[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Biggest Loser: PP; Abortifacients and money laundering alleged; Stupak amendment: defeat by stealth? More...
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org
Fri Nov 13 13:51:34 MST 2009
*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 13 Nov 2009 AD
**This daily e-newsletter is only possible through the generous gifts of
our readers and supporters. Please help us continue to fight for the
defense of babies by donating today!** **Click here*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>to help or to renew your dues
online TODAY!*
*/_BIGGEST LOSER..._/*
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=09111101>*/_
*/_Abortifacients and money laundering alleged..._/*
<http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=22529>
_/**/_
*/_VICTORY OR DEFEAT BY STEALTH?..._/*
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=84895&N=489&L=3491&F=H>
_/**_/ */_Pertinent Sections of HR 3962 showing LOTS of anti-life
funding continues..._/*
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:3:./temp/%7Er11111ud8j::> /_*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*_/*/_*/_PHONY ABORTION COMPROMISE EXPOSED IN HOUSE BILL..._/*
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=09110605> _/*/_*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*_/*/_*/_*/_220-215..._/*
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110707.html> _/*_/*/_*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*14 Killed at Fort Hood, Not 13 As Reported. Why?
<http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/>*
Posted by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÃ0/00S, Deputy Managing Editor,
Columnist in Education
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/education/>, Health
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/health/>, Media
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/media/>, Politics
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/politics/>, Religion
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/religion/>, Science & Technology
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/science/>, Society
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/society/>, War
<http://themoderatevoice.com/category/war/>.
Nov 10th, 2009 |
<http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/#respond>Comments
<http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/#disqus_thread>
Velez_1518491c.jpg
Fourteen were killed at Fort Hood, not thirteen as reported all week
long. Which official is correcting the death toll?
Francheska Velez was a 21-year-old woman, shot to death by Major Nidal
Hssan at Fort Hood Army Base.
Nine weeks into her pregnancy, Army Private Velez had just called her
cousin in Chicago on Thursday to say how excited she was about the child
growing inside her. By night, she and her child were both dead, bringing
the death toll at Fort Hood to 14 total. Not 13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/give_me_obamacare_and_my_grandmom_is_doomed/
Summer Johnson
<http://www.mercatornet.com/sections/author_page/give_me_obamacare_and_my_grandmom_is_doomed/>
| Friday, 13 November 2009
tags : bioethics <http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/bioethics>,
death panels <http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/death+panels>,
Obamacare <http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/Obamacare>
Give me ObamaCare and my grandmom is doomed?
The case for: a leading American bioethicist defends the Obama
Administration's proposals as fairer, cheaper and more trustworthy.
*What is the system now?*
The current United States healthcare system can be summarized in a few
words: under-performing, over-priced, and inequitable. Unlike the UK or
Canada, the US has for a large employer-based healthcare system, which
means that many -- children and adults -- receive healthcare benefits
via their employer. The remainder receives benefits from three other
government sponsored programs: Medicaid (for those of a socioeconomic
status too low to be able to afford to pay for health insurance and do
not qualify for employer-based insurance) and Medicare (for those over
the age of 65) and the Veterans Administration system. There are a few
other categories of individuals who qualify for these government
programs including the chronically disabled, etc, but this is it in a
nutshell.
So if I had to add a fourth word to describe the United States
healthcare system I would use: potpourri; and I don't mean the good
smelling kind. I mean a mish-mash of systems and providers. Worst of
all, when the United States has an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent as
of October 2009, this adds another nearly 10 percent of people who
cannot receive insurance via their employer. This is where an
employer-based system of providing healthcare coverage breaks down.
There must be another way. Millions of Americans are using COBRA
(short-term gap coverage for recently terminated employees offered by
employers) now subsidized by the government now under ARRA, plus
Medicare, plus Medicaid. Thus, the public option so hated by critics of
reform is doing quite well, thank you, IS effectively providing health
insurance for a HUGE proportion of the nation. Failing to extend
insurance options to the rest of the American 45.7 million Americans is
a true moral failing.
*
What will the new system probably look like?
*
The "new system", most commonly known as the "public option", scares
many people because critics have obscured the fact that most Americans
use government sponsored healthcare -- including everyone in Congress.
However, in fact the current proposal passed by the House of
Representatives this past Sunday simply adds one more option to what
everyone has. There will still be private insurers; patients will still
be able to choose whatever doctors they want. Choice will still be a
huge part of the "new system."
