Mark Souder’s Euthanasia Lie Debunked
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 8/1/09 @ 12:15 am - Filed Under National Politics
There seems to be some lingering questions regarding Souder’s statement about the House health care bill promoting euthanasia. So let’s see if we can get to the bottom of this shall we?
First some context. This claim that the House’s health care bill somehow would somehow counsel people towards euthanasia was started by former lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey on Fred Thompson’s radio show. Like everything else in the right wing echo chamber it was picked up and broadcast as gospel truth - the motivation was certainly to scare people into opposing any health bill coming from Congress. Here was McCaughey’s quote:
“On page 425 where the Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest or your family’s best interest and cut your life short.”
Unbelievable you say? Of course it is. Here’s what’s
actually on page 425 for those that care to go right to the source:
H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders … .
Uh, so where’s the nonsense McCaughey and Souder are spouting off about? It doesn’t exist of course - as I said before, they are lies ginned up to scare people; nothing more. “End of life services” does not mean “services used to end your life” - that’s a pretty morbid viewpoint. Again, here’s what Souder said:
The health insurance bill being written by congressional Democrats “will probably steer people to use public funds to kill themselves,” Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, said Thursday.
[...]
“This is the so-called ‘euthanasia consultation clause,’” Souder said. “I don’t believe that this mandates that everybody goes through and has a planning consultant to see if they want to use public funds to terminate their life. It appears … to be an optional choice. But it needs to be clearer.“The bill, however, does provide through taxpayer dollars for a consultation that will probably steer people to use public funds to kill themselves and will pay for it if they do choose that,” he said.
The scare tactics and lies don’t get much more obvious than that. But just in case you need more evidence against the “state sponsored euthanasia” viewpoint:
“Both myself and our outside counsel have reviewed section 1233 of the House bill, and neither one of us can reach the conclusion that it is a mandatory consultation for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries,” Jon Keyserling, vice president of public policy at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, told us. “The opportunity for the consultation is not only voluntary but patient-initiated.”
As I understand it, the intent of the provision is to have patients be provided an opportunity to discuss with their own health care professional, probably the one they have been seeing for the past many years, what their treatment wishes might be as they approach the end of life,” said Keyserling, who stressed that consultations like this are treatment-neutral. Comparing this to forced euthanasia is like saying that a bill making retirement planning easier would force Americans to quit their jobs.
If you want to dig even deeper into the Souder lies you can research this story further at FactCheck.org - where incidentally they came to the following conclusion:
The claim that the House health care bill pushes suicide is nonsense.
Something Congressman Souder no doubt knew before he made his statements…
Comments
22 Responses to “Mark Souder’s Euthanasia Lie Debunked”
Leave a Reply
Nobody thinks “end of life services” means services to end your life, we’re not in freaking third grade. But doesn’t the “continuum of end-of-life services” include, on the one side, no end of life services, all the way to keeping you on a respirator for years and years (the latter my personal choice, there’s no courage in going out early).
So if you get an explanation from here’s how you die the quickest to here’s how you live the longest, and you get some sort of government bureucrat to explain the options, do you really count on that bureaucrat, who’s also got to worry about finite resources, to give a fair and impartial explanation of the choices?
The quote from Souder above doesn’t say that the Bill pushes suicide. Isn’t it the definition of irony that in accusing someone of deliberately miscontruing the health care bill you deliberately misconstrue his statement? As anyone who has been on here knows, I don’t vote for Souder and I don’t really care for him. However, I think he raises a valid point.
Keith,
The government bureaucrat is your doctor in this case so yes I would expect it to be fair and impartial.
I’m starting to think you have a major reading comprehension problem. Let’s look at what he said:
The word steer is synonymous with push in this case is it not? And if so then isn’t your statement 100% inaccurate?
He doesn’t have a valid point but his lies and scare tactics seem to be working on a few…
Jeff, you haven’t lost this much credibility since you posted that half drunken rant about Hitler and Wichita. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel to respond to this, but I will.
The minute you start making doctors government employees, they become government bureaucrats. They may be bureaucrats who practice medicine but they’re still bureaucrats. I absolutely would not expect anyone under those circumstances to be fair and impartial.
As far as what Souder said, you actually made two mistakes. First, Souder never said the BILL would steer or push people to suicide, he said the consultation might. You paraphrased that as Souder saying that there was something inherent in the bill that pushed people toward suicide. This is 100% not true. He said the consultation might and I think this is a valid point.
