Messages 17-19 from topic cited in message 1 (where they were quite off-topic):
SuperDave writes:
This may have little to do with the topic at hand, but I just wanted to add this anyway, as a response to Mick's post up there (message#5)
Doctors are only rarely required by their hospitals or accrediting universities to take the Hippocratic Oath anymore. It surprised me when I learned of this, but even more so it scared me. Do you know why they do not take the oath anymore? Because of insurance companies. Everyone knows how much of a hassle doctors claim their insurance companies are already, but apparently they have also forced the idea upon doctors that the right to opt out of doing the right thing may preclude their obligation to do it, for various reasons including liability.
The scariest thing about this, of course, has been the pressure by insurance and drug companies to then coach and direct doctors to make certain diagnoses and prescriptions. Nowhere has this been more scary than in Oregon, the only state that currently allows doctor-assisted suicide. Texas, with its law concerning the doctor's right to refuse treatment to a patient they deem unrecoverable---even over the wishes of family members---is a close second. Insurance companies would love for doctors to recommend these options for patients who might otherwise rack up outrageous bills before succumbing to their ailment anyway---bills that they pay for when the patient is one of their policy holders.
This message has been edited by SuperDave, 05-07-2005 12:18 AM
"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellevt, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci
Yaro writes:
The scariest thing about this, of course, has been the pressure by insurance and drug companies to then coach and direct doctors to make certain diagnoses and prescriptions. Nowhere has this been more scary than in Oregon, the only state that currently allows doctor-assisted suicide. Texas, with its law concerning the doctor's right to refuse treatment to a patient they deem unrecoverable---even over the wishes of family members---is a close second. Insurance companies would love for doctors to recommend these options for patients who might otherwise rack up outrageous bills before succumbing to their ailment anyway---bills that they pay for when the patient is one of their policy holders.
You had me up until this point.
While I conceed that doctors are under terrible pressures from the insurance companies (I know, my uncle is a doctor and he complains about it all the time), I truely doubt that this will somehow play into assisted-suicide.
First off, as far as Oregon, the patient has to make the decision weather or not to keep living and that decision is only to be made under the most dire circumstances. No doctor is gonna come into the room and say:
"You know Jerry, I don't think your gonna make it. You could save us all alot of time and money if you just kill yourself. Be a pal and think about that for me wouldja?"
Do you have any articles that have more info on this?
Also,
Texas, with its law concerning the doctor's right to refuse treatment to a patient they deem unrecoverable---even over the wishes of family members---is a close second.
Why would this come in second to Oregon? It would seem to me that this has more of an issue behind it. I mean seriusly, the Oregon thing dosn't really play into this at all.
I agree that this Texas thing deffinetly could be very contraversial.
Again, do you have any reference/articles?
SuperDave writes:
I will dig up some reference articles soon, but I do not have any on hand and am about to hit the hay for the night. I will say I began my own research from
NPR - Breaking News, Analysis, Music, Arts & Podcasts : NPR
Apparently this scenario you think should not come into play already has come into play and is the very reason cited by groups, including doctors in Oregon, who are trying to end this law. Of course they don't go in and present it that way. There is more subtlety and it is practiced. The demographic it has affected most are elderly who view it as a way to control the way they end life, and not terminally ill patients. Often doctors are coached to not say anything at all, but simply have a large pastel-colored poster declaring a patient's right to die prominently featured in the room they go into to talk to them.
And the reason I think that Texas comes second to Oregon is that the Texas legislature does limit the doctors ability to do this---the patient has to be demonstrated to be persistantly vegetative and unrecoverable. They do not need to be tricked into anything.
Without the Hippocratic Oath, and then adding the pressures upon a practicing medical professional (even when not including these controversial laws in Oregon and Texas) severely detracts from the doctor/patient confidentiality because, really, how can you have confidence that they are acting in your best interests and not the interests of insurance/pharmaceutical/government organizations?
This message has been edited by SuperDave, 05-07-2005 01:19 AM
Adminnemooseus
™ Version 4.2
