Patient Denied Medical Treatment Dies After Rationing

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
juliee said:
Patient Denied Medical Treatment Dies After Rationing

A patient who was denied medial treatment and had his family’s attempts to transfer him to another medical facility that would thwarted has passed away.

lifenews.com/2012/03/22/patient-denied-medical-treatment-dies-after-rationing/
Click to expand...
From reading the article, it appears to be biased. I’d like to learn the real truth behind this. Do you know of a neutral news organization where I can read more on the this?
 
This article appears to be a complete fraud and shows “Lifenews” to be without credibility, a pure propaganda outfit. What’s the last name of “Willie”? “Death Panels”? Really? I think this is totally invented, and that’s why not a single real news organization has reported on it. Can anyone show me a molecule of proof that “Willie” isn’t just a creation of Elizabeth Graham’s promo machine?

Has Lifenews done any articles on the 45,000 people who die in the USA every year due to lack of health care access. In our current system, lower middle class people often can’t afford insurance. And even if they have insurance, when they get a serious illness they cannot afford the costs of treatments and increased premiums. Their insurance often refuses to pay for treatments. They go into bankruptcy and they die for lack of care – the real death panels are in our current system. What would Jesus say about that?
 
Jerry_Miah said:
This article appears to be a complete fraud and shows “Lifenews” to be without credibility, a pure propaganda outfit. What’s the last name of “Willie”? “Death Panels”? Really? I think this is totally invented, and that’s why not a single real news organization has reported on it. Can anyone show me a molecule of proof that “Willie” isn’t just a creation of Elizabeth Graham’s promo machine?
Click to expand...
Elizbeth Graham is a well known expert on life issues. Do you have even a molecule of proof to back up your accusation that she created this story?
 
Right wing politics are so far afield of the average middle class and blind to the poor that they make up facts such as death panels. People bandy it about so often it becomes “fact” my goodness, Obama tried a noble thing in trying to fix healthcare he gets little credit for it only abuse. They claim rights are being taken away by forcing folks to have healthcare then rale at those who abuse ER’s because they have no insurance-Face it government forces a lot on us at the state level I must have car insurance or suffer a fine-Seatbelt law too. This is a function of govenment, the greatest good for the greatest amount.

Then of course the contraceptive argument-same goes with a Catholic pharmacist, if it bothers you that much, quit etc. We were taught in scripture to obey the laws of man because we are of the spirit.

Sad to see the outright hatred of a plan to help the greater good

Glen
 
theswan said:
Right wing politics are so far afield of the average middle class and blind to the poor that they make up facts such as death panels. People bandy it about so often it becomes “fact” my goodness, Obama tried a noble thing in trying to fix healthcare he gets little credit for it only abuse. They claim rights are being taken away by forcing folks to have healthcare then rale at those who abuse ER’s because they have no insurance-Face it government forces a lot on us at the state level I must have car insurance or suffer a fine-Seatbelt law too. This is a function of govenment, the greatest good for the greatest amount.

Then of course the contraceptive argument-same goes with a Catholic pharmacist, if it bothers you that much, quit etc. We were taught in scripture to obey the laws of man because we are of the spirit.

Sad to see the outright hatred of a plan to help the greater good

Glen
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with Obamacare. Nor does it have anything to do with ER treatment. This is about a law in Texas that allows a committee of hospital employees to override the wishes of a patient, his family and his doctors and determine that further care is futile.

Try to stay on topic, please.
 
Corki said:
This has nothing to do with Obamacare. Nor does it have anything to do with ER treatment. This is about a law in Texas that allows a committee of hospital employees to override the wishes of a patient, his family and his doctors and determine that further care is futile.

Try to stay on topic, please.
Click to expand...
No, you’re wrong, the article in the OP says the following, so it definitely is being used as propaganda against the health care reform:
a committee under Texas law, which Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life, describes as the same sort of “death panels” criticized under Obamacare, to determine whether Willie should continue receiving treatment at the hospital.
Click to expand...
 
As Graham explained, “This death panel of hospital staff and a few doctors met at the hospital in northwest Houston and decided that Willie’s life was no longer worth living and told the family their decision. The panelists told Willie’s family that if they didn’t agree with their decision, then to move him out of their hospital within ten days or they would pull the plug.”

What probably happened was the Ethics Committee got involved and supported the physician who thought Comfort Care was more appropriate than aggresive interventions. It wasn’t that his life was “no longer worth living” but that comfort was a more feasible priority. But one would have to be familar with the actual medical facts of the case.

But we do have to realize that in today’s healthcare environment “rationing” is a reality. The resources are not there for everyone to get everything they might want.

That whole thing about “Death Panels” in “Obamacare” is rediculous because the intent is patient autonomy-advance care planning. “Obamacare” calls for physcians to have those difficult conversations with patients and families befor a crisis situation such as this.
 
