New Ad from FRC Seems to Say Old People Shouldn't Get Expensive Operations

My reactions to what passes for a "health care" discussion in the US kind of vacillates - between eye-rolling and outright gagging. The ad below evokes both reactions. It's the latest from the Family Research Council, defenders of "family values" and who claim to respect and value human life.

In the clip below, however, is a short exchange between a young boy and his grandfather, presumably when some version of expanded health coverage has been passed. The message - as near as I can figure out - seems aimed at disrespecting and devaluing the lives of seniors.

FRC doesn't provide captioning for its video, so here's a summary:

The young boy asks if his grandpa is still going to see a doctor about the operation and asks if it will be expensive.

Grandpa says he's going to have it and it will be expensive, but it's free, thanks to the government program (gee, Medicare, maybe?).

The kid says his dad says nothing is free and that dad is paying for the operation.

Grandpa laughs and says that's silly - it's the kid that is paying for it. At that point, the kid picks up his briefcase and his Wall Street Journal and goes off to work.

What's the message here?

Old people are greedy bloodsuckers?
We should get rid of Medicare?
Old people shouldn't get expensive operations (unless they're rich)?

Really, please please explain this to me. Tell me how this isn't a message that selfish old people shouldn't just shuffle off and die.

Yeah, yeah... I get that FRC is talking about the deficit and its impact on future generations, but I don't remember similar complaints during the previous administration. That's when the President and Congress were keeping the huge costs of the Iraq war off the books, accompanied by tax cuts for the wealthiest, resulting in a huge deficit.

Apparently, they liked the war, but don't like the idea of funding health care. And that makes it OK to go after Grandpa. Check the video out for yourself below. --Stephen Drake

Followup on Princetonian - and more thoughts from Bill Peace and Gary Presley

Update on the article that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Princetonian, which contained inaccurate and defamatory remarks about NDY.

The online article has been revised. The article also carries an Editor's note at the end of the article, which we're told was published in today's print edition of the Princetonian:

Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article inaccurately referred to protests organized by Not Dead Yet and held at Nassau Hall in September 1999 as violent.

Diane Coleman, president of Not Dead Yet, also told The Daily Princetonian on Monday afternoon that that the group's members are trained in nonviolence, and that the organization is not aware of any evidence that any of the death threats came from its members.

There was also a reworking of the text about death threats so that readers would be less inclined to assume that NDY was the source of those threats, a concern with the original version.

In terms of setting the record straight, it's my turn. Originally, I laid the blame for the gross mischaracterization of the NDY protest at reporter Jason Jung's doorstep. According to the editor's note and the email received from the Editor-in-Chief, he had no role in that.

Mr. Jung got his facts straight and his editor screwed it up. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Since it's not the first time I've seen an editor to damage to a reporter's factual account, I should have considered that possibility.

When I posted this on Facebook, a couple of people who participated in the protest were really floored. One person remembered it as being to wet and cold that day to move, since the protest they engaged in wasn't a violent one.

Bill Peace has written a long post titled "Ten Years of Peter Singer."

Gary Presley also shares some of his own thoughts in "Congratulating Peter Singer."

Same recommendation as always. Go read what they have to say. --Stephen Drake

Princetonian Celebrates Ten Years of Peter Singer - By Libeling NDY And Fabricating a "Violent Protest"

(Addendum) - Up top, in the interest of fairness. I just got off the phone with the Princetonian's Editor-in-Chief. He says that tomorrow's edition will carry an apology and correction. The post below is still relevant, though - everyone should know what the fuss is about. --Stephen Drake

Last week, I was contacted by a student working on a story for the Princetonian, the independent student newspaper at Princeton University. Jason Jung was working on a story that marked Peter Singer's tenth anniversary at the University and wanted some comments from someone associated with NDY, which helped to organize a major protest at the university on Singer's first day of teaching class.

