The Oregonian's editorial on this matter tries a little too hard to defend the state's euthanasia policies even while criticizing the letter. It concludes:

"As the only state that both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care, Oregon has created a fine ethical line for state officials to navigate. In this case, they stepped over it. For the sake of ethical clarity in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the state health plan should stop offering to pay for those who use it."

I had a friend who once pointed out that the euthanasia movement reached a peak in the news about the same time that stories about our aging population started to crop up. He predicted at the time that government would eventually embrace the former as an economic solution for the latter. If he is right, then this story is just a harbinger of what may someday be common place.
Ronny | 07.31.08 - 10:22 am | #

I posted this over at Aggie Catholics:

As sad as the story is, it leaves out the conclusion of it. After the state refused to cover the drug, Genentech (the drug maker) decided to cover the drug for one year, and afterwards she can reapply. Remember though that socialized medicine will save us from the big drug companies.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp...873&sid=1& fid=1
Chris Erdman | 07.31.08 - 10:39 am | #

Well, the truth comes out, so no more beating around the bush or hiding behind feel-good, yet false claims of mercy.
dpt | 07.31.08 - 11:39 am | #

Insurance company coverage of this product is no better and frequently worse.

Although, it is conservative hip to mock socialized medicine-which is medicine on a budget-which means one pays for some things and not others. Which already occurs as a feature of the private insurance market. Lets kind of look at non-socialized medicine-the kind embraced by conservatives. No insurance for adults unless your job pays for it. How is this Tier IV drug be provided in this instance? The regular physical exam, Xrays, etc. would not be paid for.

A gift of the brain trust of the AEI, and Acton.

Top story last week in the New England Journal of Medicine-insurance company and Medicare failures to pay for Tier IV drugs. I doubt few insurance policies (except for some notable wealthy individuals) have easy if any access to Tier IV drugs.

Perhaps we should get Fr. Sirico's economic advice on this-which would be "why isn't the local parish having a beef and beer about this?" Uh-thanks, Father.

And about the linked post: hospice work should be distinguished from euthanasia. It is ethical, acceptable, and done by dedicated individuals. But is often broadbrushed into the same corner as euthanasia in the hypervigilance of blog shorthand denunciations about euthansia.
Daniel H. Conway | 07.31.08 - 11:45 am | #

“And about the linked post: hospice work should be distinguished from euthanasia.”

That’s correct, and, it seems, most folks can distinguish such, but the story in The Oregonian mentioned more than hospice: “… but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."”

It would be tragic to brush this story off as a story about mere "hypervigilance". Sin is sin.
dpt | 07.31.08 - 12:01 pm | #

The Baby Boomers are next. Little die they realize that, when they pushed for the right to kill the defenseless, that they'd eventually wind up being the defenseless themselves.

(sarcasm)I'm glad(/sarcasm) we eventually will also get to suffer for indiscretions of the generation which preceded us.
TomJoe | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 2:24 pm | #

Coming to a White House near you...

These folks would kill grampa and unborn children to save a tree from being cut down or have a icy wasteland drilled for oil....

Hope that gun in your mouth ain't loaded!
Confederate Papist | 08.01.08 - 8:03 am | #

Soylent Green is people
Bob | 08.01.08 - 9:41 am | #

"The Baby Boomers are next. Little die they realize that, when they pushed for the right to kill the defenseless, that they'd eventually wind up being the defenseless themselves."

There's a sort of Biblical sense of cosmic justice there.
Chris Molter | 08.01.08 - 1:25 pm | #

>>There's a sort of Biblical sense of cosmic justice there.>>

Almost like they knew that our generation will be the one that will stop it...make laws that kill off their parents and hope that their children (the ones they didn't get to abort) change the laws back....
Confederate Papist | 08.01.08 - 1:49 pm | #

The outrage over this is rather misguided. While euthanasia is wrong, it is not wrong for a program to say "We do not cover a fifty thousand dollar a year treatment that provides no appreciable chance of recovery, however we do cover various comfort care options," one of which happened to be physician-assisted suicide. This is being completely blown out of the water.
Paul | 08.01.08 - 2:42 pm | #

Paul is right. Being told by your health insurance company that you really ought to consider suicide is no big deal.
elmo | 08.01.08 - 3:25 pm | #

It is inappropriate to write about terminating one's life in a letter refusing a life extending therapy, as the request indicates a reluctance to give up hope and a desire to live as long as possible. (ie this is not someone likely to want to kill themselves)

To do so is to make the lack of consideration for the person as an individual human being painfully obvious tothat person.

