Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Liverpool-More than the Beatles


photo credit-jcesar
creative commons license


As most fans of the "Fab Four" know, today a digitally remastered collection of Beatles songs was released.

As most are surely aware, the group got their start playing in pubs in Liverpool. But what I really want to talk about today is something else that Liverpool may become famous for-The Liverpool Care Pathway. I bring this up to illustrate what I believe is one of the major ways that government directed/socialized medicine is potentially life threatening to those with disabilities.

Basically, the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a standardized method of dealing with people that are expected to die soon in the UK. It is a standardized treatment method that has been vetted by a panel of "experts" to improve how one dies in the UK. On its surface, there is much to recommend it. Rather than be hooked up to machines one doesn't want and subjected to procedures that have little probability of success, it is much preferable to die in relative peace. I have often advocated for patients to have the right to say what they want, and have had many "difficult conversations" with patients regarding what kinds of interventions they wanted if they became unable to communicate. But it appears that the LCP goes way beyond advocating for and implementing patients' wishes. Combined with the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, which gives doctors the ultimate decision making authority when they judge patients unable to make their own decisions, the LCP allows patients to have fluids withheld and deep sedation given IV until they die. Once doctors decide that you fulfill entry into the LCP, one's death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the deep sedation masks any indication that you are improving.

The LCP was initially used for people with terminal cancer, but its use has expanded to patients with other conditions, such as after a stroke. As this presentation shows, all you need to be entered into the pathway is to be hospitalized for 48 hours, and two of the following conditions present:

"- bed bound
- semi-comatose
- only able to take sips of fluids
- no longer able to take tablets"


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that many people with disabilities might enter the hospital with at least one strike against them. And combined with the general attitudes towards the elderly and disabled in healthcare settings, it isn't hard to see how some people feel that they need to rescue their loved ones from the LCP. As noted in some of the articles I linked, it doesn't matter if your friends and family disagree. Family members have been threatened with arrest for feeding their family member once they were put on the LCP fast track to death pathway.

But why bring this up now? Why don't I, living across the pond, just MYOB (mind my own business)? Because of course tonight is the night that President Obama makes his pitch to push the current health care bill that is before Congress. While I freely admit that there are many things that need to be fixed (including access and cost issues), I heartily disagree with the Utilitarian approach that government provided healthcare provides. If there is going to be rationing (and basically all forms of healthcare provision involve some rationing at some point), I want to have the decision making capacity of what is provided, not have it be the decision of some anonymous government committee.

As others have noted, the healthcare bill under consideration creates 52 new government organizations, including an independent advisory council on what are best medical practices. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Presidential adviser and brother to Whitehouse Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) has written:

"Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."


Emanuel sees a world where "the community" comes first, and individuals are only judged worthy of expenditure if they have value to the community (with not even a nod to the intrinsic value of all human life).

So as you listen to the speech tonight, know what the President's adviser on healthcare is telling him, and what this bill before Congress will result in. Don't think that you'll get healthcare reform passed now, and worry about the details later. If you happen to get sick, there just might not be any later for you.

5 comments:

Mrs. C said...

*shudder*

Steve D said...

Wow. Thanks so much for writing this! This is a well-needed wake-up call for people like me who are blithely conducting our daily lives without a healthy concern for all of the radical reforms taking place in our country right now. The President's school speech woke me up, and this information provides a cold-water shower.
Thank you!

laurentius rex said...

Liverpool to me is the geezer who did the Anglican Cathedral and the archetypal red phone box, and it is the Catholic Cathedral by Frederick Gibberd whose design was pioneered in Coventry's circular market so there.

Beatles, who are this popular beat combo m'lud?

I suppose it also being mugged in that Anglican Cathedral too, scousers eh!

VAB said...

I doubt that privately funded care will be able to meet the needs of all the disabled people in the community. As such, at least some care must be covered by public funding. As such, it seems more effective to concentrate on shaping the policies associated with public funding than to fight against the existence of public funding itself

Club 166 said...

@Larry,

I didn't know all those things about Liverpool. Very interesting.

@VAB,

I don't deny the need for public funds for those in the disabled community. But I think it is a false dichotomy to say "this plan, or no funding at all." Also, I think that one can both attempt to shape policy under a current plan, as well as simultaneously attempt to get a whole different (better) plan passed.

When decisions in care are left to the state, then I fear for the outcomes for those that are *not* in power, and *not* deemed useful.

In short, I think that "Nothing about us, without us" should apply to healthcare, too, and not just on a general basis, as different people have different needs, and each individual would be able to best determine what suited them best.

Joe