"So what has changed?" one might ask. The federal government is
guaranteeing
<http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/house-democrats-unveil-health-care-bill-public-option/story?id=8946527>that
there will be a federally run insurance program that will be available
to all Americans, the same insurance program that Senators and
Congressmen use, and it will allow an additional 90 percent or more of
uninsured Americans to have access to health insurance. This program is
most likely to be utilized by the young who cannot afford insurance
premiums in the earliest years of their careers and the working poor who
cannot afford premiums or who are not offered insurance in their jobs.
The program will compete directly with private insurers, hopefully
driving prices down, and creating greater competition in the healthcare
market -- something all free market capitalists love! This could result
in a reduction of premiums by 25 percent within the next 5 years. Yet
private insurance plans will still exist and will still be available
just as they always have been -- so the employer-based insurance system
we know and some love will persevere.
This system would allow for public provision of health insurance options
with the provision of care from any provider patients choose. This kind
of system would put us in very good company. Canada, Western Europe,
Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan all do it -- and with far
better health outcomes and far less healthcare spending.
*
Is the fear over Obamacare "death panels" exaggerated?
*
Absolutely.
I mean, come on, "death panels"? When I first heard this expression, I
assumed that the Grim Reaper would be one of the committee members.
Then I read the ridiculous stories about how Ezekiel Emanuel wanted to
kill my grandmother, I laughed out loud. Anyone who ever has even met
Zeke knows that he's an oncologist by medical training and would prefer
that people NOT die of cancer, for one, or anything else for that matter.
Second, his argument -- ---which is actually quite sound -- simply says
that we have to allocate effort to different cases according to those
who will receive the most benefit from the care we give them. This is
the nature of rationing, which all healthcare systems have. So tough
choices have to be made in situations when there are scarce resources.
But on these panels, no one is going to make decisions about
individuals. No one is going to say, "Washington is calling. It's time
to turn off Grandmother's ventilator. She's costing the public health
insurance plan too much money."
Americans have to trust someone to make the big decisions. For more than
40 years they have trusted private insurance companies, whether they
have been aware of it or not, to make the decisions about whether Aunt
Sue gets that angioplasty or that new drug. It really isn't the doctor.
Doctors recommend; insurers approve. Anyone who has ever received a
denial letter from an insurance company knows that.
So the question is whether Americans are willing to trust the United
States government to set the healthcare budget and provide a third way
to have access to healthcare for all, reduce overall healthcare
spending, and hopefully over the long term improve healthcare outcomes.
I can't see how we can do worse than we are doing now. I really can't.
*
Can you trust members of the ethics committee to treat patients with
dignity?
*
Healthcare professionals treat patients with dignity, not government
panels. They take their needs and interests into account. But it is
doctors who provide the care, not health policy advisors.
In the context of health reform, it is the job of policy analysts and
health advisors to ensure that the system will provide the well, the
sick and the dying with adequate care.
Much ado has been made of President Obama's "Independent Medicare
Advisory Panels", but I would happily put Harvard's Atul Gawande MD and
the National Institutes of Health's Ezekiel Emanuel MD, PhD in a room
with former Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and let
them duke it out over health reform any day and let the chips fall where
they may. They have two MDs and one PhD on their side; she has rhetoric
and a moose gun.
Yet, Palin tries -- and fails. She has supported reimbursement for time
spent counseling for living wills and advanced directives (even though
the latter do not work); it's the prior conversations between loved ones
and the dying that matter, not the piece of paper
Yet Palin's attacks upon the (imaginary) pro-euthanasia bioethicists are
clear. When talking about "Obamacare", she has described it
<http://www.lifenews.com/nat5336.html> as a "system [that] is downright
evil". She refuses to accept a healthcare system where her parents or
her child would have to stand "in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his
bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level
of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of healthcare".
Yet I wonder what Ms Palin (and others who support her view) find more
morally reprehensible: leaving 47 million Americans without any access
to health insurance AT ALL or creating a government panel that would
make decisions about how much care would be given to which Americans,
all of them having had access to health insurance over their life span.
And yes, Ms Palin, that might mean that your aging parents might not get
that third bypass surgery or that state-of-the-art hip replacement over
providing well care for all children. Or is it "downright evil" in your
view to leave the most productive members of our society -- the
chronically underinsured or uninsured Americans aged 18 to 34 -- without
access to affordable healthcare coverage? I wonder, is she or anyone
else okay with leaving young women to die because they are unmarried and
uninsured
<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/unmarried_uninsured.html>?
