Opinion

Opinion

Feeding fear about end-of-life care

August 8, 2009

Advertisement

— I am as happy as anyone at signs of an economic recovery. But I confess to having mixed feelings about the resurgence of the wing-nut industry.

We now have “The Birthers” manufacturing myths that President Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is serving illegally. These products arrive in my inbox faster than I can press “block sender.”

They are just following the business plan of those earlier entrepreneurs selling the idea that Obama had killed his grandma. Consider the scare-biz Internet scribe who penned the memorable line: “Obama flies to Hawaii to visit his grandmother and just a few days later she winds up dead. Coincidence?”

But now the industry has ratcheted up from accusing Obama of killing his grandma to accusing him of trying to kill your grandma.

The campaign of the moment is based on a small provision in the health care bill that would allow Medicare to reimburse doctors for time spent consulting with patients about their end-of-life choices.

This modest idea was willfully distorted by people such as Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York, who said that the bill would “absolutely require” end-of-life counseling that “will tell them how to end their life sooner.” Republican leader John Boehner offered the same flawed product, saying, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Their views were also sold by right-wing franchise operators. Laura Ingraham warned that government bureaucrats would “come to an old person’s house” — yeah, house calls! — for scary death chats. Fox News analyst Peter Johnson called it a “kind of our 2009 ‘Brave New World.’” And Randall Terry, the Zelig of the pro-life movement, said this was an attempt to “kill Granny.”

Panic is their most important product. The bill doesn’t really mandate anything. It simply assures that a talk about advance care planning will be covered for the patients and families who want it. As Obama told a woman at an AARP forum, “It strikes me that that’s a sensible thing to do.” But who would trust someone who offed his grandma?

All in all, Fearmongers Inc. plays on the notion that advance directives are a sneaky way of cutting costs by cutting life short.

Well, here’s what we know: One-quarter of all Medicare dollars are spent in the last year of life, much of it in the last month. We don’t know yet whether it will cost less (and how much less) for patients to choose high-quality palliative care. It surely isn’t the cheap fix to the health cost spiral.

But we have some other hints. In a study of terminal cancer patients at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, those who had end-of-life conversations spent about one-third less in their last week than those who didn’t. And they had a better quality of life and death.

Yes, those who didn’t talk about options had more aggressive treatment. They ended up in intensive care and/or on ventilators or were resuscitated. They not only had a worse quality of death by any measure, they left their families in more distress, and here’s the kicker: They didn’t live any longer.

As the study’s author, Holly Prigerson, said, “Usually saving money comes at a cost to society or the patient and family. In this case it would appear to be a win-win.” The patients who got more expensive treatment, she added, “were not buying anything that any informed consumer would want.”

Conversations about dying are never easy. Only about 20 percent of Americans have advance directives.

This cultural silence lingers over a false and stark choice between “treatment” — the word we use to describe aggressive procedures — and fear of abandonment. Families may feel that if they aren’t doing “everything,” they are doing nothing. Patients may see the alternative to medical care as no care.

We confuse life-prolonging and suffering-prolonging treatments. We don’t always hear about palliative care and hospice. This is precisely why we need to encourage these conversations.

Some people will choose “everything.” Others will choose comfort care. But if we train and reimburse clinicians for the fine art of communicating, we’ll have an informed choice. And that’s what this teeny little clause in the great big health care bill does. It enables granny and grandpa and us to say how we want to die.

So may we declare the scare biz bankrupt? Oh no, what’s that I see on the horizon? “Obamacare Will Mandate Free Sex Change Operations.” More wing nuts for sale.

Comments

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

  1. tomatogrower (anonymous) says…

    Palin, Rush and all the right wing nut cases think that we should have rows of hospitals with people on life support, and that you should continue to force treatment on cancer patients long after the cancer has spread. The father of a woman I worked with had cancer that had spread all over his body, then he had a stroke that put him into a coma. They continued to treat his cancer and kept him on life support. He was 70 something years old. Why not let him pass on? Were they using him as a guinea pig? Of course, if his wishes were to do everything possible for as long as possible, then that's ok. He has that choice, and we will continue to have that choice when the doctors sit down and talk about end of life choices. I will be telling them I want the life support pulled, but you can tell them to keep going if you want to. These fear mongers are just against anything that Obama does, so their arguments are suspect from the getgo.

  2. snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

    Ask Barbara Wagener how she feels about a government agency making decisions about her health care.
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new...

  3. tomatogrower (anonymous) says…

    Reading the comments from the right wing people on the forum confuses me. This woman made bad life choices by smoking, she is on welfare. She appears to be the kind of person you all hate. Why are you not ranting that she should have bought her own insurance? Below is a quote from the ABC report left out of the Catholic news report. Do you or do you not mind paying taxes to pay her bills? If it wasn't for the government health care she would be dead already. Also, why isn't this drug company questioned. They agreed to give her a year of free treatments, but if they can do that, why can't they lower the cost of the drug? They had to make this gesture to make themselves look good, but they are going to overcharge everyone else. Why isn't the company being held responsible for their ridiculous costs? And don't tell me it's the cost for research and development. They are in it to make as much money as possible for their investors and their CEO's. It's about fame and fortune, not about true concern for people's health.

    "A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner."