34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) (06/13/91)
Index Number: 16026 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, to be replaced with the crudest form of tear-jerking propaganda and hate-mongering. Recall all those references to "Hitler"? Now the facts of medical life are these. Hospitals and doctors are in *business*. They must make a profit (gasp! that nasty, 4-letter G-word!) to survive, just like anyone else. They can, and do, take on a certain amount of free or charity work, but they cannot survive in the American economic system on such patients. In certain cases they are even required by the federal government to provide a certain percentage of available beds to Medicare patients with no additional billing - they get *only* what Medicare pays, nothing more. Period. Add to this the fact that the health care industry in America today is one of the most fiercely competitive markets anywhere. Hospitals sink or swim by razor thin margins in many cases. The upshot of all this is there is precious little left to take on cases such as those listed in Club of Life rantings on a no-charge basis. Personally, I suspect that this is exactly what is happening. Financially strapped relatives will not or cannot carry the financial burden, insurance runs out, the hospital cannot pick up the tab for expensive ICU treatment. What to do? In some cases it seems likely that relatives long to shed the burden of care for an aging or disabled relative. These may be the ones who actively demand removal of life-support equipment. In other cases it is not unreasonable to surmise that family and relatives cannot face the decision to withdraw life support, nor can they pay for its continuation. This is fertile ground for initiation of an adversary relationship between themselves and the medical establishment. In effect, they are demanding in the most strident and self-righteous tones that the great, big, nasty ol' hospital pays for all future care for Granny. If the hospital declines to submit to this emotional blackmail the relatives, with the aid of eager propaganda groups, attempt to convince a naive audience that the hospital wants to kill their poor ol' Granny. Of course all this posturing is a load of horse apples. The underlying issue is M-O-N-E-Y pure and simple. I have seen this time and time again. So have those members of my family who work in the medical profession. Don't believe it? Well, ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard of a Saudi prince, or any *really* wealthy person, even having the matter raised with reference to them, persistent vegetative state or not? Thank about it. Sez me, W. K. (Bill) Gorman Fair Warning: Flame in private - roast in public.
covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) (06/17/91)
Index Number: 16048 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? 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. 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. 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. John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com