Generally, though, I am more sanguine than most about the ability of
ethics committees or commissions to make good decisions about what
should be done in terms of making policy. I think what patients don't
realize is that most decisions about what kinds of care and what
procedures are covered and in what amounts, about what percentages of
procedures are paid versus unpaid, and about the reasons for all this,
are actually done by committees. But in the current system, it's all
done behind closed doors inside meetings of actuarial scientists and
executives at pharmaceutical benefits companies and insurance companies.
So let me ask you this.
Would you rather have your healthcare decisions made out in the open as
part of public debate by a public committee comprised of ethicists,
public members, politicians, health policy analysts and others who
specialize in making these kinds of decisions on a large scale to save
taxpayers money -- or by the (much more) self-interested persons who
work for the companies who have a bottom-line to make for their
pharmaceutical benefit management company, insurance company and its
shareholders?
For my money (and my health), I'd opt for the public panel any day.
**Thanks to Myra Christopher and Arthur Caplan for comments on previous
drafts of this post.
/
Summer Johnson PhD is Executive Editor of the American Journal of
Bioethics <http://bioethics.net/>, AJOB Neuroscience, and AJOB Primary
Research. She blogs at the AJOB Editors' Blog <http://blog.bioethics.net/>.
/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/have_death_panels_already_arrived/
Nancy Valko
<http://www.mercatornet.com/sections/author_page/have_death_panels_already_arrived/>
| Friday, 13 November 2009
tags : bioethics <http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/bioethics>,
death panels <http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/death+panels>,
Obamacare <http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/Obamacare>
Have death panels already arrived?
The case against: an experienced nurse worries that Obamacare will
entrench an existing quality-of-life ethic.
Medical ethics are concerned with care for a patient's welfare,
something huge institutions are not very good at. The controversy about
"death panels" in proposed health care reform legislation is to be
expected. As a nurse, despite all the soothing noises from the Obama
administration, I do believe there is cause for serious concern.
For example, Compassion and Choices
<http://compassionandchoices.org/blog/?p=445> (the name of the
pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society after its merger with another "right to
die" group) boasted that it "has worked tirelessly with supportive
members of Congress to include in proposed reform legislation a
provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their
doctors about end-of-life choice."
"End-of-life choice" might have been an innocent term a generation ago,
but now in three American states "end-of-life choice" includes legal
assisted suicide. No wonder people were worried when they read these
words in HR 3962 (also known as the Pelosi bill). It even includes a
whole section on "Dissemination of Advance Care Planning Information"
that is problematic and misleading.
In addition, although the idea of health care rationing was originally
dismissed as a myth, ethicists and the mainstream media admit that
health care rationing is necessary
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803837_pf.html>.
Government committees have been proposed to set rules for health care
services.
Is ethical health care reform needed? Of course. In 2003, I was
privileged to serve on a Catholic Medical Association task force on
health care reform. Many good ideas, such as health-savings accounts,
ways to help the uninsured poor, and strong conscience-rights
protections, were discussed. The results were published in a 2004 report
<http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/CMA%20%20Healthcare%20Task%20Force%20Statement%209.04%20Website.pdf>
entitled "Health Care in America: A Catholic Proposal for Renewal". The
Obama Administration has rejected most of these proposals.
*
Ethics and health care reform
*Since I first started writing about medical ethics and serving on
hospital ethics committees, I have seen ethics discussions evolve from
"what is right?" to "what is legal?" to "how can we tweak the rules to
get the result we think is best?" This attitude is not very reassuring
when we are considering a massive overhaul of the US health care system.
Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been ridiculed for
coining the term "death panels". But it resonated with me. In 1983 my
daughter Karen was born with Down syndrome and a severe heart defect.
Even though Karen's father and I were told that her chances for survival
were 80 to 90 percent after open heart surgery, we were also told that
the doctors would support us if we refused surgery and "let" Karen die.
We refused to allow such medical discrimination against our daughter.
Later on we were shocked to learn that one doctor had written a "do not
resuscitate" order without our knowledge. Apparently he thought I "was
too emotionally involved with that retarded baby".
In later years, I was asked if I was going to feed my mother with
Alzheimer's. And then, after my oldest daughter died from an apparently
deliberate drug overdose, I was told that it is usually a waste of time
to save suicide attempters.
Did evil people say these things? No. These doctors and nurses were
otherwise compassionate, caring, health care professionals. But they are
just as vulnerable as the general public to the seductive myth that
choosing death is better than living with terminal illness, serious
disability or poor "quality of life".