Second, if “push” is synonymous with “steer” why didn’t you simply use “steer”, Souder’s exact words? It was exactly because the words were NOT Synonymous that you chose to use “push” - “steer” was a little too plain vanilla and, you believed, would not get people riled up as much as “push.” If Souder’s statement was egregious, that should have been apparent on its face and it shouldn’t have needed the “Pruitt Paraphrase.”
Further, “steer” and “push” are clealry not synonymous. I see synonyms of push as coerce, compel, browbeat. Synonyms of steer are guide or direct. They clearly involve differing degrees of persuasion and involve differing degrees of intent (pushing must be intentional, steering can be unintentional).
So, good try debunking Souder’s “euthanasia lie.” Since we’re in the grammar mood, what’s the opposite of “debunk”?
Keith,
Did I miss the latest right wing talking point - are all doctors going to be government employees now? How is this going to happen? Please point out any part of any bill where this is discussed. You simply made this up to try and defend part of your statement that you cannot defend with actual facts. Maybe I just need to make it to Souder’s next weekly propaganda drop to make sure I’m up on the latest scare tactics and conspiracy theories.
As for the rest of your parsing, well it gave me a good chuckle - Bill Clinton would be proud. Ask yourself this, if Souder replaced the word “steer” with “push” would you feel completely different? Somehow I doubt it. Would such a semantic change have impacted the gist of what he was trying to get across at all? Again, somehow I doubt it.
Even if I were to accept your parsing, which I certainly do not, I still think the statement is a lie and a scare tactic. These consultations will not steer, push, etc anyone towards euthanasia and Souder knows it or he should and so should you.
By the way, just out of curiosity, how much credibility do you think you have left at this point? It’s not entirely your fault though, defending Souder can do it to anyone…
Jeff,
I have to admit, I’m a little confused.
I thought half the rationale for the health care bill was that doctors are greedy and untrustworthy. I mean, Obama is on record saying that they needlessly rip out kids’ tonsils for profit, and Pelosi is calling insurance companies “villains” that should be put out of business.
But now you and the bill argue that these allegedly untrustworthy providers become sainted, altruistic, and of unquestionable virtue the instant they become beholden to the government for their daily bread.
I can’t think of a family-friendly word to describe how inane and naieve I find that line of thinking.
I’m on record as not being a fan of Souder and, as I’ve reiterated many times, my policy is to vote against Souder (unless his opponent runs off the stage crying). So when I decide to support somebody that I don’t vote for, I feel I have a lot of credibility. Certainly more credibility than a partisan hack who just repeats press releases from the DNC.
Jeff,
IBD has a good article on this subject, http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877
IBD certainly is not a fever swamp of conservative thought, but certainly is an authoritative source on Government managed health care. I think the argument of Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, quoted in the article, that providing health care should be administered based on a business rationale, is what Congressman Souder may be advancing to the next practical conclusion.
Is it the Government’s role to determine if saving Grandma is worth it, from a business perspective?
I’d ask, if your ability to obtain the best possible care you can pay for is impeded by the judgment of a Government council on the basis of care not being an effective use of resources, have you lost some freedom?
Keith,
My initial response to your first comment here was to just call you a f****** idiot, and leave it at that. But I have decided that perhaps it is just ignorance, rather than stupidity, which guides you. So I will share with you a personal story that might help to better explain my thoughts. I sincerely hope you will read it and give it due consideration.
My step-father recently passed away. He suffered a major stroke during heart surgery, which was followed by several subsequent minor strokes. During this time, he suffered from painful infections too varied and numerous to list here. He fought hard for nine months, aggressively working on his physical therapy regimen even when it caused him great pain to do so. Finally, he came to the conclusion that his mind and body would not be able to recover. He felt that all of his efforts would only prolong the inevitable, and so he decided to let go. He declared to the doctor and to his family that he no longer wanted to take his medication and that nature should be allowed to take it’s course.
My step-father taught me long ago that it is not one’s place to make decisions for a friend. A friend’s role is to help the other person understand the situation, allow them to make the decision themselves, and then to do whatever they can to assist or comfort that person. He taught me well.
