by Nancy Valko, RN
As a nurse for 40 years, I have long been very concerned about the direction our health system has been taking. Now, I am becoming truly frightened by the significant changes that government’s proposed health care reform would cause.
I’ve read much of HR 3200, [one of three] health care reform bill[s] currently being pushed by the Obama administration, and I agree with the critics who worry about potential taxpayer-funded abortion, rationing of care and promotion of the “right to die”. Like them, I am also concerned about a massive governmental overhaul of our health care at an exorbitant financial as well as moral cost.
Much of the bill’s language is murky legalese that is hard to understand. Much of the language is vague enough to allow all sorts of interpretations — and consequences. Worse yet, efforts to insert limits on such issues as taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand so far have been rebuffed — or concealed in various ways. Government officials who advocate the proposed health care reform legislation are furiously trying to allay the fears of the increasing number of citizens who oppose the bill — but we have only to look at the statements and philosophy of the people supporting this bill to recognize potential dangers. Here are some examples:
— Compassion and Choices (the newest name for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society) 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 (section 1233 of House Bill 3200).”
— On abortion, President Barack Obama not only said “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose” on the January 22, 2009 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but he also moved to rescind the recently strengthened federal conscience-rights protections for doctors and nurses who object to participating in abortion.
— On rationing: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health care advisor, wrote in the January 2009 issue of the British medical journal Lancet about using a “complete lives system” to allocate “scarce medical interventions.” He wrote that, “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” Dr. Emanuel [co-]wrote a 2005 article on the Terri Schiavo case, bemoaning the low percentage of people signing “living wills” and other advance directives and stated, “Cases such as these also introduce economic issues, as the costs of keeping people alive — especially in the ICU — are substantial.”
End-of-Life Issues a Major Concern
Just recently, a judge in Montana, acting alone, declared assisted suicide legal, making Montana the third state with legalized assisted suicide. Last year, cancer patient Barbara Wagner received a letter from the state-run Oregon Health Plan that denied coverage for an expensive drug for her recurrent lung cancer, but agreed to cover drugs for assisted suicide as “palliative” or comfort care that would cost around 50 dollars. This past July, a New York nurse sued her hospital after she allegedly was pressured into participating in a late-term abortion.
Around the country there are instances where judges refuse to allow the implementation of state laws mandating parental notification, women’s right to know information and abortion clinic safety regulations.
Unfortunately, those of us who try to be ethical health-care professionals cannot turn to the mainstream national organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association for help. I’ve been particularly alarmed that the ANA, like Planned Parenthood, is so vocal in its support of the newly proposed health-care-reform legislation.
Like most nurses, I do not belong to the ANA. Though I was formerly a member of ANA, and tried to work for change, I withdrew my membership when the ANA opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. Since then, the ANA has also opposed strengthened conscience clause protections and supported the “right to die” in the Terri Schiavo case.
As a nurse, I believe that not participating in abortion is a moral and natural imperative, not a “choice.” And also as a nurse, I’ve seen the effects of the “right-to-die” movement on health-care providers and their education over the years. Personally, I have become sick of hearing that this or that patient “needs to die” when the patient or family chooses not to withdraw basic care or treatment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of medical people and prominent ethicists who don’t really believe in free choice when it comes to the “right to die” and who actually do think some patients are a drain on the health care system and society. Not surprisingly, many of them also support direct euthanasia.
President Obama said in an April interview, “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”
The present context of the moral and ethical issues makes it particularly worrisome for the proposed health-care-reform legislation’s plan to mandate “end-of-life counseling”.
Mounting concern about what is really involved in the administration’s health care reform proposals has met with unexpected resistance. It’s been amazing to watch the throngs of people of all ages making their voices heard at town hall meetings. I’ve been especially impressed by the older citizens. It seems that seniors who may once have told their children that they didn’t want to ever be a burden have now awakened to the realization that soon government-appointed ethicists may decide when a person is “too burdensome” to be allowed to live.
Some of the criticism of HR 3200 now seems to be finding its mark. Dr. Emanuel, who at first maintained that critics were taking quotes from his writings out of context, now says that his views have “evolved”, and that he no longer supports health care rationing. And Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley now says, regarding the upcoming Senate version of health care reform, “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”
These are hopeful developments — much, much more is necessary. The architects of what is now often termed “Obamacare” are still determined to win passage of a comprehensive health care bill, and pro-abortion groups demand unlimited abortion coverage. Politicians’ continued reassurances are most often mere repackaging of bad ideas. Influential ethicists who support abortion and the “right to die” can be expected to resist opposition as vigorously as ever.
Good Health Care Reform
Of course, we must continue to be serious about making health care better, especially when it comes to the moral and ethical foundation of our health care system. It can be done.
A few years ago, I was privileged to serve on a Catholic Medical Association task force on health care reform. Many great ideas, such as health savings accounts, ways to help the uninsured poor, and better conscience-rights protections, were developed and published in a 2004 report entitled “Health Care in America: A Catholic Proposal for Renewal.” Some of these ideas already have support in Congress.
Many of our bishops have been addressing these crucial issues, as well. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has a health care reform web section to provide information, action alerts, statistics, statements and other resources.
As I write this in August 2009, the future of the government’s proposed reform of health care is still in dispute… What is indisputable is that all citizens need to be informed and especially to be heard on this crucial issue that affects all of us.
In early August, the National Association of Pro-life Nurses, of which I am a member, issued a statement of guiding principles necessary for any ethical health care reform:
Position Statement on Health Care Legislation of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses
Because proposed health-care legislation affects those of us in the nursing profession directly, the National Association of Pro-life Nurses issues the following guidelines to be included in any approved proposal.
• The bill must not include any mandate for abortion
• Abortion funding prohibitions must be included to reflect long-standing bans in place
• State laws regulating abortion must be upheld
• There must be protection of the conscience rights of health care workers, and
• Any plan adopted must include full prenatal and delivery care for all pregnancies.
In addition, we are opposed to mandating end-of-life consultation for anyone regardless of age or condition because of the message it sends that they are no longer of value to society. Such consults place pressure on the individual or guardian to opt for requests for measures to end their lives.
We believe those lives and ALL lives are valuable and to be respected and cared for to the best of our abilities. Care must be provided for any human being in need of care regardless of disability or level of function or dependence on others in accordance with the 1999 Supreme Court decision in the Olmstead v. L. C. Decision.
Adopted by the Board of Directors [on?] August 3, 2009.
Reprinted with permission from Voices online edition,? Vol. XXIV, No. 3, ?Michaelmas 2009, which is published by Women for Faith & Family. Nancy Valko, a registered nurse from St. Louis, is president of Missouri Nurses for Life, a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses and a Voices contributing editor.