Euthanasia

flenser

New Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
Holy shit, don't retire in Belgium!

Belgian GPs 'killing patients who have not asked to die': Report says thousands have been killed despite not asking their doctor

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-despite-not-asking-doctor.html#ixzz3crVRmJZE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Thousands of elderly people have been killed by their own GPs without ever asking to die under Belgium’s euthanasia laws, an academic report said yesterday.

It said that around one in every 60 deaths of a patient under GP care involves someone who has not requested euthanasia.

Half of the patients killed without giving their consent were over the age of 80, the study found, and two thirds of them were in hospital and were not suffering from a terminal disease such as cancer.

In about four out of five of the cases, the death was not discussed with patients subjected to ‘involuntary euthanasia’ because they were either in a coma, they were diagnosed with dementia, or because doctors decided it would not be in their best interests to discuss the matter with them.

Very often doctors would not inform the families of plans to lethally inject a relation because they considered it a medical decision to be made by themselves alone, the report published by the Journal of Medical Ethics said.

The report raised new questions over Belgium’s increasingly controversial 13-year-old euthanasia law, which has won wide acceptance from the medical establishment, and which now allows even children to be killed by doctors.

Report author Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor of Hull University said: ‘The decision as to which life is no longer worth living is not in the hands of the patient but in the hands of the doctor.’

‘It should also be noted that deliberately ending the lives of patients without their request is taking place in Belgium more than in all other countries that document such practices, including the Netherlands.

‘It is worrying that some physicians take upon themselves the responsibility to deliberately shorten patients’ lives without a clear indication from the patients that this is what they would want.’

The Israeli-born politics and philosophy professor added: ‘The Belgian population should be aware of the present situation and know that if their lives may come to the point where physicians think they are not worth living, in the absence of specific living wills advising physicians what to do then, they might be put to death.’

Belgium’s Euthanasia Act restricts the practice of mercy killing to adults and ‘emancipated children’ who are suffering unbearably and who are able to consent. It remains officially illegal for doctors to kill patients who have not given their consent to death.

The study found, however, that many GPs are killing their patients without consent and that lack of consent may be more common than officially-approved deaths.

‘Given that ending patients’ lives without request is more common than euthanasia, it is suggested to urge the Belgian medical profession to put this issue high on its agenda,’ Professor Cohen-Almagor said.


The study was published after Rob Marris, Labour MP for Wolverhampton South West, announced that in September he will introduce a Private Member’s Bill into the House of Commons to legalise assisted suicide.

There have been a series of attempts in the courts and in Parliament to overthrow the assisted suicide laws which in Britain mean anyone who helps someone else to die faces a maximum 14 years in jail.

Former Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, now a Labour MP, brought in prosecutions rules which mean no-one is likely to be charged with assisting a suicide unless they acted out of greed or malice, and Tony Blair’s former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer introduced an assisted suicide bill into the Lords. This would have allowed two doctors to kill a terminally ill patient who asked to die.

Supreme Court judges have held back from legalising assisted suicide but their rulings have piled pressure on Parliament to consider a new law.

Opponents of assisted suicide said that the Belgian use of euthanasia showed that an assisted suicide law would be a slippery slope towards medical killing.

Lord Carlile of Berriew, the Liberal Democrat peer who sat on the parliamentary committee that advised against the legalisation of euthanasia in the UK a decade ago, said: ‘I am horrified by it.

‘What it demonstrates, if the facts underlying it are correct, is that in Belgium, and elsewhere, so-called euthanasia is being carried out without controls and it underlines why I am opposed to the Bill which Rob Marris is going to put to the House of Commons,’ he said.

‘The safeguards which are being provided under his Bill are completely inadequate.’

Fiona Bruce, Tory MP for Congleton and the chairman of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, said: ‘The situation in Belgium is a stark warning that in this country we should not go down the road of legalising assisted suicide.

'Where does that road end? Whatever safeguards those proposing this suggest can never be enough to protect our frail, elderly, vulnerable or disabled from the risk of feeling an unwanted burden or, worse still, from abuse.

‘Doctors enter the medical profession to be protectors not destroyers of life. This Bill could utterly change the doctor-patient relationship, with vulnerable patients living in fear of a lethal injection from their doctor.’
 
"However, patients who have less than a year to live or who suffer "severe irreversible cognitive impairment" will not be eligible for treatment."

VA to outsource care for 180,000 vets with hepatitis C

Dennis Wagner, The Arizona Republic
June 21, 2015

PHOENIX — The Department of Veterans Affairs is moving to outsource care nationwide for up to 180,000 veterans who have hepatitis C, a serious blood and liver condition treated with expensive new drugs that are costing the government billions of dollars.