I had to fight back my tears as I sat alone with my friend and explained the situation in detail. I made sure he understood the possible implications for refusing each of his major medications, including those for blood sugar and blood pressure control. I made sure he realized that this would not necessarily bring a quick and painless end to the situation, as he seemed to think at first, but might actually lead him down a very long and painful path (more severe strokes leading to even further diminished physical and mental strength, loss of mobility or even amputation of limbs) before he got there.
I also spoke with him about the moral implications of this. I asked him whether he had considered how his decision to let go might effect others who were close to him. We spoke about his elderly mother, and of his young granddaughters, and how his decision might affect them. We discussed how his decision to end his life might be harmful to their psyches, as well as how their watching him lie in constant pain and knowing this suffering would be not let up until the day he died might also be affecting them.
I’m really not sure how I kept from breaking down as the most stoic person I have ever known then cried, grabbed my arm, and asked me “Doesn’t it hurt you to see me suffering? I’d keep fighting if I thought there was any chance I’d get better. Do you think I’ll get better?” My love for him at first caused me to give the most optimistic answer possible, by saying that we simply do not have enough information yet to know this for certain. But my respect for him forced me to also offer an honest answer, which was that the evidence greatly points against a recovery.
The rest of the family also had their private discussions with him and afterwards we all met to discuss the matter together. There were five family members who held a joint power of attorney agreement authorizing us to make medical decisions for him. If any one of us had dissented, I believe the doctors would have erred on the side of continuing medication until the matter could be resolved in court. But it was our unanimous conclusion that he fully understood the implications of his actions, and that his intentions were fully consistent with the way he had expressed himself long before the current crisis emerged. That was all that mattered, and from that point on our duty was to see that his wishes were carried out in the most humane way possible.
The first reason I tell this story is personal, because I want you to understand how offensive your casual comment “…There’s no courage in going out early.” was to me. My step-father was no coward, and neither was I or the rest of his family who all came to the painful decision that it was time for him to let go. If you or someone else in this situation decided to hold on and fight, even if I personally disagreed with the decision, I certainly would not call you a coward and say that you are just afraid to die.
The second reason I tell the story is political, because I think it points to a serious bias held by yourself, Congressman Souder, as well as many other people. I think that you just naturally assume that if a person makes the decision to end their life, then this can only be explained through one of the following ways. Either that person is incoherent, or that person has been misled by others, or that person is simply a coward. Although you expect others to accept your decision to continue fighting, you refuse to accept that others may willfully choose otherwise.
Many people have not clearly explained their own end-of-life instructions. Many people have drawn up some crudely written instructions on paper, signed it, and falsely assume that it has legal weight. Many people have explained their views to family or friends, and assume this is adequate. The truth is, unless an individual has been instructed of their options in such a case, and unless they have already signed a legally valid form explaining their intentions, things will become very confusing in a crisis situation.
Partly because the human memory is flawed, and partly because any family members involved in such a situation will be acting under great emotional duress, it is very possible that they will not all recall the previous conversations they had with the individual in question in exactly the same manner. Also, without clearly written legal instructions, it allows for any who might so desire to purposely manipulate the situation to their own benefit. And I can tell you from personal experience that if the person in question is still able to communicate, but suffers from some degree of cognitive dysfunction, then the situation can get even more complex.
Every individual should have end-of-life instructions on file and readily accessible by any medical personal who might need them. You are correct that such instructions run the spectrum from do nothing to do all that is possible. But I think that the claim by Congressman Souder and yourself that medical personnel will somehow be biased towards pushing the right-to-die option is baseless. From my experience with my step-father, even when the patient and all of the family is unanimous in stating this, the doctor will still counsel against it and urge that you at least wait a while before implementing such procedures to make sure that that all are firm in their beliefs.
If there is any bias at all, I think that most people in the medical profession would stand on the side of saving, rather than ending, a life. And if personal convictions are not enough, then you must also consider that from even the shrewdest perspective, a doctor will view a living patient as more valuable to him than a dead one is.
I suppose that if they ever put some sort of financial incentive in the law that rewards doctors for getting people to sign a do not resuscitate order, then there will be a valid point here. As the proposed law is currently written though, there seems to be no reason to hold that view.
phil
Here’s a tip, if you want someone to read something (which I didn’t), maybe you should not start out by calling them a “f**** idiot.” Just a helpful hint from Keith.
Keith,
You implied that my step-father was a coward. You did not know my step-father or the circumstances which led up to his death, so I think you have very little basis for making that statement.
