End of life counseling

[Crabtownboy]

Should hospitals and doctors provide 'end of life counseling?' From me, I would want counseling.

President Obama's health-care initiative was nearly consumed by the furor over that provision, and Republicans continue to argue that the legislation would ration care for the elderly. The debate has underscored how fraught the discussion is on end-of-life care in a country where an optimistic ethos places great faith in technology and often precludes frank contemplations of mortality. That tendency has a price tag: A quarter of Medicare costs -- totaling $100 billion a year -- are incurred in the final year of patients' lives, and 40 percent of that in the last month.

But the controversy has had most resonance where it arguably took root, in this town of 52,000 where nearly everyone of a certain age has an advance-care directive.

La Crosse became a pioneer in addressing end-of-life questions in the mid-1980s, after Hammes, a native of the city who has a doctorate in philosophy from Notre Dame, arrived at Gundersen as the director of medical humanities, charged with educating resident physicians about ethics. He noticed a "troubling pattern," he said, in which family members struggled to make medical decisions, such as whether to continue dialysis after a stroke.

 

[rbell]

Should hospitals and doctors provide 'end of life counseling?' From me, I would want counseling.

I would certainly want advice from those "in the business."

However, I would not want advice from a government employee who is given directives from higher-ups that have vastly different philosophies than I do.

No way I would want, or take, advice from an entity that I felt had an agenda.

No way would I take advice from someone who is directed by individuals who look at me not as an individual, but as a member of a particular bloc of people. (and I'm on the "wrong side" in so many of those blocs!)

The devil's in the details, CTB. It's not the "advice." It's whom the advice-giver works for, and the agenda that we could expect form the advice-givers.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Living and ministering in a senior adult rich area, there is plenty of end of life counseling going on. I got my first pamphlet when I turned 50.

Pastors are also involved in these kinds of decisions. I've talked with families. I imagine every pastor has.

Of course, the last year of life has big expenses. A person is dying of cancer or stroke, so there will be huge expenses. So are we now going to make life and death decisions based on economic factors?

But when a government already committed to making the unborn die starts talking about end of life counseling, it will only go in 1 direction - "you have reached a certain age, your quality of life is not good, why don't you just refuse all care and die so that your children won't have to be bothered with you."

 

[Revmitchell]

The issue of end of life counseling is a huge deception by this admin. Any one can go see a doctor for any reason even just a check up and at that moment receive counseling for health issues. "End of life counseling" does not need to be specified in the insurance plan for it to be received and paid for. In fact the carrier does not even need to know it occurred only just that the patient went in for a check up.

So for the government to push the specific counseling seems fishy and since Obama is a proven liar and we know that he and his "advisers" prefer the elderly die as soon as possible to save money it is not any kind of jump to see this heading in a very bad direction.

And the poll is to vague to vote

 

[Hardsheller]

Some things are not the government's business.

End of Life Counseling is one of them.

This is a matter for the patient and his or her family to decide.

 

[Revmitchell]

Some things are not the government's business.

End of Life Counseling is one of them.

This is a matter for the patient and his or her family to decide.

Of course the government involvement was not brought into the poll.

 

[rbell]

Of course the government involvement was not brought into the poll.

Right.

CTB deliberately left that out.

Of course, that renders this "poll" a complete waste of time.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Right.

CTB deliberately left that out.

Of course, that renders this "poll" a complete waste of time.

No, some brought the government in as they seemingly cannot see any question without putting either their anti-abortion or hate Obama blinders on.

The article was about a hospital, not the government.

Naturally as the law will be involved any counseling will have to explain what is acceptable or not acceptable under current law.

Also, I expect there are a number of people on this or any BB who do not want to consider their own mortality and any issues that might arise when they are terminally ill. I see that as a lack of faith in God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Right.

CTB deliberately left that out.

Of course, that renders this "poll" a complete waste of time.

Deliberately to be sure.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I had to answer not sure because it depends on what you mean. If you mean that there is no doubt the person can't be kept alive and there options and oportunities and things to consider for when the person passes is one thing. If its an attempt to convince people that Euthenasia should be done Kavorkian style (and reasoning), then I would have to say no. Quality of life argument is over-rated because its subjective. I don't think our government or any organization that serves the public should be involved in a culture of pro-death.

 

[kyredneck]

..... it will only go in 1 direction - "you have reached a certain age, your quality of life is not good, why don't you just refuse all care and die so that your children won't have to be bothered with you."

Methinks you hit the nail squarely on the head.....

DadGummit needs to stay out of it; it's none of their busy-ness.

 

[rbell]

No, some brought the government in as they seemingly cannot see any question without putting either their anti-abortion or hate Obama blinders on.

The article was about a hospital, not the government.

Naturally as the law will be involved any counseling will have to explain what is acceptable or not acceptable under current law.

Also, I expect there are a number of people on this or any BB who do not want to consider their own mortality and any issues that might arise when they are terminally ill. I see that as a lack of faith in God.

Baloney.

The whole issue about the healthcare debate is government control.

Thus, any "end of life counseling" has a government component.

Since opposing "healthcare with an agenda" from our government is the curx of our argument, your poll is a deliberate attempt to discredit that view without being intellectually honest.

Come on. We know it, you know it...let's quit pretending that wasn't your goal all along.

Of course, I'm amused at your equation with my skepticism at government (based on historical fact) with a lack of faith in God. Your smug air of superiority is typical.

