By Jessica Sage and Denise Burke
As Americans continue to debate proposals to reform the nation’s health care system, it is becoming increasingly clear that rationed healthcare is not just a concern for the elderly. Recently, under Britain’s government-run health care system, doctors denied a premature baby necessary care and the child’s bereaved mother blames the National Health Service (NHS). Specifically, the mother was told that her son who was born a few days shy of 22-weeks was too premature and that national guidelines prevented his treatment.
Notably, the national guidelines at issue are not mandatory, but, in practice, effectively guide the decisions of NHS doctors. Specifically, the guidelines (from the Nuffield Commission) recommend “intensive care should not be given to these babies [at less than 22 weeks development],” because it is extremely rare for a baby at that stage of development to survive and, if the baby does survive, he or she may suffer from a variety of disabilities and medical problems. In sum, the guidelines view any effort to care for a premature infant as not cost effective.
As the American public debates the inclusion of a public (or government) option in any health care reform package, NHS’s abject failure to care for premature infants gives us yet another example of how government-run healthcare all too often does not protect or respect life.
When the government is the source of funding for health care, rationing is inevitable. In an article on “Death Panels,” Will Wilkinson writes, “We’ve already got government rationing under Medicare and, frankly, the government is way too soft about it.” He goes on to say, “We’ve known that Medicare is unsustainable for a long time now. People flipping their lids about death panels and about government-funded doctors trying to sell seniors on suicide should have been flipping their lids years ago.”
Clearly, it is not too late to “flip our lids.” Medicare is not the standard of care we want. Nor do we want limited government funding becoming the reason that life-sustaining or life-saving care is denied. If the government—as a potential insurance provider—establishes guidelines dictating what is and what is not “futile care” and what lives are and are not worthy of treatment, it will direct doctors’ decisions and even override their medical judgment.
Ultimate government health care guidelines may not be cast as mandatory and doctors’ decisions may not be initially dictated by them, but—as experienced in Britain—an anti-life attitude eventually creeps into the system. This attitude professes that “hard choices” have to be made and government-run health care makes politicians and faceless bureaucrats the arbiters of what lives are valuable and thus cost effective to treat.
Government-run healthcare will inevitably lead to rationed health care affecting the young, the old, the disabled, and the vulnerable. It is the wrong choice for Americans.
Steven Ertelt, British Doctors Let Premature Baby Born at 22Weeks Die, NHS Blamed for Death (Sept 9, 2009) available at http://www.lifenews.com/int1317.html.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Independent ethics body proposes week-by- guidelines on treating premature babies (Nov 15, 2009) available at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/neonatal/pressrelease_405.html
Will Wilkinson, Death panels: Wrong name, right idea (Aug 26, 2009) available at
http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/99886/Death_panels_Wrong_name_right_idea
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I was talking to my friend from England about having teeth work done and how much it would cost me and was amazed when she told me that she was having the same work done for about 200 pound and the rest would be covered by the government.
Rationed health care can kill you, but having no health care can kill you even faster. Most Americans don’t have health care insurance and would most certainly welcome some help from the government.