ObamaCare Eugenics... Organ Transplant RATIONING and Death Panels
All during the debates on ObamaCare, conservatives speculated (and were subsequently ridiculed) about what we saw as an obviously apparent necessity for the move to rationed health care. ‘No, No, No’ cried those liberals who forced this bill down our throats. ~ Ladybug4Freedom
‘There won’t be any rationing of health care! There certainly won’t be any death panels, you silly, stupid rednecked conservatives and Sarah Palin’. They said, ‘Pay no attention to what has happened in every OTHER country that has instituted socialized health care. That won’t happen HERE. Wanna know why? Because WE are going to run it and we will run it RIGHT.’
No matter how many times a conservative tried to show with logic, facts and evidence how it was impossible to enact this massive government-run health care ‘solution’ without rationing of some kind, we were run over, insulted and pushed aside.
Of course that is because, as we’ve discussed before, liberals and progressives cannot abide facts. It is anathema to their physiological make up. Facts don’t jibe with knee jerk, emotional reactions.
For over 25 years, the kidney donor program has matched new kidneys to American patients who have been on the waiting list for the longest period of time. Thus, the sickest people got them first. Now, that is going to change. The Washington Post reports:
Kidney Transplant Recipients at a 2007 Celebration - Do you think all of these folks would get a kidney under the new FAIRER system?
Instead of giving priority primarily to patients who have been on the waiting list longest, the new rules would match recipients and organs to a greater extent based on factors such as age and health to try to maximize the number of years provided by each kidney – the most sought-after organ for transplants.
“We’re trying to best utilize the gift of the donated organ,” said Kenneth Andreoni, an associate professor of surgery at Ohio State University who chairs the committee that is reviewing the system for the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a Richmond-based private nonprofit group contracted by the federal government to coordinate organ allocation. “It’s an effort to get the most out of a scarce resource.”
Wow! So, what we here at DRScoundrels have been warning would come to pass – that medical care would devolve to be only for those who had the most to ‘offer’ our newly socialized society – a baby with birth defects detected in the womb would be labeled an “unviable bio mass”, old people deemed too used up to be of use; and so on, has indeed become a reality?
This is incredibly scary. What gives a panel of disinterested parties the right to decide how much value a person’s life has? Remember Obama, telling the lady that her 95 year old mother should probably take a pill instead of having open heart surgery? Not so different from reality now, is it?
The ethically fraught potential changes, which would be part of the most comprehensive overhaul of the system in 25 years, are being welcomed by some bioethicists, transplant surgeons and patient representatives as a step toward improving kidney distribution.
Some worry that the changes could inadvertently skew the pool of available organs by altering the pattern of people making living donations.
Some also complain that the new system would unfairly penalize middle-aged and elderly patients at a time when the overall population is getting older.
“The best kidneys are from young adults under age 35 years. Nobody over the age of 50 will ever see one of those,” said Lainie Friedman Ross, a University of Chicago bioethicist and physician.
“There are a lot of people in their 50s and 60s who, with a properly functioning kidney, could have 20 or more years of life. We’re making it harder for them to get a kidney that will function for that length of time. It’s age discrimination.”
Can you imagine this? More than 87,000 Americans are on the waiting list for kidneys currently. Only about 17,000 people receive kidneys each year and about 4,600 people die annually while waiting for an available kidney for transplant.
Now, with this new rationing system, people who have been on the list for a long time, with their health failing more and more the longer they must wait, may be passed over because a younger healthier patient needs the same kidney?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Well, it makes no sense if you believe in a free choice, free market, AMERICAN system of health care. I guess it makes a LOT of sense if you live in Canada, England, or any of the other countries with socialized health care.
“It’s a big shift,” said Arthur C. Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist. “For a long time, the whole program has been oriented toward waiting-list time. This is moving it away from a save-the-sickest strategy to trying to get a greater yield in terms of years of life saved.”
How sad if we lose the wisdom of our elders because of Health Care RATIONING
This is something that I find particularly frightening. What gives these people the right to determine that someone who is middle aged is LESS VALUABLE than someone who is a youngster?
What ever happened to the idea that the experiences of older people are worthwhile? Can you imagine what would happen if we no longer had the wisdom of our elders to refer to? No history. Maybe that is their ulterior motive?
