Real Life Death Panels

As Sarah Palin continues to spread misinformation about Barack Obama's health-care plan, FP looks at where the real “death panels” are.

BY ADITI NANGIA, MICHAEL WILKERSON | SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

As the United States debates how to overhaul its health-care system, arguments have become increasingly outlandish -- perhaps none more so than former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin's assertion that the Obama administration plans to implement state-sponsored "death panels" to determine whether the elderly and infirm deserve life-saving medical treatment. Writing in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Palin doubled down on her claims, saying that though "establishment voices" dismissed them, they nonetheless "rang true for many Americans."

Of course, the U.S. government has no plans to "pull the plug on grandma"; the claims were false and the provision that sparked the rumors - a measure providing for free advice on how individuals can create living wills to inform their doctors and families what kind of end-of-life care they want -- was removed from prospective legislation, just in case. But Foreign Policy took a close look around the world, in places where something akin to death panels is alive and well.

ASSISTED SUICIDE PROGRAMS

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Death panel factor (out of 100): 30  

The details: Voluntary euthanasia is today legal only in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the U.S. state of Oregon. Physician-assisted suicide is offered to foreign citizens only in Switzerland -- largely through one organization, Dignitas, that has helped hundreds of people who are not Swiss residents end their lives since 1998. Recently, British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife travelled to Zurich in July with Dignitas to "die peacefully, and under circumstances of their own choosing."

Countries like the Netherlands and Switzerland do not have "death panels" to determine eligibility. In the Dutch case, for instance the courts and medical societies delineated careful guidelines, which if followed correctly guarantee a physician will not be prosecuted for murder. These include ascertaining the patient is of sound mind and experiencing "unbearable suffering," as well as having a second, independent doctor confirm it. In all countries, the doctor must report the death to the coroner or police.

 

Michael Wilkerson and Aditi Nangia are researchers at Foreign Policy.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

JAY GETTY

9:06 PM ET

September 9, 2009

Dear FP: You have missed the point completely:

With virtually any insurance policy covering any peril, there are maximum payout limits and specific coverage’s and specific exemptions from coverage. If the country wants to insure everyone there are still limits of liability whether the policy is public or private. What is needed is an insurance policy that can be purchased to kick in if the public or private insurance exceeds its maximum payout limit. At the end of the day: Coverage limits = death panels.

The current health care debate is way off base with discussions of coverage limits: death panels. The real debate should be over:
1) how can we lower cost.
2) can we insure everyone with at least some coverage.
3) what is in the American peoples best interest.

1) This is how we lower cost: All hospitals and doctors must post their prices at admission/in the office and on a national web site that is easily searchable by name, specialty and location (city). Competition on price baby!

No hospital or doctor can charge cash customers more than they accept from insurance companies for the same procedure; Like they charge $45,000 for cash and gladly take $3,500 from the insurance monopoly for the exact same bill; that is the exact status of the current system; and borderline fraud.

We just cut heath cost 50%.

2) Let us open walk in clinics all over the country. This is 20% of the cost of using the emergency rooms and far more efficient. Let us pay our best RNs a senior salary and we will get more RNs and need less doctors.

3) It is in the citizens best interest to have a base line of universal coverage:
A) because it is cheaper than what we pay the emergency rooms for free service now.
B) a healthy population uses less health care and is more "productive".
C) It is downright embarrassing pretending we are the richest Country/most civilized Country and have 45 million uninsured!

That does not mean the current legislation is good; it is not. It is not because it only represents every special interest; but not the American citizens.

It is time we vote every single person in Congress out and only elect the local hero’s with no connection to big oil, weapons, drug companies, banks, and the revolving lobbyist door. And finance all elections on the public debate circuit. And All elected officials should have to take random calls on radio/TV twice a month for 2 hours so they can stay in touch and we can see them for who they are.

 

SHACKELFORD

9:37 AM ET

September 11, 2009

FP: Did you even read Palin's article?

The Death Panels that she is referring to are the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, not the end of life counseling that you referred to. The introduction to this article is pure partisan spin, and shows no understanding of conservative's critiques.

Mr Getty, while you are correct that coverage limits = death panels, there is a mile of difference between private agreements voluntarily agreed to, and universal gov't programs such as Medicare.

If your goal is to lower costs, then the best way to do this is to ensure that the decision makers that are receiving the care share in the costs. The Whole Foods plan is a great example of this.

You second goal, to extend insurance to everyone is directly at odds with your first. There are millions in America who don't need gold-plated health insurance (like most college students). The purpose of extending coverage to everyone is to transfer the burden of paying for health care from those consuming the most of it, to those who don't need it. But, any mechanism that insulates one from the costs of the goods that they are receiving is a formula for skyrocketing costs.

This administration's formula of raising mandatory coverage minimums, further regulation through so called "exchanges", forcing insurance companies to accept sick individuals, and further isolating the payers from the consumers is a recipe for skyrocketing costs.

 

UVPROTECTION

12:32 PM ET

September 12, 2009

Very Minor Correction on Assisted Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia is legal in Washington State as well as Oregon. Initiative 1000 passed in November of 2008 and took effect as of July of 2009.

 

MLEEMILY

12:45 PM ET

September 12, 2009

Just what I was going to say!

Just what I was going to say! I am proud of Washington state moving forward on that issue (if not others). Forward, Personal Freedom!

 

FSILBER

9:58 AM ET

September 14, 2009

The hypocracy of Republicans

The hypocracy of Republicans boggle the mind, that they would criticize Democrats for killing people for being old and hopelessly sick -- while they themselves would execute murderers.

 

MOHAIR.SAM

2:19 PM ET

September 29, 2009

Actually, i's "hypocrisy," and ...

There's just a sliver of difference, one would think, between a murderer and someone who is merely old and sick (but hasn't murdered anyone). No hypocrisy here. Now, if you're proposing that murderers be spared the death penalty, but old folks be terminated, that would indeed be not only hypocritical, but utterly insane.