An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« VJ Day and Death Panels

Sabato’s Crystal Ball: Tweets of the Week »

A Question About Health Privacy

Posted by JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor in Society.
Aug 14th, 2009 | Comments

Over at Feminist Law Professors, David S. Cohen makes a pretty good point:

[W]hat’s really getting me up in arms about this whole [healthcare bill] debate (if you want to call it that) is the argument the Republicans are making about health privacy. Let’s take Chuck Grassley (who voted for “death panels” in 2003!) and his recent comment: “You ought to plan these things out. And I don’t have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.” So he’s not opposed to end of life planning, just the government being part of it. Sarah Palin made essentially the same argument in her infamous Facebook post from two weeks ago. And the protesters at town halls have been saying the same thing, as have right-wing commentators.

So, in other words, what they’re saying is: keep the government out of our private health care decisions. Let’s put aside the issue that the proposed bill isn’t making anything mandatory, but rather saying that such end-of-life counseling, if a patient wants it, will be covered by the insurance program. What I want to focus on is the comparison with abortion.

What’s a major part of the Republican platform about abortion? Abusive informed consent provisions that mandate that women who choose to have an abortion have extensive discussions with their doctors about the procedure that go way above and beyond the regular informed consent discussion that occurs before any medical procedure. These “informed consent” sessions include all sorts of biased pro-life counseling. After all, as the Casey joint opinion stressed, the government is allowed to put its thumb on the scale favoring choosing against abortion. And it can do so, as Republicans are more than happy to advocate for, by mandating that these private health care decisions take place with the government as a major player who pushes women to make a particular choice — not to have an abortion.

I left out as much of the incendiary rhetoric as I could. Still, I’m guessing a good number of TMV readers disagree. Would you tell us all why?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

adelinesdad

According to the pro-life position, the decision to abort ends the life of another person. That's what makes it different.

Almoderate

Well, it pretty much said what is true... That the counseling isn't mandatory. It's just covered should the patient wish to have such a session with their doctor. The doctor doesn't even have to offer it. That has been cleared up by Fact Check a couple of times, but I've seen folks repeating the false claims about privacy.

But I suppose it's a moot point since it got taken out. I think it's a rather nice thing to offer in terms of coverage-- certainly not something I typically see covered now-- and I'm hoping it gets added back in with some better language.

DaGoat

This is end-of-life counseling, not euthanasia counseling. The comparison with abortion is not appropriate. If the government decided to cover euthanasia counseling I would guess the reaction would be similar to the abortion debate, ie many people would see the procedure itself as unethical.

adelinesdad

Just so my position is clear, I have no problem with optional end-of-life counseling being covered. But the post presented a hypothetical wherein it was not optional, such as it is for abortion counseling. However, the difference, from a pro-life perspective, is obvious. I find it hard to believe that the author truly doesn't see the difference, as if it is an agreed upon fact that a fetus is not a life worth advocating for, and therefore the only thing to be considered is whether the choice of the mother should be restricted. If this isn't circular reasoning, I don't know what is.

blog comments powered by Disqus