To be honest, I expected my quotes - and NDY - to be marginalized in the story, but in a way that met some minimum standard of accuracy. So I didn't expect my quotes about Singer's lack of integrity and rigor in regard to his approach to disability policy to appear in the article. (See the recent protest letter regarding his NY Times magazine essay on rationing for a sample of this lack of integrity and rigor.)

But I was honestly shocked and angry to find that the article strongly implied that NDY was the source of "death threats" against Singer and others at Princeton. This was discussed during my interview. I explicitly denied any connection - stating I even refused to pass on Singer's personal contact info when someone sent it to me as potentially dangerous information. I also pointed out that we live in a violent country - in which the judge who sent Kevorkian to jail received death threats and even the animal rights movement has members who engage in violence.

None of those remarks are in the article, which can be read here.

The most egregious remark is left for the end, though:

Ten years after the violent protest sparked by his appointment, Singer said he has found University students and faculty to be “very open-minded.” (emphasis added.)

This is the protest that NDY organized, so it's NDY that stands labeled as engaging in a "violent protest."

But there was no violent protest.

Don't take my word for it - here's a link and quote from an article published in the NY Times after the protest:

Demonstrators opposed to Princeton's hiring of Peter Singer, who has written in support of euthanasia for some disabled infants and is the university's first professor of bioethics, protested his inaugural day of teaching yesterday by chaining themselves to the administration building.

The Princeton police said they arrested 14 people who refused to stop blocking the entrances to Nassau Hall, the administration building. Most of the protesters were in motorized wheelchairs and either locked themselves to the building or linked their chairs with handcuffs. They were charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct and released.

The NY Times, never known for its love for NDY, described a protest noticably lacking in violence. That agrees with other mainstream press accounts from the same time period.

This "violent protest" is a lie - either created by the Jason Jung, author of the piece - or by Singer or other Princeton officials interviewed.

NDY does not promote violence. This has been forwarded to NDY attorneys. The author of the article and the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper have also been notified via email. We are demanding an apology and retraction.

We tried calling the Editor-in-Chief, but no one is answering the phone today and the voice mailbox is full. If they're trying for professionalism at the Princetonian, they have a ways to go. --Stephen Drake

Media: Broadcast of Discussion of Euthanasia with Me and Dutch Doctor

Just a brief alert on this one, for anyone interested. Last week, I participated in a taping of a discussion of euthanasia with Dr. Bert Keizer on the show "The State We're In" on the English version of Radio Netherlands.

It was a polite discussion, and we covered a lot of territory. Among other things, it turns out that Dr. Keizer, who performs euthanasia on patients in the Netherlands, finds it hard to defend infanticide. He also doesn't deny that a lot of doctors have some pretty bad attitudes about what living life with a disability will mean in terms of quality.

The show is online and you can listen to it here (mp3 format). --Stephen Drake

More on Betancourt

For the most complete information on the Betancourt case, including links to other amicus briefs, the best resource I've found is the Medical Futility Blog by Thaddeus Mason Pope.

Pope disagrees with NDY on a significant number of issues, but he's an impressive researcher who has posted links to research and news coverage that I've found valuable. He also seems to make an honest attempt to be a fair reporter on issues he highlights on his blog, while making his own perspective clear (I do think he falls short of the mark at times, but I would guess he'd say the same about me).

Pope wrote and filed an amicus brief in the Betancourt case, and I'll let him explain his position in his own words:

As I have written (and continue to write) largely from the perspective of the healthcare provider on these issues, it came as a suprise to some that my brief supports the position of the plaintiff/respondent patient.

But that is one of the perks of academia. I have no client, no cause. I just want the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division to make the most informed decision possible. The Defendant/Appellant Hospital and its amici made overreaching claims. As I have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues, I wanted to tell the Court what I saw. If the court renders a written opinion in this matter, it will be enormously influential not only in New Jersey but across the United States and even abroad.

In case you're wondering, that means that Pope took the same side as NDY and other disability rights groups in this case.