The VA has spent weeks developing a dramatic and controversial transition as patient loads have surged and funding has run out. Those efforts were not disclosed until records were released this week to The Arizona Republic.

Instructions on how to carry out the program show that the sickest veterans generally will get top priority for treatment. However, patients who have less than a year to live or who suffer "severe irreversible cognitive impairment" will not be eligible for treatment.

That provision, and the mass shifting of patients, drew immediate criticism from veterans advocates.

Tom Berger, executive director of a health council established by Vietnam Veterans of America, ripped the VA for launching a "faulty plan" and blasted the idea of medical teams deciding which patients will be denied antiviral remedies.

"They've set up what I would call, in Sarah Palin's words, 'death panels.' ... Maybe rationalization panels is a better term," Berger said.

The maneuver also caused a furor among experts inside the Veterans Health Administration, some of whom disassociated themselves from the plan and warned about ethical compromises. According to emails obtained by The Republic, about 200 specialists sent a letter in April to Secretary Robert McDonald expressing their "dismay at this unacceptable development."

"To halt hepatitis C treatment at VHA facilities now would be unconscionable," they wrote. "We can and must end the epidemic. Once we have treated every veteran with hepatitis C, the costs will go away. ... Give us the ammunition, and we will win this war."

HCV FUNDING RUNS OUT

The transition plan for so-called HCV patients was developed in a working group chaired by Kenneth Berkowitz, acting executive director of VHA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. In an April email, he told colleagues they needed to develop an "ethical framework" in anticipation of a complete depletion of funds for drugs. "A fair and transparent plan that can be consistently applied is better than having no plan," he wrote.

The shift to private providers through the VA's Choice Plan enables the VHA to pay for HCV with bailout money from the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, a $16.3 billion funding and reform measure passed last year. About $10 billion of that money was earmarked for private care, but the Choice Plan has been so lightly used that it remains untapped. The money was intended to ease the backlog of veteran appointments for health care.

Emails show Dr. David Ross, the VA's director of HIV, HCV and public-health pathogens programs, resigned from the working group. "I cannot in good conscience continue to work on a plan for rationing care to veterans," he wrote.

In a separate email to top VA officials, Ross wrote, "There is no doubt in my mind that exclusively relying on Choice, rather than seeking supplemental funding, will be a disaster for patients, providers and VA."

VHA administrators concede they implemented the plan without a cost-benefit analysis or studies on provider availability and patient impacts. Records indicate only eight HCV veterans received antiviral therapy through the Choice Program from August 2014 through May 31, while more than 16,000 were getting treatment in VA medical centers.

The VA had set aside nearly $700 million this year for HCV antiviral drugs. In documents and a written statement, department officials confirmed soaring patient loads and medication expenses have nearly wiped out that budget with several months to go in the federal fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's an estimated $400 million shortfall with more dramatic costs expected, beginning in October.

A VA clinician who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation stressed that department leaders "haven't told anybody how it works. They've sent out a solution with no way to implement it."

The clinician added that VA leaders were warned months ago that pharmaceutical funds were being wiped out, but they did nothing until the decision to move patients into a community-care program that has been underutilized and heavily criticized.

"It's not working now, and you're expanding it? ... I'm like nauseous over this."

In an official statement on the hepatitis dilemma, VHA officials said they remain "committed to ensuring America's veterans have access to the health care and benefits they have earned and deserve." They stressed that "no patients on current therapy will be stopped," but declined to clarify how many patients are being moved to private providers or how many will not be eligible for cure.

DEMAND FOR TREATMENT SOARS

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that attacks the liver. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3 million Americans are infected, though many have not been diagnosed. The virus is most commonly transmitted through hypodermic needles shared by narcotic-drug users, and before blood-screening improved in 1992, it spread dramatically via transfusions. It also may be transmitted by sexual contact.

The disease is considered epidemic among Vietnam-era veterans due to transfusions and blood contact in combat or training. More than 60% test positive, while one in 10 veterans overall has the infection — a rate five times higher than the general population. Last year, about 3,000 veterans died in VA care as a result of HCV infection, according to internal records.

Hepatitis C patients today are treated with a breakthrough medication, sofosbuvir, approved in late 2013 under the brand names Sovaldi and later as Harvoni. In combination with other drugs, sofosbuvir cures the HCV infection in about nine of 10 patients while reducing risks of cirrhosis and liver cancer.

However, the pills reportedly cost about $1,000 each retail, or $600 per dose to the VA at a discount. A typical treatment regimen of 12 to 24 weeks costs $50,000 to $100,000. The price tag to serve VA patients could exceed $10 billion.