When government committees and accountants take over health care, will
things get better?
*
Common sense and ethics
*
Health care does not occur in a vacuum. Real people -- patients,
families and health care providers alike -- are affected when economics
and new ethical rationales trump basic needs. The Good Samaritan did not
ask whether the man lying on the road had health insurance. The
Hippocratic Oath established a sacred covenant between doctor and
patient, not health care rationing protocols. I strongly disagree with
ethicists who contend that new technologies and economics demand new
ethics.
I am tired of hearing some of my medical colleagues talk about patients
who "need to die". I am saddened to hear many of my elderly, frail
patients fret about being an emotional and financial burden on their
families. I am outraged when I read editorials arguing that those of us
who refuse to participate in abortion or premature death should find
another line of work
<http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/published-editorials/2008/12/an-unconscionable-conscience-rule/>.
I recently attended a 40th anniversary nursing school reunion. We
remarked on how much has changed. Some things are better -- uniforms,
equipment and technologies, for example. But some things are worse,
especially ethics.
People are often surprised that even back in the late 1960s, we had
do-not-resuscitate orders and spoke to families about forgoing
aggressive medical treatment when patients seemed to be on the terminal
trajectory to death.
But, unlike today, we did not immediately ask them whether we could
withdraw food, water and antibiotics to get the death over with as soon
as possible. Back then, we were often surprised and humbled when some
patients recovered. Today, too many patients don't even get a chance.
Doctors and nurses are too quick to give up hope.
Back then, ethics was easily understood. We didn't ever cause or hasten
death. We protected our patients' privacy and rights. We were prohibited
from lying or covering up mistakes. We assumed that everyone had
"quality of life"; our mission was to improve it, not judge it.
Medical treatment was withdrawn when it became futile or excessively
burdensome /for the patient/ -- not for society. Food and water was
never referred to as "artificial" even when it was delivered through a
tube. Doctor and nurses knew that removing food and water from a
non-dying person was as much euthanasia as a lethal injection.
"Vegetable" was a pejorative term that was never used in front of
patients or their families. And suicide was a tragedy to be prevented,
not an alleged constitutional right to be assisted by doctor and nurses.
Today we have ethics committees developing futility guidelines to
overrule patients and/or their families even when they want treatment
continued. We have three states with legal assisted suicide. We have
even non-brain dead organ donation policies (called non-heartbeating
organ donation or donation after cardiac death). Some ethicists even
argue that we should drop the dead donor rule
<http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/7/674>.
We see living wills and other advance directives with check-offs for
even basic medical care and for incapacitated conditions like being
unable to regularly recognize relatives. We are willing to sacrifice
living human beings at the earliest stages of development to fund
research for cures for conditions like Parkinson's rather than promote
research on ethical and effective adult stem cell therapies.
We are inspired by the Special Olympics but support abortion for birth
defects. We now talk about a newborn child as another carbon footprint
instead of as a blessing and sacred responsibility.
I could go on and on but I think you get the idea.
Death panels are not the overwrought fantasy of right-wing nut cases.
Real "death panels" are already at work. They have been created by
apathy, misplaced sympathy, a skewed view of tolerance and an inordinate
fear of a less than perfect life. Death panels? In the famous words of
the comic strip character Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
/
Nancy Valko <http://www.wf-f.org/bd-nvalko.html> is president of
Missouri Nurses for Life and a spokeswoman for the National Association
of Pro-life Nurses.
/
This article is published by *Nancy Valko*, and MercatorNet.com under a
Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of
charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these
guidelines <http://www.mercatornet.com/info/copyright_and_syndication>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org
<%3Cform%20action=%22https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr%22%20method=%22post%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22cmd%22%20value=%22_s-xclick%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22image%22%20src=%22https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-butcc-donate.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20name=%22submit%22%20alt=%22Make%20payments%20with%20PayPal%20-%20it%27s%20fast,%20free%20and%20secure%21%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22encrypted%22%20value=%22-----BEGIN%20PKCS7-----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%0A%0A%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%0AAYD%0AVQQ%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-----END%20PKCS7-----,%22%3E,%3C/form%3E>
PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held
religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org; to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org
*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-740-206-1260 [fax]; e-mail us at
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as
purchase a wide range of publications.
* *
--
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpg
Size: 16663 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25606 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0006.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0007.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0008.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20091113/11d44d17/attachment-0009.jpe>
More information about the PFLIENews
mailing list