His brief is available online in PDF (scanned document).

To get more information on the history of this case, and other briefs, go to the Medical Futility Blog and type "betancourt" in the search window in the upper left-hand corner of the page.

NJ: Disability Groups File Amicus in Betancourt v. Trinitas (futility case)

Last week, Not Dead Yet filed an amicus brief in Betancourt v. Trinitas, an Appellate court case in New Jersey. In additon to NDY, ADAPT, Center For Self-Determination, National Council on Independent Living, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, American Association of People with Disabilities, and Disability Rights New Jersey joined the brief as co-amici.

Here's a summary of the case taken from the introduction of the NDY amicus brief:

Trinitas Hospital, the institution where Mr. Betancourt resided from July 3, 2008, until May 29, 2009, determined of its own accord to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from him. Treating him, the hospital’s doctors said, was “harming” him because it was “futile,” since he would not recover from the brain damage he had incurred post-operatively at Trinitas on January 22, 2008, and that he was “dying,” despite having no terminal diagnosis. Mr. Betancourt was not brain dead, and the doctors could not even agree as to whether or not he would die within the year. In fact, one said, “This could go on for quite some time.”

The doctors also referred to an unpaid hospital bill of $1.6 million in the context of their determination to withdraw treatment. They sought initially to withdraw dialysis, and then, respiratory ventilation, and nutrition and hydration. Trinitas had been unable to transfer Mr. Betancourt to any other facility.

Mr. Betancourt’s family opposed the hospital’s decision to terminate, and in January, 2009, sought the protection of the courts. The trial court found, upon a three-day hearing record and following long-established New Jersey law, that Mr. Betancourt’s daughter should be appointed his guardian and surrogate decisionmaker for medical treatment, and that Trinitas and its personnel must follow her direction in exercising her father’s right to choose whether or not to continue treatment.

Trinitas appealed, arguing that the doctors alone, not the patient or his surrogate, have the right to determine when to terminate care. They also contest the daughter’s appointment as guardian. Ruben Betancourt died on May 29, 2009. His daughter moved to dismiss the case, but Trinitas has opposed the dismissal.

Reading the brief, one aspect is familiar, calling to mind other cases in which PVS was alleged. Family members who visited Ruben Betancourt every day report he was responsive. The brief also states that notes in his medical chart occasionally described him as "awake" and "responsive."

The entire brief, written and submitted to the court by Anne L. H. Studholme, Esq., is available online at this location as a microsoft word document (not docx).

Blog Recommendation: William Peace on UK "interim" Guidelines on Swiss Suicide Tourists

I'll be writing more on my own next week on this, but the Director of of Public Prosecutions in the UK issued his long-awaited "interim guidelines" on prosecutions in cases of friends/family assisting family members traveling to Switzerland to commit suicide.

William Peace at Bad Cripple writes that the guidelines are a slam dunk for assisted suicide:

I knew the guidelines released by Keir Starmer would be a victory for advocates of assisted suicide but I had no idea just how lopsided they would be. The new guidelines that go into force today may only be interim guidelines and are subject to debate before a final version is issued next year. However, don't let this technicality fool you nor be swayed by misleading statements by Keir Starmer who maintains "Assisted suicide has been a criminal offense for nearly 50 years and my interim policy does nothing to change that". Mr. Starmer is correct, assisted suicide is still against the law in Britain but if one actually commits this crime the odds of being prosecuted are non existent. Again, don't be misled by statement such as this: "There are no guarantees against prosecution and it is my job to ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected while at the same time giving enough information to those people like Mrs. Purdy who want to be able to make informed decisions about what actions they may choose". What a relief, Starmer is concerned about protecting the most vulnerable. Well, to all those vulnerable people out there I have a word of advise: watch out because your relatives and loved ones can kill you without fear of prosecution.

Like I said, I'll turn to this myself next week. In the meantime, William Peace has said a lot of what I might have, but said it better. Read the rest. --Stephen Drake