Norma Rae Dead

SS109 wrote: Was she too stubborn to buy the medicine herself while she was waiting for the insurance to catch up?

Yeah..Let her die! Right SS?

Kate wrote: This is what death panels do. I didn't know about this till today (she died on the 11th of Sept), and it shocks me. Never ever should have happened this way.

I just did a little reseach on this. Didn't take much time.

First, yes she died on 9/11. But Kate, why didn't your link mention that happened in 2009? Could it of been biased to mislead you? So why accept the rest as totally accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Lee_Sutton

And her union did support her, back in July 2008...

http://aflcionc.org/2008/07/11/crystal-lee-norma-rae-sutton-is-battling-cancer/

But since you stated "death panels" at the beginning, I get your point. First, it's a politically charged term, so it's very misleading. And if one believes the term, it will happen with both private insurance and government directed insurance too. Or do you not agree?

:thumbsup:

Vice Lord wrote:

SS109 wrote: Was she too stubborn to buy the medicine herself while she was waiting for the insurance to catch up?

Yeah..Let her die! Right SS?

If a robber was about to gun you down, would you try to fight him or call 911?
Some people are just too dependent.

I know if my wife's insurance company stopped funding her expensive medicine, I would take them to court, but I would also look for a different insurance company and also buy it myself while waiting for things to get resolved.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Kate wrote: This is what death panels do. I didn't know about this till today (she died on the 11th of Sept), and it shocks me. Never ever should have happened this way.

I just did a little reseach on this. Didn't take much time.

First, yes she died on 9/11. But Kate, why didn't your link mention that happened in 2009? Could it of been biased to mislead you? So why accept the rest as totally accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Lee_Sutton

And her union did support her, back in July 2008...

http://aflcionc.org/2008/07/11/crystal-lee-norma-rae-sutton-is-battling-cancer/

But since you stated "death panels" at the beginning, I get your point. First, it's a politically charged term, so it's very misleading. And if one believes the term, it will happen with both private insurance and government directed insurance too. Or do you not agree?

I didn't comment on it because it wasn't in the original article, so I didn't know the timeline. Yes, "death panel" is a politically and emotionally charged term and I had problems with it when Sarah Palin, along with other right wing politicians, used that term in the health insurance reform debate in 2009. That's my point in bringing this up. Death panels already exist in the form of health insurance bureaucrats. They are not a new creation, as the right wing pundits would have you believe.

Death panels are necessary. Is it better to spend millions keeping someone barely alive for 6 months more? Or spending those millions saving thousands for children from dangerous childhood diseases like polio. America and the World can no longer do both.

Might even need to educate both health professionals and patients themselves to consider the smarter fiscal choice and quality of life issues. Too often doctors are programmed to do all they can to save the patient, even if it will only give them a few more days of life.

And what kind of Quality is that life?

SS109 wrote: Death panels are necessary. Is it better to spend millions keeping someone barely alive for 6 months more? Or spending those millions saving thousands for children from dangerous childhood diseases like polio. America and the World can no longer do both.

Might even need to educate both health professionals and patients themselves to consider the smarter fiscal choice and quality of life issues. Too often doctors are programmed to do all they can to save the patient, even if it will only give them a few more days of life.

Doctors are taught that in school - the Hippocratic Oath.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

My question would be "Who gets to decide? Who gets to play god?" What if it were your child that had incurable cancer and there was a drug that would extend their life 6 months before their quality of life became really bad. Would you feel differently? Wouldn't you want that drug that would give the two of you an extra 6 months together?

Kate wrote:

SS109 wrote: Death panels are necessary. Is it better to spend millions keeping someone barely alive for 6 months more? Or spending those millions saving thousands for children from dangerous childhood diseases like polio. America and the World can no longer do both.

Might even need to educate both health professionals and patients themselves to consider the smarter fiscal choice and quality of life issues. Too often doctors are programmed to do all they can to save the patient, even if it will only give them a few more days of life.

Doctors are taught that in school - the Hippocratic Oath.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

My question would be "Who gets to decide? Who gets to play god?" What if it were your child that had incurable cancer and there was a drug that would extend their life 6 months before their quality of life became really bad. Would you feel differently? Wouldn't you want that drug that would give the two of you an extra 6 months together?

Maybe. If you had to pay 20% of the drug cost, would that affect your decision? If six months would bankrupt your family for years, is that fair to do to the rest of your children? And those are the questions goverments have to consider.

And too often there isn't that certainty in medicine. I knew 2 men who were both given a 6 month cancer diagnosis, same type of cancer. One lived 2 years and 90% of it was quality time. And the other was dead in 3 months. So often diagnosis is a uncertain science.

I think it's a decision only a patient and family can make, with guidance from their Doctor. It's not a decision that insurance companies should be making.