Why are people worried about more information? Human judgment should still
reign supreme. And as far as "death panels" go, someone has
to decide. Usually it's on the individual level. Do we give preferential
treatment to the mother or her unborn child? Hospitals and first responders
must use triage skills when faced with multiple traumas, as do military medics.
The availability of life-changing treatments depends on how much money you have
or how expensive your insurance is. The likelihood of avoiding the death
penalty depends on how expensive your legal team is. Parents choose every day
how to treat each individual child. Dilemmas are a way of life. In
all cases, more information is better.
One advantage of such data would be for surgeons. Surgery is a scheduled trauma
and these blood markers could indicate a patient's readiness for surgery.
Of course some surgeries must happen at the earliest possible
opportunity but others, like joint repair, could be postponed to give time to
treat anemia or other factors that would reduce the prognosis for post-op
Hofstadter's observations more than half a century ago about the
"paranoid style" in American politics remains a useful paradigm for
understanding popular discourse and the general "moral hypochondria" in
America. The DN is feeding the tendency here -- paranoia and fear are great
market stimulants. That readers like JMT become agitated and HIGHLY alarmed
reading it is the whole point.
Completely ridiculous comments. This is just another of MANY prognostic tools
used by physicians. When we identify a patient at increased risk of death or
other poor outcome, we work even harder to save them. This data is simply a
formalization of the process that every good physician uses when he or she sees
a patient. In addition, such data may be useful in ensuring that appropriate
conversations are held with family members such that they are not blindsided
should a negative outcome occur. Such prompt & open conversations greatly
aid the coping mechanisms of the "significant others" in a
patient's life. There is absolutely no implication that this tool or any
other prognostic device is being or will be used to limit care. This has nothing
whatsoever to do with payer source, insurance or lack thereof. This hysteria is
To "Allen#2" actually those people do not have socialized medicine.
They are still dependant on the free market. Federal employees get insurance
through private companies, along with state, county, city, and public schools.
The armed forces when not deployed use the free market hospitals and doctors.
Only when deployed are they forced into a system that is owned and operated by
Just not in the hands of bureacrats who will administer Obamacare. This is what
scares me, too many who have no value for the worth of a human, but only look at
the bottom line of their company or their perceived values. Great
for the doctor and the family and of course the patient.
America already has a socialized medical system for those lucky enough to be
employed by the federal government, armed forces, state government, county
government, most city governments, and most public schools.Many
other Americans had a socialized medical system provided by most large
businesses.Why not provide "comfort" medication for those
who have little or no chance of living and provide life saving medical attention
to those who have an excellent chance of surviving and living a good life?
Enough with the doom saying, please. I don't see this as anything but
Doctors use different markers to decide futility all the time. It is nothing
new. Would you prefer doctors invading your body and keeping you alive even
though they knew that the end result is the same?
I thought this, too. Inevitably, more information is good in the right hands
and perhaps can be used badly in the wrong hands. And our citizenry chose it.
In one sense this is very neat. In another HIGHLY alarming!When we
consider that America is headed to a full socialized medical system we should
open our eyes and see the results. In a fully socialized system costs must be
contained. In a free market system costs are contained by people buying what
they can afford. When all can "afford" "free" health care costs
are contained by controlling how much care can be received.This is
where the "death panels" come into discussion. I know many do not like
to discuss this and insist it is not true but the fact is, the concept is very
true. Panels are created, guidelines established that make blanket
determinations. Under a certain age you qualify for a transplant. The next day
is your birthday, you are now over an age you no longer qualify for a
transplant. Call it what you will.So in this world does the future
include all trauma patients in an emergency room recieving triage (sic), keep
them alive for one-hour, run this test and the results will determine the level
of care? Bad results they essentially make you comfortable and let you die? I worry!!