Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard spot.

I know the subject of physician-assisted suicide was talked about at great lengths a couple of years ago so this post isn’t about resurrecting the discussion on anyone’s feelings or beliefs about it. This is about being put in a position where you have very little choice in the matter and Health Insurance companies determining that it’s cheaper to kill you instead of prolonging your life.

A question for the legal minds. Wouldn't this type of suicide void any life insurance policy with a suicide clause, even if you were more-or-less forced into it?



A newly released video reveals that health insurance companies, seeking to keep their costs down, now can include assisted suicide as a viable option for the terminally ill when these patients live in a state that has legalized assisted suicide.

On Wednesday, patient advocacy group Patients’ Rights Action Fund (PRAF) is releasing the video in which a physician discusses he is now encountering insurance companies that refuse to reimburse life-saving treatments for terminally ill patients – who live in states in which assisted suicide has become legal – because they can now recommend less expensive lethal drugs for ending the patients’ lives.

The new video features Dr. Brian Callister of Reno, Nevada, who explains that two of his terminally ill patients from neighboring states required life-saving treatments. The internal medicine specialist says that both of his patients live in states in which assisted suicide is legal, and both were denied the therapies they needed to continue to fight their illnesses. The insurance companies instead, however, offered to cover the costs of assisted suicide drugs.

Callister, who notes that neither he nor his patients had expressed interest in assisted suicide to the insurance company, says the fact the practice was legal in those states limited the choices for his patients.

“Quite frankly, I was stunned,” Callister says in the video. “It’s a lot cheaper to grab a couple drugs and kill you than it is to provide you life sustaining therapy.”

“I chose to become a physician because I wanted to make a difference in peoples’ lives,” he asserts.

“With our broken health care system, assisted suicide legislation does not increase the individuals’ autonomy they already have under current law, but rather makes killing oneself the only ‘treatment’ option to which everyone has equal access,” explains J.J. Hanson, president of PRAF and a terminal brain cancer patient, in a statement.

“After a state adopts pro-assisted suicide legislation, insurance companies can deny coverage to patients seeking life saving treatment. It comes down to resources for the insurance companies and government insurance providers,” adds Hanson, a former United States Marine.

Battles continue to wage in various states over the legalization of assisted suicide.

New York State’s highest court heard arguments Tuesday in a case filed by terminally ill individuals who want to receive lethal drugs from their physicians to end their lives.

“We don’t view this as suicide,” said attorney Edwin Schallert, who represents a group known as End of Life Choices New York, reports the Associated Press. “It’s a medically and ethically appropriate treatment … these are people who wanted to live.”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, however, said his office is defending current state law that makes “promoting a suicide attempt” a felony, reports Newsday.

Like abortion proponents, however, assisted suicide advocates see the issue as one of privacy and freedom over one’s body.

“This is a case about mentally competent, terminally ill New Yorkers,” said Kathryn Tucker, executive director of End of Life Choices New York. “They are not making a choice between continuing to live or die. It’s really a privacy-liberty-autonomy argument first.”

In an op-ed at the Buffalo News, Dr. Harvey Berman, who teaches pharmacology and medical ethics at the University at Buffalo, observes End of Life activists claim physician-assisted suicide deaths will always remain few in number. Berman adds they dismiss “slippery slope arguments” as they cite regulations and protections for the vulnerable disabled and elderly.

“This assertion ignores data from Oregon showing that the number of deaths from physician-assisted suicide has grown more than eight-fold since it was introduced in 1997,” Berman writes, continuing:

Such growth in assisted suicide prompts a related concern of “suicide contagion,” the idea that assistance with death comes to be seen as a medically ordinary and routine therapeutic option.

…

Over the past 30 years, since it was legalized in the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia has devolved from assisted death only for the terminally ill to include those who are chronically ill, from those with physical illness to those with psychological illness, from adults to children, and ultimately to those who are simply “tired of living.”

“The bizarre notion of a right to die – a right that everyone will eventually exercise – will be seen by tired, confused and pressured patients as a ‘duty to die,’” Berman concludes.

End of Life Choices New York is opposed by the New York State Catholic Conference and “Not Dead Yet,” a group of disability activists.

As Newsday reports, the Catholic Conference refers to assisted suicide advocates’ preference for the phrase “aid in dying” – as opposed to “assisted suicide” – as “verbal engineering.”

Colorado, Washington, Vermont, California, Oregon, Montana, and the District of Columbia have passed assisted suicide laws that allow patients to request lethal drugs from their physicians.

President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget, however, could prohibit Washington, D.C. from using its taxpayer dollars to implement the assisted suicide law, if passed by the House and Senate.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...inally-ill-patients/

If your advance directive says so too, why not once you get to the condition you Drs and medical decider enter the picture.

After "assisted suicide" comes "enforced suicide."

quote:

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket:
After "assisted suicide" comes "enforced suicide."

That's certainly a stretch.

In general the suicide clause in life insurance is usually two years. After that it no longer applies. Obviously, a policy can have exceptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket:
After "assisted suicide" comes "enforced suicide."

National Review has published a number of articles about "enforced suicide" in Holland.

Soylent Green is People!!!!

