Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon

Summary:

Cancer treatment drugs cost $4,000/month.
Physician-assisted death…drug cost about $50.

Insurance comany chooses $50.

“…the law presents all involved with an “unacceptable conflict” and the impression that insurance companies see dying as a cost-saving measure. They say it steers those with limited finances toward assisted death.”

abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5517492&page=1

Now my state, Washington, has the same dumb brain law, thanks to the happy, healthy young citizens who think you should die if you’re not perfect.

“The state (Oregon) was recently hailed by a University of Wisconsin study as having one of the nation’s top pain-management policies.” Look, it really works, just get rid of the sick, and voila, no pain!

Please pray for a conversion of heart amongst the citizens of Oregon [and Washington] … with divine intervention we could overturn this immoral law …

I am deeply saddened by much in my state … it is anti-life to its very core right now …

Saddly, much of the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia has been helped along by catholic voters … :confused: Why?

Yeah…Oregon is beautiful, but the people are [insert uncharitable remark here]

But there ARE good people there, too. The people I know included!

As a fellow Oregonian, I cannot help but agree with you.

Third generation Oregonian here … my grandfather was born on Sweet Creek in July of 1891 … While I also know many really good Oregonians [and good Catholic Christians] … they are far out numbered by the Pro-death lobby here …

Add to that the simple fact that the Northeastern US is running us competition as the least “churched” area of the country does not bode well for the ‘Country’ returning to moral principals and respecting life from conception to natural death any time soonn … particularly with the new administration …

Plaese fast and pray this lent for a convesion of hearts and minds in America … with God’s intervention all things are possible … :thumbsup:

Washingtonian here, it’s all part of that liberal agenda. Kill them before birth, and kill them before they die naturally. It’s disgusting.:mad:

I have long thought that eventually, permissive euthanasia would turn into mandatory euthanasia. The obligation might not be a legal obligation in the sense of the police being ordered to go shoot somebody. But if, as seems possible under the Obama medical plan, cost-benefit analysis determines who gets treatment and who doesn’t, then is it not possible that even pneumonia might again become, as they used to say, “the old man’s friend”?

But it goes beyond that. Ultimately, it might become as corrupting to society as is abortion. If grandma, or even more the spinster aunt, is weak, losing her grip on reality by degrees, sick a good part of the time, a hassle and expensive to take care of, yet owns property and perhaps has a bit of money, might relatives strongly encourage her to take the “painless way out”? It’s probably happening right now in some places, if we only knew it. Picture that for a minute. Picture an elderly person, otherwise not feeling good and perhaps being depressed, being told by her granddaughter or neice or favorite nephew or even her own child, that it’s time to go. Imagine the feeling of uselessness; of being unloved; a lame deer surrounded by wolves.

I recall how the Comanches (and perhaps other tribes) would put the elderly out into the winter night to freeze when debility made them useless to the tribe. I remember how Eskimos would set an old person out on the ice to float out to sea or perhaps be devoured by a polar bear. Those who did would then divide up whatever items of property the old person had. I remember a time when just about everyone would have thought those things to be heartless; an artifact of more savage people and times. But notwithstanding that some $50 death cocktail is likely preferable to the fangs of a polar bear, human willingness to do either one leaves little to distinguish.

And then there’s Mother Teresa of Calcutta who would go out and find the least appealing and most extreme of the dying, and bring them in to her facility, clean them up, feed them if they could eat, nurse them, simply as an act of love, and so their last earthly experience would be one of love. She did it knowing that she did it to Our Lord, and she did.

Despite all our pretensions and our posturing, we’re no better than savages in many ways.

Amen. I have heard that in some European countries where euthansia is legal, old people are afraid to seek medical treatment, because they will be encouraged to die.

This world is getting very science fictiony now - Like Brave New World, or Soylent Green. Frankly - it’s frightening!

I read your post. - sigh.

When my elderly parents moved in with me in August of 2007, one of my siblings, to who I and my mother are estranged, made this comment. “I am glad they are moving in with you; Oregon has the Death with Dignity act. If things get bad, let me know.” I was so taken aback that I just stared at her. She did not appear to comprehend the grave evil she was suggesting. While my father died about two months later from an infection, my mother is doing quite well.

You know, I’m a liberal, and so is pretty much everyone I know. And not one of us, not one, thinks the way you suggest. What we do favor, instead of killing sick people, is government sponsored health care for those who are too poor to afford treatment. And this is where we differ from many conservatives. I’ve seen more posts on this forum than I can count by folks who don’t believe in gov’t health care - yet look at what private insurance is doing! So the folks, even those who have private insurance, who can’t afford to pay for treatment on their own are the ones who lose. Insurance companies exist to make a profit - which is why we so favor gov’t coverage that eliminates the profit issue for the middle man.

There was a threat last year about a case in either Washington or Oregon where a patient couldn’t afford to pay for cancer treatment and the state was offering to pay for euthanasia and everyone was in an uproar. I remember asking folks if they thought the gov’t should pay for the care, and, if so, wasn’t this the exact thing they were often railing against? My question was ignored.

So the above situation is what you get when health care and profit margin mix. It’s not liberals pushing this agenda.

Not a very well informed post. First, if you want information about the story, read the article in the OP, it is referring to that.

Second, it was not an insurance company that refused to treat this woman. Not by a long shot. It was the Oregon Health Plan, the state-run health care system here in Oregon. I live in Oregon and am quite familiar with it. It is a state agency which reports to the Governor of Oregon. In this case, it was indeed the government who was refusing to pay for this woman’s care, not some “greedy” insurance company that so many people like to demonize.

And Planned Parenthood does not profit from taxpayer funded abortions here and abroad? And did not Sebelius’ friend Tiller profit from killing partial newborns? And did not Sebelius profit from the contributions of Tiller? And did not Obama profit from the contributions of Planned Parenthood? And did he not appoint Sebelius to run the healthcare programs you think are going to be so benign?

And you think somehow that private insurance companies are evil while politicians are saintly? If private companies did half the stuff politicians do, their executives would be in jail. In what other line of work is it legal to take bribes, as long as you simply call them “contributions”?

You do know that this administration is proposing “cost/benefit” determinations to see who gets treatment and who doesn’t, don’t you? You do know that government health programs are administered by private insurance companies, don’t you?

It’s for the collective good. I forsee a lot of this in different forms in the future, especially as we march towards socialized medicine. It’s a brave new world towards the perfect race.

As a Washingtonian and Oregonian, I am saddened as well.

Yes and no. It is liberals. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are liberals. But if you want to know who really has the ear of government look at how much money Congress receives from pharmaceutical companies and tell me that the government is looking out for you - and your $50 check to the DNC or whatever. We do have a right to healthcare, and everyone gets it. But we don’t have a right to FORCE people to pay for our needs.

Government-sponsored healthcare is rationalized medicine. There is absolutely no incentive with universal coverage to offer the best service, to research and develop new drugs and life-saving treatments, to study medicine and produce fully competent doctors, and therefore the quality of care will deteriorate.

Please take a look at how socialized medicine has wreaked havoc on the citizens of other countries. In Canada, there are more CT machines for animals than there are for people and cities have to raise donations from citizens in order to order machines that they can’t get from the government subsidy. It’s ludicrous.

I dunno - I just look at the circus at the DMV or any other government agency to see what a ridiculous idea it is to put our lives in the government’s hands. :twocents:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.