Oregon grandma told by state it would pull her plug — under Obamacare will you be next?
(Page 3 of 4)
The pharmaceutical company that manufactures Tarceva heard about her plight and stepped up the plate, giving her the drug. Sadly, it was not enough to prevent her death. But Barbara Wagner’s legacy is considerable.
She has become the real-life and deeply disturbing face of ObamaCare. The woman who wanted so desperately to live but was told in cold, chillingly banal bureaucratese by The State: tough cookies.
Again, let’s listen to what is being said here.
“We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer’s dollars.” — Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of Oregon’s Health Policy and Research staff, on why Oregon rejected Wagner’s plea for the drug.
Medical care should not be given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” — Obama health care advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel writing in the Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. 1996.
In other words, Oregon, using the language of government rationing, was attempting to practice with Barbara Wagner what is called “passive euthanasia.”
For those who are unfamiliar with or startled by the term, here is a succinct definition as provided by a 1997 New York Times story focusing on the time in a life when “doctors, family members or they [patients] themselves” decide it is no longer possible or reasonable to sustain life.
”It’s called passive euthanasia,” said Dr. Norman Fost, director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of Wisconsin. ”You can ask who’s involved and is it really consensual, but there is no question that these are planned deaths. We know who is dying. Patients aren’t just found dead in their beds.”
Catch that phrase? “Planned Deaths.”
A deliberate decision is made to withhold treatment — because of costs — and let someone die.
Doubtless Dr. Fost is correct that this kind of thing happens frequently. The difference between what Dr. Fost was discussing in 1997 and what is being discussed with ObamaCare is the insertion of The State into this decision — which is exactly what the state of Oregon tried to do with Barbara Wagner.
With utter predictability, the New York Times of August 14, 2009, has tried to rescue ObamaCare by publishing a front-page attack headlined this way: “False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots.”
Quite aside from the usual attacks that have nothing to do with health care — citing people “falsely calling him [Obama] a Muslim and questioning his nationality” — the article fails completely to address the central charge of ObamaCare critics that it would inevitably lead Americans to a horror-scape of government rationed care — precisely as was practiced in Oregon with Barbara Wagner. Specifically, the Times says this: “There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.”
Yet there is no mistake here with ObamaCare and its prime advocate, Mr. Obama himself. The core objective is to establish a system that, inescapably, will lead to government rationing. The Wall Street Journal asks the question this way:
From the point of view of politicians with a limited budget, is it worth spending a lot on, say, a patient with late-stage cancer where the odds of remission are long? Or should they spend to improve quality, not length, of life? Or pay for a hip or knee replacement for seniors, when palliative care might cost less? And who decides?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?