Of course they support it, it's cheaper for them than having to help pay to keep someone alive. Hospice and Hospitals are expensive, and charged by the day, every day costs more, and they probably found that it's still cheaper for them even if they pay the Life Insurance claims that would otherwise be disqualified by a suicide clause, at least within a range...

Of course this concept doesn't just apply to suicide, but to all of Healthcare.

As soon as some authority starts figuring out how to make it more "cost effective", the inescapable logical direction is to simply provide nothing and let people get sick and die.

For everyone to get tested for certain rare diseases is not "cost effective", because the tests cost money and almost nobody has it. But if YOU (or a loved one) are the one who has it, and it will save your life, then you would be perfectly willing to shell out the money for the test. You would probably also be willing to pay for extra insurance for its prevention and care JUST IN CASE your family has it.

But then "rich people" would be getting "better healthcare" again, and that would be "inequality" and therefore unfair.

quote:

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket:
After "assisted suicide" comes "enforced suicide."

I think this is pretty much inevitable. I do not like the idea of insurance companies floating this around at all. Nothing good can come of it.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Of course they support it, it's cheaper for them than having to help pay to keep someone alive. Hospice and Hospitals are expensive, and charged by the day, every day costs more, and they probably found that it's still cheaper for them even if they pay the Life Insurance claims that would otherwise be disqualified by a suicide clause, at least within a range...

We're most likely talking about two different insurance groups. The earlier that the Health insurance company can get rid of you, the more money they save. Life insurance companies want to keep you alive forever, as long as you're paying your premiums.

quote:

Of course this concept doesn't just apply to suicide, but to all of Healthcare.

As soon as some authority starts figuring out how to make it more "cost effective", the inescapable logical direction is to simply provide nothing and let people get sick and die.

Every country that goes down the path of socialism has to face this. It's inevitable. Once you accept the "right" to healthcare, and that it is to be provided by government, rationing becomes the only way to allocate scarce resources.

Socialism kills. Every time it's tried.

What did folks do before health insurance, and advances in medical care?

You can always pay for treatments yourself, if there are any. Who needs insurance?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What did folks do before health insurance, and advances in medical care?

You can always pay for treatments yourself, if there are any. Who needs insurance?

In a single payer system (where we are headed), it would be illegal to procure care outside of the system.

As chellim correctly pointed out above, it is inevitable that 'enforced suicide' will be mandatory. Whether it's directly taking action to end life or whether it's simply withholding care, there is no other option when healthcare becomes a 'right' and is provided by the .gov. Making any commodity or service 'free' creates unlimited demand that can only be controlled by rationing. Econ 101 - not up for debate, it's just reality that has been confirmed throughout history.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What did folks do before health insurance, and advances in medical care?
You can always pay for treatments yourself, if there are any. Who needs insurance?

In many ways we were better off when the doctor was paid out of pocket.

Who needs insurance?
I look at it as bankruptcy protection. If I'm in a severe accident, someone will probably take me to a hospital. At that point I won't be in a position to shop for my best deal.
If the cost of treatment is a lot of money, I want to know I'm not going to lose my house and whatever assets I might want to protect.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What did folks do before health insurance, and advances in medical care?

You can always pay for treatments yourself, if there are any. Who needs insurance?

In a single payer system (where we are headed), it would be illegal to procure care outside of the system.

As chellim correctly pointed out above, it is inevitable that 'enforced suicide' will be mandatory. Whether it's directly taking action to end life or whether it's simply withholding care, there is no other option when healthcare becomes a 'right' and is provided by the .gov. Making any commodity or service 'free' creates unlimited demand that can only be controlled by rationing. Econ 101 - not up for debate, it's just reality that has been confirmed throughout history.

Maybe, but that isn't the case now, and many seem to oppose single payer.

It didn't take very long for the doomsayers to appear here, did it?

But this one ticks all the boxes for those who are gleefully rubbing their hands in their zeal to be the first to predict the fall of mankind.

I guess we may as well fund the euthanasia kiosks and vans. It is inevitable, after all. What uniforms do you suggest for the euthanasia techs? Bright and cheery to comfort the no-longer-useful in their final moments? Somber and drab?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
It didn't take very long for the doomsayers to appear here, did it?

But this one ticks all the boxes for those who are gleefully rubbing their hands in their zeal to be the first to predict the fall of mankind.

I guess we may as well fund the euthanasia kiosks and vans. It is inevitable, after all.

Just curious, who predicted the fall of mankind in this thread?

I re-read it and it appears to be a discussion of health insurance and what insurance companies are recommending.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket:
After "assisted suicide" comes "enforced suicide."

That's certainly a stretch.

From the story (and not very far down either): On Wednesday, patient advocacy group Patients’ Rights Action Fund (PRAF) is releasing the video in which a physician discusses he is now encountering insurance companies that refuse to reimburse life-saving treatments for terminally ill patients – who live in states in which assisted suicide has become legal – because they can now recommend less expensive lethal drugs for ending the patients’ lives.



The way I am reading this is in fact a forced suicide because the insurance company refuses to pay for the more expensive drug because a cheaper alternative is available. For me, I believe that we should have choices, but when someone is in a position to force your hand, then we should draw a line.