Some of you guys better not bow any lower to government…you might fall over…
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Are you against advance care planning & Living wills??
Click to expand...
No I am not against that. I’m not a supporter of self assisted suicide though…
What probably happened was the Ethics Committee got involved and supported the physician who thought Comfort Care was more appropriate than aggresive interventions. It wasn’t that his life was “no longer worth living” but that comfort was a more feasible priority. But one would have to be familar with the actual medical facts of the case.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where the patients wishes are considered in what you describe here…
But we do have to realize that in today’s healthcare environment “rationing” is a reality. The resources are not there for everyone to get everything they might want.
Click to expand...
They were offering to pay for it all out of pocket according to the article…
 
I am not familiar with the Texas law nor the actual facts of the case but quite often when people talk about wanting artificial nutrition and hydration they do not think in terms of these qualifications:

Furthermore, if at such time I am unable to eat and drink on my own (i.e. in a natural manner) food and fluids must be provided to me in an assisted manner (i.e. by tubes or a similar manner) unless:

(a) my death is imminent (i.e. likely to happen without delay); or
(b) I am unable to assimilate food or fluids; or
(c) food or fluids endanger my condition.
 
I find it odd that no other hosptal would take him. Even out of state?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I find it odd that no other hosptal would take him. Even out of state?
Click to expand...
The allegation is that the social worker assigned to find him another hospital botched the search. By the time the family realized that the SW wasn’t doing what they thought she was, the time limit (10 days) was slipping away.
 
Corki said:
The allegation is that the social worker assigned to find him another hospital botched the search. By the time the family realized that the SW wasn’t doing what they thought she was, the time limit (10 days) was slipping away.
Click to expand...
I went to the Texas Right to Life website and read more:

The panelists told Willie’s family that if they didn’t agree with their decision, then to move him out of their hospital within ten days or they would pull the plug.

But as the 10-day deadline approached, she told them that no facility would accept their father and there was nothing else that she could do.

Willie’s family told me how they quickly realized the social worker had painted a picture of their father that no hospital wants: one who had no hope of meaningful recovery, one whose quality of life was gone, one with no dignity due to his illness and disability.

The family was helpless as they watched one by one, each treatment be stopped or withdrawn.

“Pull the plug”? What plug? Respirator? Artifical Nutrition & Hydration(ANH)? Sounds like he was on total life support. One would have to ask just what is best for the patient. He was in this situation for at least 10 days with evidently no improvement. It sounds like he died shortly after the ten days so death was imminent. That is a valid qualification to remove ANH according to Catholic Moral Teaching. Certainly putting him on chemotherapy is out of the question?

We all must die and have to accept that fact even though we do not want to die. Technology is meant to get us through medical crises not prolong the dying process.
In my opinion Elizabeth Graham does a diservice in this case.

The hospital did not kill him or starve him. He died of Pneumonia and leukemia.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I went to the Texas Right to Life website and read more:

The hospital did not kill him or starve him. He died of Pneumonia and leukemia.
  1. They had the money to pay
  2. Patients wishes are clear
  3. Its apparent they also pulled food and water. They took him off everything so I would assume those are included.
The family was helpless as they watched, one by one, each treatment be stopped or withdrawn and, although Willie breathed on his own through the night, Graham says he faced starvation and dehydration against the family’s desire to protect his right to live. Without food or water, Willie’s heart rate was dangerously low and the hospital urged the family to contact hospice care — providing Willie no medical treatment in the meantime.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think you have to ask why he needed ANH to begin with. He was probably sedated to put on a vent because he was in respiratory failure because of the pneumonia and worse off still because of the leukemia. Ten days of that with no improvement. No amount of money, or patient & family wishes or even food would likely have improved the outcome, only prolonged it.
 
I think the question becomes, “Is a patient entitled to futile care if he or she desires it and it is availible?” then “Are physicians and hospitals obligated to provide it against their own judgement?”
 
In my own thinking, the physician is abligated to give an honest opinion of futile care or not. The patient and family are free to accept or reject that opinion. If they reject it they search for another physician who says it is not futile and relieves the first physician of providing care against conscience. That search may be long and difficult if at all successful. That seems to be what happened here,
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I think you have to ask why he needed ANH to begin with. He was probably sedated to put on a vent because he was in respiratory failure because of the pneumonia and worse off still because of the leukemia. Ten days of that with no improvement. No amount of money, or patient & family wishes or even food would likely have improved the outcome, only prolonged it.
Click to expand...
Your assuming the hospital was doing what it could to save the life of the patient during this time. By the hospital making the decision it took the decision away from the patient and family which is where it rightly belongs. Unless you could show that this patient was taking away care and time from another patient I see no reason why the hospital had any right to do what it did. If the hospital and other hospitals in the area were that filled to the brim you might have a standing on which to defend what the hospital did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top