creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
25 May 2012
The Unraveling Myth of Watergate

It was, they said, the crime of the century. An attempted coup d'etat by Richard Nixon, stopped by two … Read More.

22 May 2012
What If Zimmerman Walks Free?

Three months ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Handcuffed,… Read More.

18 May 2012
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, … Read More.

Time To Go, Grampa

Share Comment

With "controlling costs" a primary goal of Obamacare, and half of all medical costs coming in the last six months of life, "rationed care" takes on a new meaning for us all.

London's Telegraph reported Sunday that the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, known by its Orwellian acronym NICE, intends to slash by 95 percent the number of steroid injections, such as cortisone, given to people who suffer severe and chronic back pain.

"Specialists fear," said the Telegraph, "tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as 500 pounds each for private treatment."

Now, twin this story with the weekend Washington Post story about Obamacare's "proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical treatment they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills," and there is little doubt as to what is coming.

The Post portrayed the controversy as stoked by "right-leaning radio" using explosive language like "guiding you in how to die" and government plans to "kill Granny." Yet, is not the logical purpose of paying doctors for house calls to the terminally ill, whose medical costs are killing Medicare, to suggest a pleasant and early exit from a pain-filled and costly life?

Let us suppose the NICE plan in Britain is adopted. And an 80-year-woman, living alone, with excruciating persistent back pain, is visited by a physician-counselor. What is he likely to advise? What conclusion would Grandma be led to by a doctor who sweetly explains what treatment she may still receive, what is being cut off, and what her other options might be?

What other options are there?

Examples of how to "die with dignity" are at hand.

Three weeks ago, Sir Edward Downes, the world-renowned British orchestra leader, who was going blind and deaf, and his wife of 54 years, who had terminal cancer, ended their lives at a Zurich clinic run by the assisted suicide group Dignitas. They drank a small amount of liquid and died hand in hand, their adult children by their side.

This is the way of de-Christianized Europe. For years, doctors have assisted the terminally ill in ending their lives. Indeed, it has been reported that indigent, sick and elderly patients who could not make the decision for themselves had it made for them.

In America, we have a Death with Dignity Act in Oregon and such suicide counselors as the Hemlock Society, which itself took the cup in 2003.

Now we have Compassion & Choices, which counsels the elderly sick on a swift and painless end. Before he took to ending the lives of patients who were not terminal, but sick and depressed, Dr. Kevorkian had his admirers. Not infrequently, one reads of nursing homes where the infirm and elderly have been put to death.

Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life.

To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God's commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one's cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one's parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

In Weimar Germany, two professors published "The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life," which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and "empty shells of human beings." Hitler's Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to "bend the curve" of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Pundits have no right to criticize if they have no viable alternatives.

Republicans can't have it both ways, insist on cutting the cost of medicare, while demanding no cuts anywhere. The only solution they seem to have is get rid of it all together. Then Grandpa would be left with the same alternative criticized here, pay for it out of his own pocket. The facts present themselves rather transparently. To reduce medicare costs the end of life problem must be faced head on. No religious arguments or any other will change the picture. There is no getting around rationing of some kind if costs are to be reduced. Pick you poison.

You fail to mention that the Obama counseling plan is voluntary. They are trying to approach this problem in the most humane way possible by letting those interested know the alternatives without forcing anything on them.

If Republicans insist on unlimited end of life care, and no cost cuts, there is only one alternative, their least favorite, raise taxes wherever they can be raised. And that means on the wealthy, which I'm sure they will resist even more.

Put up or shut up. Either present an alternative or accept one of the plans that are on the table.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Elwood Anderson
Mon Aug 3, 2009 10:12 PM
Re leaving death in God's hands: God chose to tell us in detail how to present burnt offerings to Him (Exodus 2:29) but He chose to tell us nothing about performing surgery or medicines. Those who want to leave death in God's hands should use only what He wanted us to know about prolonging life. That would solve the Medicare problem.
Fear of death is what makes people cling to the fairy tales of our great religions. That is why most religious leaders can not tolerate people facing death on their own terms. It is strange that those who believe that after they die they will enjoy unimaginable happiness, except for access to a telephone, want to delay entering that state no matter how much they suffer and how much it costs.
I am a 79-year old grandfather. I told my children not to have me kept alive in a helpless condition but under our laws, even if I lived in Oregon, they could do little to end my suffering and the waste of Medicare money. Dignitas may be a solution people with chronic progressive illness who can afford the fee and the fare but if one is suddenly incapacitated that is not an option.
peterungar@yahoo.com
Comment: #2
Posted by: Peter Ungar
Tue Aug 4, 2009 3:45 AM
If a healthy person in his eighties needs a knee replacement, he should not be denied the surgery. If another is suffering from severe heart disease, weak, confined to a wheel chair and on breathing apparatus, then the pill and the prayerbook should be considered and the patient needs to be receptive to the idea. There are many severely sick people who are in pain and would rather consider "peaceful sleep" rather than a remainder in life in being drugged, a burden to families and a "useless eater". That is why clear and honest debate about provisions in any new government care should be carefully weighed and acted upon and a consensus of the public should also agree.
Comment: #3
Posted by: FAnne
Tue Aug 4, 2009 5:48 AM
I saw the same scenario, Granpa being told to "go", but I think private insurers are more likely to treat individual human beings as expendable, because they make money by denying care. They may value human LIFE but not human BEINGS. I'd like to pay an affordable monthly fee to receive basic care, not tied to my job, not tied to my age, can't be arbitrarily rescinded, and I don't care if it's the Gummint or some private non-profit cooperative or what, as long as it is available.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Red Ree
Tue Aug 4, 2009 6:45 AM
Using God as an advocate for one's own legal, moral, or political opinions is suspect. Isn't it naive to believe that God himself literally wrote the so-called ten commandments on stone? And fundamentalists usually manage to interpret these straightforward commands to their own liking. "Don't kill" doesn't really mean what it says, according to most believers. It refers to zygotes and those dying painfully, but not to enemies or certain criminals. If God really is the master of life and death, isn't it just as much a violation of his will to remove a malignant cancer (contra naturam?) as to end the life of the incuarably ill?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Jim Lacey
Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:19 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 26 May 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 25 May 2012

15 Nov 2011 Return of the War Party?

13 Apr 2010 Katyn and 'The Good War'

13 Sep 2011 Setting Grandma's Hair on Fire