WaPo comes correct on "death panels"

[jpljr77]

I know it's easy to argue that the "death panel" myth has been thoroughly busted, debunked and now we're on to the next lie.

But there are still far too many out there, including highly-placed ELECTED officials -- {cough} Grassley -- who are using variations of the theme in stump speeches and cable news soundbites. And remember, it's not Labor Day yet. The healthcare debate is about to get started in earnest.

So the Washington Post published this excellent article today on the origins of the provision that was branded by Palin as calling for "death panels": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090303833.html?hpid=topnews">The Unwitting Birthplace of the 'Death Panel' Myth

It delves into the background of the hospital in Wisconsin that pioneered end-of-life care wishes, or advance-care directives, or living wills. It's a very interesting, nuanced, and TRUTHFUL look at what these doctors accomplished, and why funding for advance-care directive discussions was placed into the bill.

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.
"We'd turn to the family and say, 'We need your input. If your mother or father could speak now, what would they tell you?' And the family would say, 'If we only knew,' " said Hammes, 59. "I could see the distress. They were going to have to live with themselves, with the worry about making a mistake. This was unacceptable."

The hospital began urging families to plan while people are healthy. For those who want help writing a directive, a physician will discuss the powers and limits of medicine and explain to family members what it means if they agree to serve as the "health-care agent." They will also help people define the conditions under which they would no longer want treatment. Hammes said people often define this as "when I've reached a point where I don't know who I am or who I'm with, and don't have any hope of recovery."

The directives are power-of-attorney forms that protect physicians and family members against liability, and the hospital makes clear to its doctors that they are expected to follow them. Today, more than 90 percent of people in town have directives when they die, double the national average.

This is the type of honest reporting that we should be pointing to when engaged with "death panel" or "pull the plug on grandma" people. And, perhaps more importantly, we should be pointing to this when our own elected Democrats start getting cold feet because of perceived public opinion. Why should they waffle on their support if "public opinion" is based on a lie?

[pinto]

1. Thanks for the post. Well done article.

:thumbsup:

[11 Bravo]

2. I read that this morning. My only complaint ...

is that instead of references to "myths" to be debunked, I would at long last like to see at least one journalistic outlet refer to it as a fucking lie, deserving only of contempt.

[jpljr77]

3. But "fucking lie" is, of course, an opinion.

And that doesn't make for good journalism. The reason I'm a little giddy about this piece is that it directly addresses what they call a myth (what you and I would call a fucking lie). And that doesn't happen a lot in the "respectable" MSM.

The writer also shows both sides, such as it is. While he mocks Grassley and Gingrich for their positions, he includes a reasonable position from a Wisconsin Pub:

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) admires Gunderson generally but said it erred in pushing for Medicare to cover consultations. "It's right and proper for Gundersen to innovate in these directions, but it's a wholly different thing for the federal government" to endorse end-of-life planning, he said.

See? That's a reasonable objection, and one that can be debated. I don't agree with it, but it's a far cry from "pull the plug on grandma."

Again, I'm happy something like this is out there and can be referenced and linked to going forward. I think the healthcare opponents put too much stock into the tight news cycles in August and their whole stinking shit ball is going to unravel in September as the truth finally comes out.

I just hope there are enough Dems with the balls to hang on.