If adopted, the approach could have implications for other decisions about how to allocate scarce medical resources, such as expensive cancer drugs and ventilators during hurricanes and other emergencies,Caplan said.
And here we arrive at full scale rationing; on all levels of health care. This is something that MUST not be borne!
“This is a fascinating canary-in-a-cave kind of debate,” he said. “We don’t want to talk about rationing much in America. It’s become taboo in any health-care discussion. But kidneys reminds us there are situations where you have to talk about rationing. You have no choice. This may shine a light on these other areas.“
Shining a light on the other areas is what we don’t want to happen. If the government would STAY OUT of the health care industry; allow for insurance companies to sell across state lines and to have insurance co-ops for bundling people with individual policies in order to reap the group health care benefits and cost savings; and shoot all the lawyers, rationing would never be an issue! (Okay, maybe I’m kidding about the lawyers part.)
With the implementation of ObamaCare, we will see more and more doctors leaving the medical field. This will happen because of the inequity in physician reimbursement for Medicare and because of the government intrusion into the patient – doctor relationship.
Doctors will be required by ObamaCare to cede control over their treatment plans to the goverment and the many MANY newly created departments and regulatory committees.
More and more Americans crammed into Medicaid and Medicare (which are already virtually bankrupt) and less and less doctors willing or able to care for them. Thus, we will necessarily see a huge rationing of care (especially since the care will be prescribed by Governmental departments with panelists deciding by outcome surveys which treatment a patient is allowed).
The current system, which dates to 1986, was first based largely on giving kidneys to the patients who matched the organs best, but it evolved to take a first-come, first-served approach made possible by safer, more powerful anti-rejection drugs.
Today, the UNOS’s Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) gives priority to patients seeking organs from someone who dies based mostly on who has waited the longest.
“It was just a fairness issue,” Andreoni said. “You’re next in line. It’s your turn.”
The problem is that, in some cases, elderly recipients get organs from much younger donors whose kidneys could have provided far more years of healthy life to younger, heathier patients. Younger patients can receive older or less-healthy organs that wear out more quickly, forcing them back onto the transplant list in a few years.
The 30-member UNOS Kidney Transplantation Committee, which has been reviewing the system for about six years, last week quietly began circulating for public comment a 40-page document outlining possible revisions.
Under one scenario, for 80 percent of kidneys, patients 15 years older or younger than the donor would get higher priority. The remaining 20 percent of organs – those deemed to have the best chance of lasting the longest based on the age and health of the donor and other factors – would be given to recipients with the best chances of living the longest based on criteria such as their age, how long they’ve been on dialysis and whether they have diabetes.
M. Jill McMaster, a UNOS board member representing the public, acknowledged that the new system would put older people at a disadvantage, but she argued that it is necessary.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..."
“I’m 60 years old, and I have a transplant. But if I were to need a second transplant, I wouldn’t have a chance of getting the best organs, whereas in the past I did have a chance,” McMaster said. “What we’re asking those on the list to do is hard when you are sick, which is to look at the needs of everybody. I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Right. The needs of everybody. Not who needs it the most, or who matches the donated organ best, or even who has been on the list the longest. No. Treatment to be based on how it affects the needs of everybody! The very epitome of socialized health care.
Not everybody cited in this article was sycophantically for this new system:
Others questioned the formula that would be used to match patients and organs. Because the system would be more complicated, it could backfire by creating suspicions of cheating, eroding confidence and reducing organ donations.
“It works well enough the way it is, and everyone understands it, which is important to maintain the public trust,” said Benjamin Hippen, a kidney specialist at Metrolina Nephrology Associates in Charlotte.
Oh, well – why worry about trust issues now? This Obama Administration has done everything in its’ power to completely erode our trust in our President and our government. We knew immediately that ObamaCare would lead to these very scenarios.
Our Republican representatives were called everything but pretty for even suggesting it during the debates. But, in the end, they (and we) have been proven right yet again. Although, if ObamaCare comes to pass fully, us being right means we lose.
Ladybug4Freedom - February 25, 2011 - posted at DRScoundrels
(Note: All underlined in quotes are mine. ~ Ladybud4Freedom)