Despite the cost and controversy, sofosbuvir is widely regarded as a modern medical victory: Records show the VA has cured nearly as many HCV patients in the past 15 months as during the previous 15 years. Healed patients not only mean fewer deaths but reduced medical costs over the long haul.

In the short term, however, success has spawned a six-fold increase in demand for treatment by veterans, creating a huge funding gap.

The drug is so critical to care, and the expense so high, that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., former chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and a Democratic presidential candidate, during a recent hearing urged the VA secretary to break the patent due to the manufacturer's "excessive profits."

Sovaldi and Harvoni are manufactured by Gilead Sciences Inc., which made $22.8 billion on antiviral sales during 2014, according to the California company's annual earnings report.

In a written statement, Gilead said high prices reflect the "innovation of the medicines" and are comparable to other antiviral drugs. The statement emphasized that Gilead offers discount rates for government health programs and assistance for patients in financial need.

VA TURNS TO CHOICE PROGRAM

During a hearing last month of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Deputy VA Secretary Sloan Gibson pleaded with lawmakers for "additional flexibility" to use Choice Program funds to pay for the hepatitis remedy.

There was no official action by Congress. But, a week later, on May 21, Undersecretary for Health James Tuchschmidt issued national orders to begin shifting HCV patients out of VA care "effective immediately."

Instructions accompanying that internal directive stressed the process should be "ongoing and transparent," but it was not publicized outside the agency.

Patients already receiving the antiviral therapy in veterans' facilities will continue. The remainder will be contacted by their VA doctors, told of the Choice Program and evaluated to determine whether they meet eligibility for treatment.

Decisions on who will be first in line for treatment, and who will be denied the cure, are to be made by teams at Veterans Integrated Service Networks, regional offices also known as VISNs.

According to directives, those panels must follow strict protocols "to avoid decision-making that is based on real or perceived conflicts of interest, preferential treatment or nepotism." An appeals process also is being devised for veterans who are denied the medication.

The VA has set up a detailed priority system to determine which patients get the HCV cure first, and which are not eligible. Veterans already receiving antiviral drugs are the No. 1 priority, followed by those with severe conditions such as cirrhosis of the liver, compromised immune systems or B-cell lymphoma.

Patients with a prognosis of living less than 12 months will not be eligible for the drugs. Veterans in a vegetative state or with advanced dementia also are excluded, along with those who have hepatitis C strains resistant to antiviral therapy.

The instructions note that, "based on the principles of equity and human dignity," ineligible patients "should be provided all other appropriate medical care and support."

The VA clinician knowledgeable about the new program said it is not clear whether the patient transfer to the Choice Plan is legal.
 
The VA is still an utter shithole for healthcare. It is not a redeemable situation in my opinion.

The posterchild for government run programs.

Zero accountability, zero attention to patients, zero fucks given.

The only thin the VA ever did for me or my dad was give him a place to go to die.

They even did that poorly.
 
"However, patients who have less than a year to live or who suffer "severe irreversible cognitive impairment" will not be eligible for treatment."

VA to outsource care for 180,000 vets with hepatitis C

Dennis Wagner, The Arizona Republic
June 21, 2015

PHOENIX — The Department of Veterans Affairs is moving to outsource care nationwide for up to 180,000 veterans who have hepatitis C, a serious blood and liver condition treated with expensive new drugs that are costing the government billions of dollars.

The VA has spent weeks developing a dramatic and controversial transition as patient loads have surged and funding has run out. Those efforts were not disclosed until records were released this week to The Arizona Republic.

Instructions on how to carry out the program show that the sickest veterans generally will get top priority for treatment. However, patients who have less than a year to live or who suffer "severe irreversible cognitive impairment" will not be eligible for treatment.

That provision, and the mass shifting of patients, drew immediate criticism from veterans advocates.

Tom Berger, executive director of a health council established by Vietnam Veterans of America, ripped the VA for launching a "faulty plan" and blasted the idea of medical teams deciding which patients will be denied antiviral remedies.

"They've set up what I would call, in Sarah Palin's words, 'death panels.' ... Maybe rationalization panels is a better term," Berger said.

The maneuver also caused a furor among experts inside the Veterans Health Administration, some of whom disassociated themselves from the plan and warned about ethical compromises. According to emails obtained by The Republic, about 200 specialists sent a letter in April to Secretary Robert McDonald expressing their "dismay at this unacceptable development."