Even without consideration for the morality involved, I would say that it would be better public relations to at least have the letter describing the range of pallitive services separate from the letter refusing treatment if they must offer assisted suicide to every person deemed terminal regardless of the likelyhood of them asking for it.
Emily Bell | 08.01.08 - 5:48 pm | #

Elmo, they weren't being told to consider suicide. They were told that:
1. This treatment was not likely to meaningfully extend their lifespan
2. Under the policies of that particular government health agency, they therefore could not justify paying for that particular treatment.
3. However, there was a number of comfort care measures that they could help pay for.
4. One of the listed measures was physician-assisted suicide which was listed because it happens to be a legal means of comfort care in the state of Oregon.

There is no grounds for the outrage that's been directed at this except for the fact that physician-assisted suicide is immoral. However, it's being spun in a completely different manner. There was no advocacy for it nor did the letter tell them that they "really ought to consider suicide" anymore than a Wikipedia article on Nevada stating the existence of legalized prostitution tells readers that they "really ought to consider hiring a prostitute."
Paul | 08.01.08 - 8:44 pm | #

There is no grounds for the outrage that's been directed at this except for the fact that physician-assisted suicide is immoral.

That's quite an exception there, Paul.

I think the fact that "physician-assisted suicide is immoral" is the entire point of the outrage.
Louise | Homepage | 08.01.08 - 10:18 pm | #

No, because it is being spun as "They refuse to treat her and tell her to go die!" That is what the outrage is being based upon, not upon the fact that physician assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon for the past few years.
Paul | 08.01.08 - 11:45 pm | #

But they *are* telling her to go die! Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant - it's morally reprehensible and that's all that matters.

I would have no problem with an Insurance Co saying they couldn't cover Cancer treatment, but to include euthanasia in the list of things they will cover is abominable. Palliative care - sure, that's what they should offer.
Louise | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 3:06 am | #

No, they're not telling her to go die anymore than any of the other comfort care measures are telling her to go die, because that's the inevitable end result of those measures as well.
Paul | 08.02.08 - 5:24 pm | #

"Why don't you just go kill yourself?" as an "alternative" from a company into which you paid money doesn't strike you as morally reprehensible?

There is a difference between dying of natural causes and killing yourself or being murdered, yes?
Louise | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 1:00 am | #

Recently my English aunts were visiting for my father's funeral. They were asking about my breast cancer treatment and status; I'm still doing biological treatments (Herceptin for HER2neu+ BrCa).

My aunts said that the NHS in many of the regional units is denying Herceptin tx for budgetary management purposes; and pts cannot pay for their own Herceptin tx without going off NHS entirely and paying for the whole tx themselves.

Only the superwealthy could afford to do that! I'm a Half Million Dollar Baby at this point. Paying for Herceptin alone would suck away my accumulated wealth, and there's no way I could pay for my entire tx.

NHS needs to be whacked upside the head. If your BrCa is HER2neu+, that means you overexpress a protein that protects your Ca cells against chemotherapy! So to cover chemo and not Herceptin is futile. Why cover chemo at all if it's going to be ineffective without the Herceptin?

(My mom died of BrCa 4 years after her dx; I am fully confident that my outcomes and prognosis will be better because of the recent advances in the science--hormone receptor positive (tamoxifen and arimidex e.g.) and the HER2neu factor and its tx. Mom died just before the new science came out. Cheers to the scientists and lab geeks who brilliantly figure this stuff out for us. Ta!)

If it's scientifically justified, it should be covered. If the government refuses to do it, the state is a murderer and it should be legal for private citizens to buy NHS Gap / Oregon Gap policies on the private market.

This is beyond the ability of one parish and its ability to fundraise. I think one month of chemo (once every three weeks) and Herceptin (weekly) ran as high as $90k retail. (A $4k a month pill sounds like a heck of a deal by comparison.) Well, perhaps some parishes are larger, wealthier, and more converted in hearts and pocketbooks (coff coff), but once a parish does this for one parishioner than don't be surprised if a long queue forms. No good deed goes unpunished. (Actually, it could be an evangelization strategy--it would inspire lots of really expensively sick people to join your parish.)

Just think about those gas station coin collection jars. It's always for a sick child. I'm not sure many people would drop a coin for an old woman who smoked all her life and now is dying of metastasized lung cancer. Good luck with that fundraising beef n beer!
kentuckyliz | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 7:54 am | #

Paul

You are saying that the insurer's did not mean to hurt the woman by their inclusion of assisted suicide, that her upsetment was an accidental by product of the standard procedure of listing the procedures they will pay for in a letter denying a certain treatment?

Fair enough, the message the woman received is unlikely to be the message intended by whoever sent off the letter. However, I would still say that it was shortsighted of those in charge not to realize that including that option was ... tackless to say the least.

BTW I also find calling helping someone to kill themselves 'a comfort measure' to be a particularly nasty misuse of language.
Emily Bell | 08.04.08 - 6:59 pm | #