Betsy McCaughey's Daily Show Appearance

I'm posting Jon Stewart's interview with Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York who is credited with starting the myth that the current healthcare reform bill will lead to senior citizens not getting medical care. In other words, she is the mother of the hysteria about elderly people being encouraged to sign DNRs even if they don't want to, being told they have to just sit back and die instead of receiving actual care. 

And according to political gossip, McCaughey inspired Sarah Palin's controversial remark about "death panels." 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The interview shows how complicated this bill is, but also, how easy it is for it to be twisted to one person or another's purposes. Also, it's a great interview on Stewart's part, if you can stand watching a little confrontation. He does an excellent job of cutting through her double-speak and forcing her to point to exactly where the bill says what she is claiming it says. (Which by the way, it doesn't.) 

Apparently, McCaughey resigned her position on the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation following this interview. 

But here's a silver lining: Maybe this hyperbolic, fear-mongering spin is finally backfiring, and now, people will actually start to really think about living wills and advance directives in a serious and calm manner. We can hope, right :)

Details, please

Newsweek has this piece that is supposedly debunking seven myths of the current healthcare debate. 

While debunking the myth that the House bill requires suicide counseling, this article states:

"Euthanasia, on the other hand, is legal in only three states, making it even more unlikely to be a major part of the federal health plan."

Pardon me, Newsweek, but euthanasia is not legal in any state. But death with dignity is legal in a handful of states.

The proper terminology makes a huge difference. Euthanasia in general means a mercy killing, but in practice usually refers to when a medical practitioner directly brings about death by administering medicine to the patient. Most people think of what vets do with their pets when they hear the word euthanize.

Death with dignity is a more specific phrase that refers exactly to the recently passed into law procedures in which the patient is prescribed medicine that they can take on their own to bring about their own death, on their own terms, at their own time, when they're comfortable doing so. And all along, the patient can decide not to go through with the practice. 

General euthanasia is not legal in any state. The specific act of death with dignity is legal in certain states. 

Besides which, since death with dignity is such a heated topic, and something that has the potential to make a revolutionary difference in the amount of choice and control people have over the way in which they approach death, they manner in which we speak about it is incredibly important. We need to be careful about what we're referring to and be clear about what we're talking about. I realize this was a side issue in this article, but a news magazine should be better at articulating the details. Simply calling it euthanasia is flippant, careless, and inaccurate.   

Death with Dignity Panels

So, I've gone from thinking I wouldn't post anything on the healthcare-reform debate to posting on it twice in two days. 

The Senate has removed the portion of their bill that allows Medicare to pay doctors for counseling sessions with patients regarding advance care and end-of-life planning. (Right now, it's still in the House version of the bill.) 

Just to be clear, these counseling sessions are happening already. End-of-life planning often occurs when someone becomes terminal. Patients will sit down with their team to discuss their options for resuscitation, hospice care, pain management, comfort, etc. 

What this particular bill provision addresses is not the actual conversation but Medicare coverage of the conversation. By paying doctors for time they are now not getting paid for, they may be encouraged to hold even more end-of-life consults—thus allowing more people to openly discuss how to create the best death possible for themself, making this blogger very happy. 

And yet, proponents of it are pushing fear in our faces, speaking as though passage would magically make death come sooner. As though the government is going to be paying off doctors to tell patients it's time to go. 

The American Medical Association supports this provision. The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization supports this provision. These are two highly reputable organizations. Plus, to insinuate that individual doctors would go against their ethical, sworn duty to "first do no harm" and actually give up on patients because they're given money from Medicare, is incredibly insulting. 

Sarah Palin has infamously gone so far as to call these "death panels," which is so absurd, I don't even know how to address the claim.

When I hear these arguments, I can't help but flash back to some of the anti–death with dignity arguments. 

One of the big arguments against death with dignity—one of the fallacy, weak arguments—is that insurance companies will use the legislation to push people into death so that they don't have to pay for continued treatment. (Remember the Martin Sheen ad?) 

Well, if you replace "insurance company" with "the government" and "death with dignity" with "healthcare reform," this is basically the same argument being paraphrased and reshot at us. 

It's inaccurate, and it's fear-based, and it's a shame that it looks like it might pull the public away from more information and better choices.