by Dr. Larry Moses
No one asked me but… Nataline Sarkisyan died last week; officially from liver failure; but really, she died from lack of medical care. A medical decision was left up to an insurance company. Karen Ignagni, chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group said, “The case illustrates how few employers, or even individuals, want to pay for ‘experimental’ care coverage when they buy insurance, but that when people find themselves in dire health, everyone wants it. We’ve been looking very seriously at this issue because [experimental coverage] is over and above what employers purchase.”
As I understand the issues, Nataline suffered from leukemia and had received a bone marrow transplant in hopes of saving her from the ravages of this cancer. The bone marrow transplant was successful but in the process, she suffered irreparable damage to her liver. Her doctors placed her in a medically induced coma awaiting a liver transplant. While a liver was available, the family’s insurance company deemed the liver transplant, “experimental surgery” and stated the family was not insured for such a procedure. The family did not have the financial resources to pay for the surgery and extensive hospital stay so the hospital and doctors withheld their services. Having lost hope, the family removed Nataline from life support and she died of liver failure. The real irony of the situation is that on that very day the insurance company, responding to numerous protests, reversed their decision denying the funding for the operation. It was too late for Nataline.
“While it isn’t clear that CIGNA could have saved Nataline by approving the transplant earlier,”said Charles Idelson, spokesman for the California Nurses Association, “the insurer should have trusted her doctors. The transplant was recommended by the medical professionals at the bedside. They should have been listened to.”
While the $17 million plus benefits the CEO of the insurance company made last year is obscene, he never pledged to dedicate his life to the welfare of mankind as did the doctors who had the physical ability to save the young lady’s life.
One could argue that $15 million of CEO’s salary would have been better used delivering benefits to policyholders. This however would leave the CEO with a measly $2,000,000 a year on which to survive. The fact that the insurance company refused to pay is bad, but at least the insurance company had a clause in its policy to fall back on. How can hospital administrators and medical doctors with the expertise to save this young girl’s life justify their failure to act? What excuse did the hospital and doctors have? They might not get paid for doing the procedure?
I just saw a news clip on the Today Show about American doctors donating their time and skills to do life saving surgeries on numerous Cambodian children. The hospitals where the surgeries are being done are also donating the facilities. I find this highly commendable, but why couldn’t the same be done for an American child?
Nataline Sarkisyan family’s attorney is now planning to sue the insurance company for not providing the funds demanded by the medical professionals. He might want to take a look at the medical personnel who refused to perform the surgery. I wonder how many of these doctors would have gone hungry had they provided their services and worried about payment later. Do you suppose the hospital would have had to shut down due of the cost of this surgery?
No one asked me but…The issue of the use of torture to obtain information from combatants has been raised recently in the presidential debates and only Senator McCain has taken a strong stand against it. Interestingly enough he is the only candidate who has suffered torture.
As most people know, Senator McCain spent several years as a prisoner of war in the infamous Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War. There are those who at best would turn a blind eye to, and at worse advocate the use of, torture in our war against terrorism. Let me unequivocally state the use of torture is not only wrong, it is despicable.
Americans lament the actions of our enemy when they torture and mutilate our personnel; and rightly they should. But some of the same Americans advocate the practice of torture in the defense of America. Excuse me, but if it is despicable for one, it is despicable for all.
The argument presented is that if the enemy knew information that would lead to the saving of a city from nuclear disaster, would the use of torture not be justified? Do we sanction torture only under extreme emergencies? Who gets to define what that emergency is? What happens in the heat of battle is not always what is right. There is a major difference in what may occur and what is sanctioned. No civilized nation can accept torture as national policy.
We as a nation can never get to the point where we do not become indignant when individuals are abused in the name of righteousness. A person under torture will likely say whatever the torturer wants to hear. Though we will never know, this might explain the intelligence that weapons of mass destruction were being stockpiled in Iraq. Do we now stop complaining about the treatment of our soldiers and civilians taken prisoner in this or any future conflict in which we become involved? How do we stand on the high ground and roll around in the muck with those nations whose standards allow for the torture and abuse of individuals. I just believe we are a better people than this.
If we are at war with the terrorist; as the president and his supporters say; then these people are prisoners of war and America does not torture prisoners of war. If these people are not prisoners of war but criminals, one must wonder when America passed the Constitutional Amendment allowing for the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
We have given up numerous personal freedoms as we fight this strange war against terrorism. If you don’t believe this, go to an airport. Check the government’s ability to monitor phone conversations without a warrant or the government’s court approved ability to come into your home without a warrant. The question now becomes: are we going to give up our moral standards as well? If we give up our moral standards as well as our freedoms, have we not already lost the war?
No one asked me but…We have war in Iraq. We are chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are, or are not, depending on who you ask, teetering on the brink of a recession. The dollar is at an all time low around the world. The housing market has collapsed. We don’t know how to secure our borders. We have a presidential election that offers little in the way of a viable candidate from either party. We have a health care crisis in the country.
With all these important issues, there are those who are demanding a congressional investigation into the earth shattering issue of steroid use in baseball. The national past time is at stake. Is the question of whether or not Barry Bonds used steroids to break the homerun record really that relevant? Do our Congressmen really need to spend time telling us what everyone already knows; a large number of baseball players used performance enhancing drugs?
Those who know me and my family know we are baseball fans. My oldest son and I disagree as to the effect of these transgressions on baseball. He is much more of an idealist than I. While most of these players violated the country’s laws against the use of steroids and human growth hormones, strangely they did not violate the drug policies of Major League Baseball. I suppose the commissioner could punish them for violating a national law and therefore bringing discredit to Major League Baseball.
Let me present this hypothical. Think about your job. If you were presented with a potion that would allow you to become a better teacher, a better truck driver, a better writer, a better real estate agent, or a better widget manufacturer, would you take it? Even if the use of this potion might shorten your life by a few years or cause some physical disability later in life would you use it? If the use of the potion without a medical prescription was a violation of federal law but your employer had no rule against its use would you use it? If the use of this potion would cause no harm to your fellow man, would you use it? If the only harm was that it gave you an advantage over your competitors, would you use it? If by getting better you could raise your income from $300,000 a year to $10,000,000 a year, would you use it? As I see it, this is an issue for Major League Baseball, not for the Congress of the United States of America. Baseball is a game, a form of entertainment, for all but about the 700 Americans who make a very good living playing it. The authorities in the game should be allowed to solve the problem. If the solution is not satisfactory to the fans, they can show their displeasure by not buying the tickets, watching the games or buying the memorabilia that supports the game. Major League Baseball will then suffer the financial consequences of their transgressions.
I hardly see the issue of steroid use as fodder for our Congressmen who should have much more important issues to deal with. There is, I guess, the advantage that a Congressional investigation of steroid use in baseball would keep some Congressmen busy with an issue that can do little harm to the nation. If you let me pick the Congressmen, maybe I could support the investigation.
Thought for the week…Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospital dying of nothing.
