Okay, what rationalization am I missing here?

[sohndrsmith]

Yesterday, I heard the story of a terminally ill man in Britain who had chosen to end his life on his terms, rather than go through the suffering, expense and heartache of having his life prolonged. He didn't want his family to suffer through a more painful end-of-life process that had no other options... or to experience the pain of the devastating financial loss and increased burden that this drawn out process of suffering and pain that guaranteed identical, terminal results, except the hardship and trauma would be increased tenfold...

l'm not posting this as an argument for or against assisted suicide.
My reason for writing this post are because I have the following questions, and I hope they'll be read and considered:

1. In this country, it is illegal to commit or assist a suicide (except in Oregon - where I believe there are AS laws, maybe other states have some as well, but in general, it's verboten).

2. In this country, we deny life-saving (expensive) medical treatment to those who are uninsured, a bad risk, or cannot pay even with health insurance if it's inadequate.

3. In this country, we are out of luck if we are able and willing to maintain and follow through with preventative measures (adequate age-appropriate testing, etc.), but because we are unemployed or underemployed our access to these pragmatic, (cost-saving) life-prolonging measures are basically, "Sorry! You're not approved!" Even lack of dental exams can lead to cardiac problems - but the prevention, maintenance and screening is only for those who qualify. So if/when such a person goes to the ER and is subsequently diagnosed with a late stage terminal illness (that could have been prevented)... we have, as a humanitarian nation *what* responsibility, or answer, exactly? Worse yet, the person's diagnosis requires transplantation or extensive (expensive) surgical procedures in order to live... we "say" we don't deny them, is that true? They are not put on the back of the list? Heck, most of them don't even make it to the list the 3-7 years ahead of time for routine screening that would have indicated a problem that, when discovered, would have been smaller and if caught early, not something that would end their lives early...

So, in this country, we refuse to view preventative health care as a critical - or even a humanitarian - need. Nope. It is a business and run on business terms.

So why the HE|_|_ is it possible that in the same country, perhaps on the same day - or even in the same hospital... we DENY a person the transplant they need, without which they will die, while only one floor below we refuse to allow someone who has zero chance of living, recovery or release from pain - the ability or legal recourse to end his or her dying process.

I understand and agree (in part) with arguments on both sides, but I find them inordinately hypocritical under the same purview that is the US health care system.

No, we cannot ethically assist when a very terminally ill person prefers dignity and brevity over suffering and financial/emotional/other devastation for him/herself, family, friends because the suffering, painful, perhaps torturous extension of time is... what? Sacred?

Yet we can - daily - or hourly - say no to people who need specific medical care but do not have the proper insurance or simply cannot pay for it - and in saying no, we are effectively telling them that only people who can pay for a cure or extended life are able to do so. The most egregious lapse is adequate, comprehensive preventative care... if people chose to ignore it if it was available, then that is a choice. In today's health care environment, it is not a choice, it's a life-shortening certainty because these things aren't accessible to too many people.

Can someone tell me why these situations exist other than the fact that money really is more valuable than human life?

Clearly we are not a nation of sacrifice, of empathy... as a whole (I know many people individually ARE just that). We are a nation of profit and more profit... whether it be through denying expensive treatment that would save a life of an uninsured mother, grandmother, man, child... or through our insistence (under the guise of the sanctity of human life) of providing ourselves (the lowest aspect of our health care "industry"- with a cash cow, by forcing people to spend every dime in their last few years (or weeks or months of life), obliterating college savings for children/grandchildren, burdening loved ones with debt... and on and on - even when the situation is clear and undeniable that there is NO recovery, NO hope for quality of life but absolutely the guarantee of prolonged pain and grief and loss...

In no way am I suggesting that just because someone is old they should "step aside". Hardly. Additionally, I can't for the life of me understand how or why we have or offer or provide access to real preventative health care (not the "looks good on the surface" garbage that so many low income people are force to pretend is adequate) that would save or prolong millions of lives and improve the quality of that life, yet - when something crucial - lifesaving is needed - or when someone's prognosis is one of extreme, lengthy pain (upon payment, of course) because "life is sacred" and should be saved at all costs - except for those who can't for over money and want to live...

Something is wrong. Very wrong.

I'm sorry. I guess this qualifies as a rant.

[Traveling_Home]

1. I think you need to learn more about

the issues faced by persons with long term disabilities and illnesses. I suggest starting by learning about the community choice act and ADAPT.

There have been incidences of assisted suicide just so folk don't get dumped in nursing homes.

Give us Choices.

[sohndrsmith]

4. that's my point..... or one of them. Guess I goofed up and

lost my message in my passion. I'm aware of and have dealt with long term disability issues. I am a proponent for giving people more access to opportunity and services and quality of life, but I am bothered by the fact that so much seems to be based on ability to pay, rather than choice. Choice is the bottom line...

I get to upset and lose my message, I guess. People... matter, disabled, old, young, terminally ill, uninsured, poor, mean, destructive, incoherent. People matter. More than dollar signs. I was merely pointing out what seems like a malevolent hypocrisy... in the name of a buck or two.

Federal funding/government programs may work very well for some. For those who are not clearly disabled or clearly able to do without suh assistance - the outcome and future is bleak. Just because they don't fit a beauraucratic category of health or infirmity, doesn't mean that they should be denied adequate preventative care - because they aren't clearly disabled - or employed - enough...

I guess I'm a lousy writer, because it appears that you read something I didn't intend to convey! : )

[DCKit]

2. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ n/t

[nancyr]

3. This is why hospice is so important.

[sohndrsmith]

5. I thoroughly agree. But I still can't square the hypocrisy between

the refusal of care for those who want it and the release from (prolonged) care for those who don't. I can't come to any viable conclusion other than profit, and that makes me ill...

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Here's your answer:

"So why the HE|_|_ is it possible that in the same country, perhaps on the same day - or even in the same hospital... we DENY a person the transplant they need, without which they will die, while only one floor below we refuse to allow someone who has zero chance of living, recovery or release from pain - the ability or legal recourse to end his or her dying process."

Look at the statement. There is ONE commonality between the two situations. They BOTH deny the individual his own choice of action. They are BOTH putting the decision in the hands of someone else.

There is no freedom in the land of the free.