That's more an example of ageism than anything, something that social conservatives generally endorse. The idea is that 13 year olds cannot make informed decisions legally and that the parents in this case are not acting in the best interests of the "child." If it were an adult of "sound mind," which doctors are generally compelled to accept due to freedom of religion and the dominance of autonomy in medical ethics, the patient would be allowed to kill themselves by refusing treatment. This is quite the opposite of a death panel. More like forcing somebody to live. I think a lot of adults are quite ignorant of the "benefits and harms" of chemo, so forced treatment upon a 13-year-old is not really much different from refusing to allow an adult religious zealot to kill themselves. A 13 year old is not a baby. Really depends on how it's done. As long as the only requirement is that an advanced directive is drafted in the first place, and full freedom and latitude is given on what the patient desires, it would be okay. A medical ethicist I've listened to called it the "platinum rule," to transcend the golden rule. Doctors shouldn't do unto others what they want done unto themselves, because they might not want the same thing in the same situation. But how can you find out what somebody wants after something terrible has happened to them and they're on a ventilator? Can we rely on their bereaved family members? Better than nothing but not ideal. Advanced directives are necessary to give people exactly the level of care they would want. Not everybody is willing to spend the last year of their life on a feeding tube or in terrible pain/indignity. I would be, but many would not. But advanced directives are underused, and so people get care they wouldn't have wanted at everybody's expense. Advanced directives are underused. They need to be not only be billable but strongly encouraged because they're very important but it's a hard thing to bring up when the patient isn't in crisis.
Why thank-you! We Aussies are quite proud of our socialist roots - you are aware our country was founded on socialist principles weren't you?
Any end-of-life choice should be left up to the individual and the individual's family. If one does not prepare for their own end-of-life one gets what they deserve. That is the way it is in a free society.
The curious part of that is that you seem to see that as a negative thing, and not the positive that it has proven to be.
All I know about death panels is that the private sector insurers have had them for decades. And they base their decisions on the cost of keeping someone alive versus the benefit of letting them die. Guess which one wins. All they need are doctors willing to go along - and there are plenty of those.
To Colonel K: What is it that you consider positive? Specialization as I defined in the first paragraph of the OP? Or do you see death panels specializing as a positive? To Phoebe Bump: There is a vast difference between a voluntary healthcare system where the industry is held liable, and government death panels protected by the government.
Nah, no difference whatsoever. What's the difference between a government death panel and a private sector death panel when they are BOTH protected by the government?
"Death panels" was coined by that Sarah Palin idiot.... Peer review demands highest and best practice. Your dad sounds like my Godfather, also a physician, who passed in Palliative care.. I was called in to make some decisions ..He told me, "First do no harm.. and no heroic measures"..
It seems that a lot of americans do not understand the principle of full state provided health care compared to a system based on private insurance. Either way you pay. I have lived in the UK and Australia, both with public health systems. Both have some failings. But both mean that it is not only the rich or those who happen to have a job with a particular company that can have access to health care. Its funny how the OP refers to the public system as death pannels, when the real death pannels truly exist in the health insurance system. Having a nations health care - arguably the single most important aspect of its society; in the hands of the private insurers is stupidity of the highest order. It is like asking a hungry wolf to watch the steak while you go out. The two are incompatible. The insurer wants one of two outcomes when you get sick. Get better very quickly or die very quickly. Not a good place to be in. Insurers have no interest in your actual health. They are corporations and are legally and morally there to make a profit and return that to the share holders. Nothing else. In fact, it is arguable that if they behaved in any other way it could be illegal and certainly cause for share holders to bring civil action. Then there are those who discover a chronic long term problem and will often find that the insurer does everything they can to stop your cover and if you have to change policy an existing condition may no longer be covered. Then there is the fact that the private system is actually more wasteful that the public. In 2006 the industry had $10 billion in profit, but last year one company spent $9 billion alone in admin. The current system for many if not most americans is going rto get a lot worse as increasing numbers of companies either offer no insurance or the lavel of cover is scaled back significantly.