And I agree that I should not have opened with the insult. I don’t think you meant that comment to be as offensive as it was. But I took it as a personal insult, which led to my outburst.
Phil,
Your story was touching, and I sincerely feel for your pain.
Your story is also, ironically, an excellent example of the wisdom of Souter’s concerns about the “end of life counseling” provision in the health care bill.
Imagine your step-father having that profoundly vulnerable, intimate conversation not with you and your family, but rather being coerced to open himself like that to a government bureaucrat.
It’s the stuff of nightmares.
Phil,
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. Like Rumpole said it was very touching. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write it out.
Rumpole,
That’s not in the bill. The sessions are voluntary and they would be with your doctor and not some bureaucrat.
If a person does not have loved ones to help them navigate through this when the point of crisis comes, then these medical people will be the ones counseling them at that time any way. If a person does have loved ones available, then they should go to the end-of-life counseling session also to make sure their family member is not manipulated. The bigger point is simply that these issues should be discussed and the decision formalized before the point of crises, not during it. That would benefit all concerned parties as a more rational decision is likely to be made.
I still see no basis for claiming that medical personel will be biased towards ending a life simply because the care is tax funded.
Jeff,
I read that portion of the bill, and the language sure looks mandatory to me.
And if you think that putting the government in charge of health care won’t blur the lines between ‘doctor’ and ‘bureaucrat’ (in other words, if you think our experience will somehow magically be different than that of every other nation to try this piece of socialist pie), then you need to lay off the Kool-Aid.
Jeff,
I’m a fan of irony, so I can’t believe this didn’t occur to me sooner.
It’s hilarious that you, who spends a goodly portion of his own time, energy, and resources condemning from the mountain-top government inefficiency, waste, and spending, suddenly has a soft spot for government health care–by all accounts the largest, most expensive, least efficient socialistic program ever proposed in this country. They must be mixing that Kool-Aid strong.
Rumpole,
That portion of the bill is altering the original Social Security Act Sec 1861 which you can read here. If you follow the portions they are altering you’ll see that there’s nothing whatsoever to suggest that it’s mandatory. In fact, I don’t think there’s any mandatory treatment requirement as part of Medicare.
Who do you think is “in charge” of Medicare now? Would you say that the “the lines between ‘doctor’ and ‘bureaucrat’” are blurred? I doubt most seniors would say that.
Rumpole,
Maybe it didn’t occur to you because it isn’t true. It’s funny how pointing out the lies of one side of the argument somehow makes you for the other side.
The truth, as I see it, is this.
So as a realist I’m looking at the problem trying to see a solution that takes what the government is already doing, and will inevitably continue to do, and make the costs sustainable. And as I’ve written before, none of the bills I’ve seen so far actually achieve that solution…
Pruitt’s debunking has turned into a depantsing.
Jeff–
Fair enough.
Jeff:
Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP represent slightly less than half of the $2.6 Trillion or so in annual healthcare costs today.
Medicare technically was supposed to be out of funds to match spending in 2018 . . . but this economic downturn and unemployment is speeding up the collapse. Medicare is inefficient and it drives up regular healthcare costs because Uncle doesn’t pay enough to providers for supplies and services. Worse, Medicare is financed through regressive payroll deductions. Obama is going to model socialized medicine on this failed scheme. Healthcare for Clunkers, here we come!
So we will pay $2 Trillion for the privilege of participating in single payor, rationed healthcare with a little Oregon euthanasia thrown into the mix. ironically, $2 Trillion is not designed to cover all of our imaginary uninsured.
This is not only about healthcare it is about control over the population. it is called Marxism.
Gadfly,
I don’t believe that at all. Medicare providers aren’t going out of business left and right - in fact there’s an argument to be made that they are ordering more services than necessary to increase profits. If the government wasn’t paying enough then they would be pushing these people out - that’s clearly not happening.
That I agree with you on and I would add that the people benefiting the most, the elderly, are paying the least.
I keep hearing this phrase “socialized medicine” but what does it really mean in the context of the current debate. There is no single payer system on the table. But besides that, the government already spends more money on health care than the private sector. Hasn’t the ship already sailed on the socialized medicine argument?
I realize you’re shooting for hyperbole with that statement but still not one thing you said is even being seriously debated as far as I can tell.