 

[TomMann]

I have been battling inoperable lung cancer since May 2005 and have been on permanent disability since Oct 2008. Had stents in my upper veins in late 2008 because the cancer was shutting them down and have since grown a new tumor in the opposite lung. For all practical purposes I recieved my EOLC (love those acronyms) at M..D.Anderson in Feb 2009. I was given three options. Clinical trial, go back to my oncologist and resume whatever chemo he had planned, or go home and do nothing. That councel was given by the doctor, not by a government official with a financial interest in my giving up. I chose to forgo further treatments as none of them seemed to be giving any long term benefit, and opted for alternative therapies.

This personal decision was made based on quality of life vs. length of suffering. Have seen too many victims of modern oncology granted a short increase in length of life at the cost of major suffering. It was and is my decision to make. After deciding on no more treatment I was then confronted with a new tumor on my opposite lung and was told that without radiation the broncial passage to that lung would close off in a short time. I elected at that time to take radiation treatments which was administered in the month of July 2009. Yesterday I played 18 holes of golf with my little brother (though I did carry an oxygen bottle on the cart). I do not consider my quality of life to be any less than when I was in full health. I have no pain, and other than some physical limits am able to enjoy my life, my family, and my many blessing from God.

If the government wants to give me their version of End of Life Counceling, I will receive them with the same vigor and attitude I would show any Jehovah's Witness who showed up at my door on a Saturday morning at 7:30.

Each individual is different in how they will handle these real life situations. I am just grateful that to this point, the decision to accept or reject treatment has been mine and not some pencil pusher/number cruncher trying to figure out how to best serve the public interest.

 

[donnA]

I think this is two different things. Government wanting people dead so they do not have to pay for health care, they fought to be able to pay for, and doctors telling a family their loved one is brain dead (or could be any number of things I guess), do you want to pull the plug. Two totally different things. Which as nothing to do with not wanting to take care of them any longer, they aren't important enough, they cost too much, they're too much of a burden. Which is what it si when the government is involved.
Makes the poll inadequate.

 

[alatide]

I would certainly want advice from those "in the business."

However, I would not want advice from a government employee who is given directives from higher-ups that have vastly different philosophies than I do.

No way I would want, or take, advice from an entity that I felt had an agenda.

No way would I take advice from someone who is directed by individuals who look at me not as an individual, but as a member of a particular bloc of people. (and I'm on the "wrong side" in so many of those blocs!)

The devil's in the details, CTB. It's not the "advice." It's whom the advice-giver works for, and the agenda that we could expect form the advice-givers.

What about from an employee of an insurance company whose agenda is to make a profit by spending as little on you as possible?

 

[Tom Bryant]

What about from an employee of an insurance company whose agenda is to make a profit by spending as little on you as possible?

Has anyone ever gone to an insurance agent for end of life counseling except where it concerns life insurance? That would be like going to a democrat for pregnancy counseling: pretty stupid.

 

[Revmitchell]

Has anyone ever gone to an insurance agent for end of life counseling except where it concerns life insurance? That would be like going to a democrat for pregnancy counseling: pretty stupid.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[tenderhearted]

I think that it depends on the situation. for one thing, I believe that when a person is injured or gets to the point where a machine is needed to live, that is not really HIS will.

Life is precious and all should have a chance to get better or live as long as possible, especially when a soul is at stake, for that person's soul matters far more than my opinion on how they should live or die.

I, personally, do not want to have to be kept alive by a machine. and I certainly do not want to get advice from someone that is NOT a believer about how I should end my life or someone I love.

certainly, our tax money should not go into supporting assisted suicides, I do not believe that would be wise. When that sort of thing is put into the hands of the Government, then they decide who should live and who should die. Our government is on its way to being a part of the one world governent and this once great nation will just end up another athiest Anti God establishment.

Even so, Come LORD JESUS, and come soon

 

[billreber]

I cannot honestly vote on this "poll", because there is no definition of "end of life counseling". As pointed out by several of my fellow BB members, such counseling can be had by anybody NOW. In fact, I have, as part of my active medical records, a "Living Will", which specifies under which circumstances I would like to be allowed to die, rather than be kept alive on a machine. I received "end of life counseling" (in this sense) long ago.

However, that does not appear to be the sense of the counseling that the Senate and House ("they") are trying to mandate the payment for! It appears that economic issues (for the nation, not for an individual) is the reason for such counseling. That can only mean "they" want us to choose to die, rather than choose to continue to live. THAT counseling is trying to take control out of God's hands! I am against any such "counseling".

Our government (at every level, BTW) has no business trying to tell me when I should die. This would not be "health reform", it would be "death required", very much like a movie I saw many years ago. (I can't remember the name of it). However, in the movie the age at which people "had to die" was 30! "They" have only made the age older! LOL!

alatide said

What about from an employee of an insurance company whose agenda is to make a profit by spending as little on you as possible?

This was in reference to having counseling from somebody being paid by the government to do the counseling.

THIS is where part of the problem is! "They" should address the agenda, rather than the patient involved. I see nothing wrong with a company making a profit, but they should be required to "pay up" according to some GOOD rules. Eliminate the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions. (But at the same time, put some limits in so that a newly-diagnosed cancer patient who has never paid a cent for insurance can't bankrupt the insurance company!) Enact some tort reform, so that lawyers can't get rich at the expense of either insurance companies, doctors, or patients.

Here's an idea! Set a dollar amount as the maximum amount a lawyer can receive for winning a malpractice lawsuit! That would cut insurance costs by billions! That in turn would cut the cost of OUR premiums, as well as the premiums doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance! Medical costs would be DRASTICALLY reduced, which is the stated reason for healthcare reform!

Bill :godisgood:

 

[rbell]

What about from an employee of an insurance company whose agenda is to make a profit by spending as little on you as possible?

Umm..."End of life counseling" would be in the doctor's realm...not the insurance company.