"To halt hepatitis C treatment at VHA facilities now would be unconscionable," they wrote. "We can and must end the epidemic. Once we have treated every veteran with hepatitis C, the costs will go away. ... Give us the ammunition, and we will win this war."

HCV FUNDING RUNS OUT

The transition plan for so-called HCV patients was developed in a working group chaired by Kenneth Berkowitz, acting executive director of VHA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. In an April email, he told colleagues they needed to develop an "ethical framework" in anticipation of a complete depletion of funds for drugs. "A fair and transparent plan that can be consistently applied is better than having no plan," he wrote.

The shift to private providers through the VA's Choice Plan enables the VHA to pay for HCV with bailout money from the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, a $16.3 billion funding and reform measure passed last year. About $10 billion of that money was earmarked for private care, but the Choice Plan has been so lightly used that it remains untapped. The money was intended to ease the backlog of veteran appointments for health care.

Emails show Dr. David Ross, the VA's director of HIV, HCV and public-health pathogens programs, resigned from the working group. "I cannot in good conscience continue to work on a plan for rationing care to veterans," he wrote.

In a separate email to top VA officials, Ross wrote, "There is no doubt in my mind that exclusively relying on Choice, rather than seeking supplemental funding, will be a disaster for patients, providers and VA."

VHA administrators concede they implemented the plan without a cost-benefit analysis or studies on provider availability and patient impacts. Records indicate only eight HCV veterans received antiviral therapy through the Choice Program from August 2014 through May 31, while more than 16,000 were getting treatment in VA medical centers.

The VA had set aside nearly $700 million this year for HCV antiviral drugs. In documents and a written statement, department officials confirmed soaring patient loads and medication expenses have nearly wiped out that budget with several months to go in the federal fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's an estimated $400 million shortfall with more dramatic costs expected, beginning in October.

A VA clinician who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation stressed that department leaders "haven't told anybody how it works. They've sent out a solution with no way to implement it."

The clinician added that VA leaders were warned months ago that pharmaceutical funds were being wiped out, but they did nothing until the decision to move patients into a community-care program that has been underutilized and heavily criticized.

"It's not working now, and you're expanding it? ... I'm like nauseous over this."

In an official statement on the hepatitis dilemma, VHA officials said they remain "committed to ensuring America's veterans have access to the health care and benefits they have earned and deserve." They stressed that "no patients on current therapy will be stopped," but declined to clarify how many patients are being moved to private providers or how many will not be eligible for cure.

DEMAND FOR TREATMENT SOARS

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that attacks the liver. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3 million Americans are infected, though many have not been diagnosed. The virus is most commonly transmitted through hypodermic needles shared by narcotic-drug users, and before blood-screening improved in 1992, it spread dramatically via transfusions. It also may be transmitted by sexual contact.

The disease is considered epidemic among Vietnam-era veterans due to transfusions and blood contact in combat or training. More than 60% test positive, while one in 10 veterans overall has the infection — a rate five times higher than the general population. Last year, about 3,000 veterans died in VA care as a result of HCV infection, according to internal records.

Hepatitis C patients today are treated with a breakthrough medication, sofosbuvir, approved in late 2013 under the brand names Sovaldi and later as Harvoni. In combination with other drugs, sofosbuvir cures the HCV infection in about nine of 10 patients while reducing risks of cirrhosis and liver cancer.

However, the pills reportedly cost about $1,000 each retail, or $600 per dose to the VA at a discount. A typical treatment regimen of 12 to 24 weeks costs $50,000 to $100,000. The price tag to serve VA patients could exceed $10 billion.

Despite the cost and controversy, sofosbuvir is widely regarded as a modern medical victory: Records show the VA has cured nearly as many HCV patients in the past 15 months as during the previous 15 years. Healed patients not only mean fewer deaths but reduced medical costs over the long haul.

In the short term, however, success has spawned a six-fold increase in demand for treatment by veterans, creating a huge funding gap.

The drug is so critical to care, and the expense so high, that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., former chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and a Democratic presidential candidate, during a recent hearing urged the VA secretary to break the patent due to the manufacturer's "excessive profits."

Sovaldi and Harvoni are manufactured by Gilead Sciences Inc., which made $22.8 billion on antiviral sales during 2014, according to the California company's annual earnings report.

In a written statement, Gilead said high prices reflect the "innovation of the medicines" and are comparable to other antiviral drugs. The statement emphasized that Gilead offers discount rates for government health programs and assistance for patients in financial need.

The government should deem the drug too important and pay the manufacturers a set profit and take the patent. Actually, healthcare should be a right and the U.S. Should have single payer. A hybrid system that encourages medical advancements, while limited the outrageous profits that both balloon our national debt and cause unwarranted deaths. The governments in Europe use such a system and they are better off for it. But first we need to get money out of politics.
 
