:
I don't believe in legalising assisted suicide. I think the implications are too dangerous.
What I do think however, is that each time it does happen (illegally), that we don't automatically put people in prison for it.
Each case has to be looked at with all it's circumstances taken into consideration.
Legalising assisted suicide is irresponsible, dangerous and leads to inhuman policies such as the one you have described in your post.
"I don't believe in legalising assisted suicide. I think the implications are too dangerous.
What I do think however, is that each time it does happen (illegally), that we don't automatically put people in prison for it. "
Agreed. It's far safer. But it would entail the CPS doing some work, maybe taking a decision. That seems to be what they'd rather avoid...
Sorry, no. This does not demonstrate that there is a fundamental problem with assisted suicide. It just demonstrates that the state, whether big S or little s, should get the fuck out of healthcare provision. Just as individuals who want to end their lives and desire help have no such choice this poor woman wants to prolong hers and is being denied the option. Both are morally repugnant for the same reason - the state is treating the lives and bodies of individuals as its property to use or dispose of as it sees fit. Evil, just fucking evil.
It strikes me that the state, especially here in the UK, has been only too happy to engage in legally sanctioned murder of patients who do not want to die. Especially when there is a treatment available but "it's not our policy to make it available". Then when they scrape together enough money for a private prescription "you will have to pay for all the treatment because it's not our policy to let you pay just for a top-up to NHS care."
Funny how we never see a judge and jury getting involved then.
I was at our local teaching hospital as an outpatient today. There was another patient already waiting when I got there. Old man in a wheelchair, in his jamas and dressing gown. Ambulance brought him in from his bed at another hospital, at 9:30am. His appointment at the special clinic was 1:30 pm, and the ambulance would collect him at 6pm. Nine hours away from his bed for a 30 minute consultation. We offered him a lift in our car back to his hospital ward, and they stopped us because "it's not our policy". He had to wait for the ambulance.
This is not a service, not to anyone. We are being shovelled into a system.
"Both are morally repugnant for the same reason - the state is treating the lives and bodies of individuals as its property to use or dispose of as it sees fit."
Wasn't it Mark Steyn who said that this was inevitable when the government took over health care? A live human being past working age messes with their bottom line.
"Nine hours away from his bed for a 30 minute consultation."
All to meet some dubious 'target' I suppose...
Post a Comment