34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) (06/20/91)
Index Number: 16245 COVICI@CCS.COVICI.COM (John Covici) writes: >34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) writes: > >> One factor conveniently ignored in all these ravings is the question: >> who pays for all this? One is cleverly led to *presume* that the poor, >> defenseless patient and/or his/her relatives are forking over the money >> for all this "heroic" care, but the gut issue of money is always neatly >> dodged, ... > >Yes, money does come into the picture in many cases, although in the recent >case in Miniapolis THE BILLS WERE BEING PAID. But when you bring money into >the picture, then are we asking does a human life have a monitary value? Are we? The care WILL BE PAID FOR - that is an economic fact of life. Isn't the REAL QUESTION being asked "WHO is going to pay for all this?" You? Me? The family? The Doctor? The hospital? The government (taxpayer)? For how long? A day? A week? Forever? To what limit? A thousand dollars? A million dollars? A billion? All I/you/we have, individually and/or collectively? Of course the press releases said the bills were being paid - at that moment. They failed, of course, to mention HOW MUCH LONGER they would continue to be paid by insurance - revealing such information, after all, does not look very good in print. It tends to tarnish the image of wannabee moralistic crusaders in the public eye. When such information is printed, it is then a simple matter for the public to put two and two together and realize, or imagine, something like "Well, the insurance runs out in just two more weeks, so everybody is scrambling to get out from under." >That is what the Nazis said, specifically: kill all those nonproductive >"useless eaters"; that's why the references to Hitler, because the >groups pushing Euthanasia, behind all their blahblah about patients >choice and all that obfuscation lurks the very question of money. Excuse me, but that is simply a load of horse apples. The term "useless eaters" was coined by Mao Tse-Tung and has obviously been appropriated by other propaganda groups for its emotional impact. The Nazis made no references to money of the manner invented here; they annihilated their victims on the basis of "preserving racial purity", "maintaining Aryan supremecy", or simply as "revenge" against what they chose to call the "crimes" of defenseless Jews against German society. All this was a calculated propaganda device to enhance and maintain the power of the leadership by scapegoating and deliberate use of emotional stereotyping; just as is the clever use of the term "Nazi" with reference to the medical profession. What is really happening here is simple. We have a small, vocal propaganda group attempting to appear to seize the moral high ground by shrilling for what amounts to free, unlimited medical care for one group at the expense of another. Of course, since THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO WILL PAY FOR ALL THIS free care, we get the usual pressure-group smoke tactics, complete with phony moralizing and press-agent references to "Nazi Doctors" whenever the subject of money is raised. One could use the same ridiculous emotional badgering as an arguement for FREE FOOD, FREE CLOTHING, FREE HOUSING... or anything else. >And we must further ask the question that if our society is not willing >to spend such monies to keep people alive, have we lost the moral >fitness to survive? This is what is posed by the Euthanasia controversy >and somewhat by the abortion question. Its murder in either case and >money indeed is sometimes directly an issue. Yes, money is an issue. But is one then to enbrace the fascist "morality" of the abortion clinic BOMBERS? Is one to embrace their psychotic doctrine that it is OK to kill anyone who disagrees if it is done in furtherance of some self-styled "moral crusade"? Is one to accept the propaganda that it is OK to bomb the clinics and KILL ANYONE inside, NO MATTER WHO nor how many, on the fatuous pretext that the life of one unborn "might" be saved? Transfer that demagoguery to the matter of hospital care of comatose patients. In the twisted morality of manipulation, we seem to be hearing an awful message; we seem to be being battered with the bloody slogans of the past in an effort to convince us that any institution daring to disagree with the "free care for everyone" hoopla should be destroyed. Now THAT is much, much closer to the way the REAL NAZIS actually operated. >But moral values are also the issue; what about the Wanglee case where >the bills were paid? The relatives didn't want to inherit the money or >anything, so why did the hospital sue to kill the patient? These are >the questions to think about when looking at what these Nazi doctors >are doing. Money to inherit? Excuse me, but the care givers would have a prior claim against any and all assets of the estate of a former patient, up to either the value of the estate or the amount of the outstanding medical bills. There would be NOTHING TO INHERIT, so of course the relatives could say with perfect candor that they were uninterested in inheriting. Who wants to worry over inheriting zilcho? Why would the hospital sue? "To kill the patient", screeches the propaganda. We must ask ourselves if this strident publicity is a precursor to an attempt to gain some elective office? In general, a hospital and its doctors may be held legally liable for any harm done to a patient while he/she is in their care. If the hospital unilaterally discontinues life support (Disconnects the respirator, stops force feeding, whatever...) and the patient dies, they are subject to suit by relatives and family of the deceased. If, however, the above actions are taken in accordance with a Court Order, the likelihood of litigation decreases sharply. As mentioned in my earlier post, the hospital cannot pay for an intensive-care (ICU) patient themselves for any length of time without making up the costs somewhere else. Suppose they did - what harm would it do? Well, who are you going to lay off in order to continue providing care to the ICU patient? Having laid off some staff, the capacity of the hospital is likely to drop. Now the percentage of revenues dedicated to preserving the life of our hypothetical ICU patient has increased. Further lay-offs will be needed to make up the lost revenues. And the cycle repeats. At what point does one stop? Or are we hearing demands for the ultimate destruction of a medical facility in a futile effort to preserve what may be the body of a brain-dead patient? If that hospital or medical center is forced to cease operations, and many have been forced to do exactly that in recent years, how many persons will suffer or die needlessly for lack of available medical care? The frothing propagandists howling about "Nazi Doctors" would, apparently, have us embrace this sort of morality. Morality? Only in their twisted world view. And of course, when the power is turned off because the hospital can no longer pay the bills... our hypothetical comatose patient is also endangered. Sez me, W. K. (Bill) Gorman Fair Warning: Flame in private, roast in public.