Any column that begins with “Sarah Palin was right, the second time” should give anyone pause.
Kathleen Parker is worried and writes about “Easing the ‘Death Panel’ Fear.” Given the hyperbole surrounding addressing the subject of end-of-life, at least Ms. Parker gives us this: For purposes of civil discourse, let’s assume that no one wants to kill off old people. How magnanimous.
Parker’s main question in her column, as to mandatory action, would have been answered if she’d just bothered to read into the subject, instead of offering more drivel to the debate. From the AP “fact check”:
Q: Is anything required?
Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.
The Monsignor, my kind of priest:
“We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment,” Fahey said. “What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini — then let me go.”
Amen.
It has nothing to do with “civil discourse,” obviously, but the fear of death that Americans would rather leave to their God and their priest, as our overriding philosophy on these issues is “that it’s in God’s hands.” Unfortunately, when the kids of your husband and his ex start demanding things upon his death things can quickly spiral out of control at a time when life’s gone to hell and you are least capable of handling the bickering relatives.
How do mere humans balance the immense powers of “can” against the humbling moral quandary of “should”? This is partly what the bill’s end-of-life section aims to address.
ad_iconTheoretically, rational people can dwell happily on the same page. Wouldn’t we all rather make end-of-life provisions voluntarily, while we’re still healthy, than burden family members, who would be reluctant (one hopes) to pull the plug on our darling selves?
Of course. In practice, however, the debate is over whether these consultations are conclusively voluntary — and the bill, to the extent it is comprehensible at all, is vague enough to cause concern.
In one respect, we’re confronting the Terry Schiavo, anti abortion, pro selective life crowd at their ultimate fear point. Engaging in a rational discussion about end-of-life care before the inevitable beckons, where the religious and righteous fundamentalists think mere humans should not tread.
From one of the comment sections in HR 3200, Section 1233, Susanfrom29 gets it:
Medicare is now offering to pay for a patient to sit down and discuss with his physician what he would like to see happen at the end of his life. This will make it so much easier for those of us who will be left behind wondering if we made the right decision on a loved one’s behalf.
Quality of life being the central issue of life and health for some of us, this “death panel” hyperbole and “euthanasia” fearmongering directly confronts this notion of individual control and choice, something that always makes Republicans freak, making the right rise up in fear revealing that their faith doesn’t include the human responsibility, free will part we each play in life and end-of-life decision making. The notion that we have some freedom to choose the path the end takes that lies beyond God’s grasp.
It took tremendous courage for the House to tackle end-of-life planning. There is nothing more progressive than the notion that we have a duty to ourselves and our families to orchestrate the end as much as we do to plan our life’s goals in happier moments.
Ironically, the headline the pops up in Firefox for Ms. Parker’s column starts with “Clarity for End-of-Lif…”, obviously because someone at the Post found the headline “Easing the ‘Death Panel’ Fear” too glib and disrespectful for a subject this serious.
Parker is asking for clarity in Section 1233 in HR 3200, specifically that “not mandatory” be added to the the end-of-life provisions in this section. She wants the non-existent end-of-life confusion to remain a hallmark of death. She wants to make sure in our saner, healthier days that we don’t commit to writing something we’ll regret when the end of life is near. She seems to want to ignore passing for the permanent, which doesn’t exist.
Because H.R. 3200 dares to offer dignity at the end-of-life through reimbursement of counseling for the elderly, the right won’t take a leap of faith.
As far as I can tell, the Monsignor is correct and there is nothing “mandatory” about Section 1233. There is also nothing demanding you meet only every 5 years; just that Medicare will only cover consultations, under certain circumstances. As always, those with the means can consult with their doctor whenever they want. Those without means, however, get the benefit and peace of mind that someone is there to help, for which Medicare will pay, under certain guidelines. Grace in death becoming a choice to the less financially able.
Ms. Parker is also very concerned about the physicians, that something will go awry and they will jeopardize their reimbursements. A moot point for such a monumental discussion, but that’s where the right is always trained: saving capitalism first, putting humans second.
However, amidst the “death panels” and “euthanasia” fearmonger, even in Kathleen Parker’s column, with its facetious grace about “civil discourse”, what pervades the subject about end-of-life planning is the reality that the right doesn’t seem to want to accept that each individual actually has a say over how the end of their life is directed. That this choice is as important to plan as the faith of one’s life and that in the end God may be in our heart, but we die alone, no matter who is at our side.
Comments are closed.