J.D. Mullane’s column in the Bucks County Courier-Times has been promulgating the latest bit of right-wing, anti-health-care-reform propaganda, namely that the current House Bill promotes “suicide for seniors.” He calls Section 1233 of the proposed legislation the “Angel of Death” clause, claiming that it mandates that senior citizens will be denied “pricey” medical treatments under any government run health care program. Of course, this nonsense–which is widely circulating in GOP circles and has cropped up on “conservative” news programs–is totally false; and it is designed solely to scare senior citizens into opposing reform.
In fact, Section 1233 of the proposed House Health Care Reform Bill does only one thing: it authorizes Medicare to pay for an “Advance Care Planning Consultation” between a patient and the doctor of his or her choice once every 5 years. Such a conference is entirely voluntary; and its purpose is to ascertain the patient’s wishes as to the treatment the patient wants if he or she is comatose or unable to communicate with relatives or medical providers, e.g., the Terry Schiavo situation. At such a “Consultation,” the patient is to be advised of his or her right to have a Living Will, a health care power of attorney or other written instructions which would become part of the patient’s medical records and insure that treatment is in accordance with the patient’s own wishes. Contrary to the “suicide” screamers, the language of Section 1233 (or “Page 425″ as it referred to in some of propaganda e-mails) does not in any way require the patient to adopt a Living Will, or to choose to “pull the plug” in the event of brain death. As I pointed out to Mr. Mullane, under this Bill, the patient could just as easily specify that he or she wanted to continue life support no matter what–so it could become an “Angel of Life” clause for those that want that outcome.
Moreover, Section 1233 of the proposed act says absolutely nothing about denying medical care to seniors because of cost (or any other reason other than a patient’s choice in a Living Will). That is a claim invented by anti-reform zealots, led by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons–an organization that opposed Medicare and attacks any and all forms of government provided health care. However, the issue of cost of senior care has arisen in a different context, not from the health care legislation being debated in Congress, but from recent medical studies published in professional journals. For example, several studies have shown that coronary by-pass surgery–one of the most common major surgeries in the US–does not extend patient lives, and in the case of seniors, may shorten life (due to the deaths and complications from surgery which by-pass operations entail for the elderly). Similarly, some major studies on prostate cancer treatments have established that the currently available treatments, like radiation, chemotherapy and prostate removal, are probably unnecessary for men over 60 because they are more likely to die from other causes before the slow-growing prostate cancer can kill them. Since prostate surgery has serious and frequent side effects–like incontinence, impotence and perpetual pain–this is information that men need to have before agreeing to surgery.
The House bill does not, as its opponents claim, mandate that senior citizens even get current information on the efficacy of expensive drug and surgical treatments, as compared with other alternatives which might provide a better quality of life without sacrificing the potential for maintaining the patient’s life. This is something that should be added to the reform legislation as patients should be provided with all alternatives before agreeing to some treatment plan which could kill them or destroy their ability to enjoy their last years. So rather than mandating that seniors be denied any treatment on “price” grounds, the real hole in the current bill is that it does not do enough to promote “evidence-based” medicine, by giving patients the results of recent studies which would affect their free choice of treatments.