The government should deem the drug too important and pay the manufacturers a set profit and take the patent. Actually, healthcare should be a right and the U.S. Should have single payer. A hybrid system that encourages medical advancements, while limited the outrageous profits that both balloon our national debt and cause unwarranted deaths. The governments in Europe use such a system and they are better off for it. But first we need to get money out of politics.
How can products and services provided by other humans be a right? Does the government own the doctors, or do they own themselves?
 
How can products and services provided by other humans be a right? Does the government own the doctors, or do they own themselves?

You have a constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. But if we looked at it like that, then the police shouldn't have to help you, fire department shouldn't have to put out your fire, worker laws shouldn't exist, minorities shouldn't have the rights to be served in any establishment, etc. There are countless services that we have rights to that the government doesn't own. When the service provided greatly impacts public health, it's a no brainier. The ability to have quality healthcare should never be contingent on the ability to pay. We've created a system where it's profitable to keep people unhealthy. What do you think that system produces?
 
You have a constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. But if we looked at it like that, then the police shouldn't have to help you, fire department shouldn't have to put out your fire, worker laws shouldn't exist, minorities shouldn't have the rights to be served in any establishment, etc. There are countless services that we have rights to that the government doesn't own. When the service provided greatly impacts public health, it's a no brainier. The ability to have quality healthcare should never be contingent on the ability to pay. We've created a system where it's profitable to keep people unhealthy. What do you think that system produces?
The ability to possess anything is ALWAYS contingent on the ability to pay.
 
How can products and services provided by other humans be a right?

Obviously the government will need to enforce the manufacture of the goods through forced labor. Probably in some sort of slave camp. We have a "right" to other peoples efforts damn it!
 
If you think police have to help you, you haven't had occasion to interact with enough police.

QUOTE="grey, post: 1366375, member: 73879"]Obviously the government will need to enforce the manufacture of the goods through forced labor. Probably in some sort of slave camp. We have a "right" to other peoples efforts damn it![/QUOTE]

Ok, do I have to nuance it. The police are "supposed to" help, but many people are bad at their jobs. The government already does this, but it isn't slave labor, actually they are paid better with larger benefits. Many times the

government has taken over the private sector businesses for the common good of everyone. General Motors is one recent example. The auto industry was about to crash the entire economy, and damage the world economy too. During WWII the gov took over manufacturing all over to make weapons of war. Of course now we contract, and those companies use their large stock piles of cash to lobby for aggressive foreign policy, in other words, war. There are many industries that should be deemed too vital to the public wellbeing to be in the private sector. Not to mention the government invents, or pays to have evened much of the tech that is drawing in big cash. The Internet, railroad, etc. Healthcare shouldn't be a for profit institution, all it does it drive up cost. And the national debt is growing. In socialist nation, where government caps the amount a medical company can charge, they pay a fraction of the cost we in the U.S. Pay for the same care.

The ability to possess anything is ALWAYS contingent on the ability to pay.

Not always, many services have been too important to be contingent on ability to pay. In fact, Healthcare for most part isn't. Hospitals can't turn a sick person down. However, under current system the government is left footing the bill, and those who can pay. While a few companies are stockpiling money, the entire system teeters because of it. It can be done much better, for far cheaper. That has been proven time and time again.

The police is a service that isn't contingent on ability to pay. Roads are too. Fire. Public works. Most bridges. Most garbage disposal. Wellfare is built off free services. Some things have been already deemed too vital.
 
Not always, many services have been too important to be contingent on ability to pay. In fact, Healthcare for most part isn't. Hospitals can't turn a sick person down. However, under current system the government is left footing the bill, and those who can pay. While a few companies are stockpiling money, the entire system teeters because of it. It can be done much better, for far cheaper. That has been proven time and time again.

The police is a service that isn't contingent on ability to pay. Roads are too. Fire. Public works. Most bridges. Most garbage disposal. Wellfare is built off free services. Some things have been already deemed too vital.

You think no one pays for those "vital" services? You're delusional. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
And BTW, happy 50th birthday Medicare and Medicaid, respectively the first and third most expensive government programs on the planet. SS is second.
 
General Motors is one recent example.

You are under the impression that the US government manages GM's business? Or managed them during the bailout?


You might want to look things up prior to citing them as examples of your supposed ideal.
 
The same as the Japanese prime minister that said to old people to die quick because theu are expensive.. :D


"Pain is temporary, Pride is forever»
 
Back
Top