An Eloquent Defense Of A Severely Disabled Child

Here’s an eloquent defense of a child with severe disabilities – by a man who, when faced with his newborn son, came to eschew his agreement with Peter Singer, that such children should be killed.

A Life Beyond Reason

My son, August, has a number of quirks that distinguish him from the typically developing 10-year-old. He lives with cerebral palsy, is a spastic quadriplegic, has cortical visual impairment (meaning he is legally blind), is completely nonverbal and cognitively disabled, has a microcephalic head, and must wear a diaper. Moreover, he is immobile—he can't crawl or scoot around or hold himself up or even sit in a chair without being strapped in it. If someone were to put him on the floor and leave him there, he would be in the same location hours later, give or take a foot. more

Yes, There Really Are Death Panels

If you thought there weren’t death panels in Obamacare, here an expository piece that lays it out in some very plain language. Be very afraid . . .

An Exercise in Fatal Futility: Trying to Objectify the Subjective

Earlier in October, in a demonstration of my statistical insanity, I attended a (and presented at) conference of statisticians conferring as one might expect on statistics. The conference revolved around one particular software package the identity of which is irrelevant to this post (but if you really want to know, it’s SAS). However, one presentation I attended actually spilled over into realms of which I suspect the author was aware, but did not explicitly state at the time. An exposition of the topic is relevant to the current political landscape, so I thought I would address the gorilla in the room with the following commentary and observations since it is an interface of the kind addressed by this blog.

The paper was entitled “Comparative Effectiveness Analysis and Statistical Methodology” and if that doesn’t put you to sleep, be assured that what follows will, or should, wake you up. Let me give you the relevant portions of the paper summary as a framework for my analysis (with emphases added):

The purpose of comparative effectiveness analysis is ordinarily defined as a means to compare the benefits of drug A versus drug B. However, particularly in relation to cancer drugs, there is only drug A. Therefore, comparative effectiveness analysis tends to compare drug A to a quality adjusted threshold value, with a frequent conclusion that the cost of the drug is not worth the additional life. Ordinarily, a societal perspective is used to deny the drugs, since the additional life may be worth the drug cost for the patient. The British organization, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has denied many cancer drugs to their patients. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare want to initiate a similar process, denying treatments that exceed a quality adjusted price of $50,000. There are similar provisions in the Healthcare Reform Act. With the emphasis upon medications, medical procedures are not as subject to this comparative effectiveness scrutiny; procedures can frequently exceed the cost of medication treatments. However, each medication is considered separately; no analysis examines the total contribution of the treatment to the overall cost of healthcare. more

 

Another Talk You'd Better Have With Your doctor

Well, as is often the case, here’s some research backing the idea that religious or spiritual outlooks influence how we think about life. Most religions value life from conception to natural death. As this piece points out, doctors without a religious orientation are more likely to want to help you kick the bucket. Maybe it’s time to have THIS conversation with your physician. . . .

Doctors’ religious beliefs strongly influence end-of-life decisions

Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. more

It's Official: Let's Harvest Organs Before People Are Dead

Well, this idea has been bubbling up for a number of years, and now a prominent radical pro-deather and one of his students has outed the unthinkable in a so-called scholarly journal. Oxford’s Julian Savulescu is one of the most outspoken scholars calling for redefining death and pushing generally way-out-there utilitarian ideas. With this piece, he’s made it official: we should harvest organs from people for transplantation before they are dead. He’s also coined a new term: Organ Donation Euthanasia. I for one am (ahem) so excited about this cutting edge thinking.

Organ Donation Euthanasia

. . .This is a proposal for those 5000 patients each year who will have their life saving treatment stopped. We can give them the option in advance to donate their organs if they are ever going to have their treatment limited because their prognosis is deemed hopeless. If the person agreed in advance to be such an organ donor, and an independent committee confirmed that the patient’s prognosis was hopeless and treatment should be stopped, the patient could be taken to an operating theatre in controlled circumstances, given a general anaesthetic and have their organs removed. The surgical procedure would be a form of euthanasia. We could call it “organ-donation euthanasia”. This option would give people the best chance of ensuring that their organs do not go to waste after their death. It would also prevent the patient from suffering after life support was withdrawn. It would harm noone, and would potentially benefit a number of seriously ill patients in organ failure. more

US Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia: The Dark Underbelly Of Abuse

Well, there are some things in this piece that I don’t agree with, but it does point out just how precarious the state of assisted sucide/euthanasia is in the US. First, euthanasia happens, even though it is illegal. Second, as this piece points out, and as many of us predicted ahead of legalization, that where assisted suicide is available in the US, it is not the transparent process everyone said it would be – in fact, it’s so under-the-table that the chances of abuse having happened are very high, I think.

Physician-assisted Suicide – Is Now the Time?

. . . Many studies indicate that a small, but definite proportion of U.S. physicians have performed physician-assisted suicide (PAS), even though it is illegal.2 The only national survey conducted found that, among a representative sample of 1,902 U.S. physicians with a high likelihood of caring for dying patients, 18.3 percent reported having received a request from a patient for medication to use with the primary intention of ending the patient’s life.  Of those physicians, 16 percent (or 42 physicians) had actually written the prescription and 59 percent of those patients (or 25 patients) used the prescriptions to end their lives. more

Hey, Mister, Wanna Buy A Kidney? Hearts Now Two For The Price Of One!

Well, it’s been doing the rounds behind the scenes for a while, especially by Sally Satel over at the American Enterprise Institute (she apparently had the epiphany after a kidney transplant). The Brits are opening public debate on cash incentives for donated organs. Yeah, just what we need, placing a dollar amount not only on whole humans (as we routinely do with futile care) but now on human body parts. What’s the bet this will escalate into another nasty nightmare? What about the poor selling off various organs for financial gain? What about a black market in organs at rates that undercut “official process.” (This being the UK, I’ll bet there be a whole bureaucracy set up to regulate body part prices). Brave New World, indeed.

Cash incentives one idea under consultation for organ donation

The public is being asked for their views on how the number of organ donors can be increased ethically.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics will be asking whether ideas such as cash incentives and payment of funeral expenses would encourage people to sign up to donate their organs. more