Poll: Finances Dominate Medical Decisions When it Comes to Our Pets

euthanasia, myths, Our News & Commentary Blog, pets, reality check, research, veterinarian

About three months ago, I commented on an essay in Newsweek by a veterinary oncologist who, among other things, said that “pet owners routinely rack up $10,000 bills” to save the lives of their pets.  As I said at the time, that vet doesn’t service pets and their owners in my neighborhood, where few of us struggling middle-class folks have that kind of cash laying around.  And with our own health concerns to worry about, it’s unlikely we’d want to dig ourselves that deep into debt for a pet.  Evidently, the claim that spending that much on a pet’s health is done routinely says a lot about the socioeconomic status of the veterinarian who wrote the essay, her clientele,  and the Newsweek editors who evidently didn’t find the claim extraordinary.

At the time, I didn’t have any real data to back me up – just some common-sense notion of the economic challenges and the priorities people around me work with to meet those challenges.

Turns out I was pretty spot-on with my comments that time, at least according to an Associated Press-Petside.com poll.

The AP and Petside Reports that “Money is a huge consideration in pet care“:

All pet owners hate to think about it, but when the family pet gets sick, money matters.

For Nancy Gates, whose dog, Arabella needed a $500 heart surgery, the only option was to put her dog down.

“It was pretty straight forward because I had four young children to feed. The vet said surgery was my only option. I did not want my dog to suffer,” said Gates, 41, who lives in Cotati, about 50 miles north of San Francisco.

Money is something to consider for the majority of pet owners dealing with animal health care, according to a new AP-Petside poll.

Most pet owners, 62%, say they would be likely to get vet treatment if the bill exceeded $500. But for a bill of $1,000, that figure drops to 42%. If the cost is $2,000, 35% would pay, and if the cost reaches $5,000, 22% would foot the bill.

A longer report, issued by the AP, reports that many people are painfully aware of the economic pressures pushing them to choose euthanasia for their pets over costly medical treatment.

Why bring this up?  As I’ve mentioned in several blog entries, a common platitude used by euthanasia proponents goes something like this: “When our pets are dying and in pain, we give them a merciful death; Why do we force humans to suffer?”

It’s an emotionally compelling argument – one used recently by Philadelphia writer Mary Shaw, who wrote an essay filled with misinformation about Kevorkian (i.e. the people who died at his hands were terminally ill).  Naturally, something that inaccurate ended up being disseminated to many online publications – Salon.com, Alternet, and thepeoplesvoice.org, to name just a few.

Mixed in with the pile of misinformation about Kevorkian and the pro-assisted suicide movement was this:

When a pet becomes ill to the point where it is near death and suffering uncontrollably, a veterinarian will not think twice before recommending that the pet be euthanized, to put the animal out of its misery.

 

So why do we treat our dying pets with more mercy than we treat our dying people?

As I’ve written here, here, here and here – rather than being an argument, this is a distortion of why pets are euthanized by their owners.  Only a small fraction are suffering painfully from an incurable disease that is killing them.  Economic factors are more common – the pet becomes incontinent, harming rugs, furniture and floors or – as the recent poll indicates – we just can’t afford to spend the money on the kind of medical treatment the pet needs.

So the next time someone makes an argument that we should treat our loved ones – parents, grandparents, etc. – more like animals – just think about what that really means.  And then ask the person who made the argument if that means that we should have our loved ones euthanized if they become incontinent or the medical care they need is too expensive – since that is how we treat our animals.  –Stephen Drake

###

08/01/24:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/08/01/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-dog-and-human-euthanasia-end-of-life/

Re “She kept her gravely ill dog alive. Was that animal cruelty?” (Opinion, July 23): As a potential severely ill and disabled person (aren’t we all?), I feel threatened by the idea that it could be a crime to keep a dog alive. If the law holds that a dog that “had bed sores, an open wound, and couldn’t stand or walk” would be better off dead, can such judgments about people be far behind?

Felicia Nimue Ackerman

Providence

Maryland: New Factually-Impaired Op-Ed from Final Exit Network – and My Response

assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, Conflation and Con jobs, crime and punishment, final exit network, media coverage, op-ed, Our News & Commentary Blog

On Monday, June 7, the Baltimore Sun published a commentary by Jerry Dincin, the current president of the Final Exit Network (FEN).  You never know what a FEN member is going to write – sometimes they make it sound like they only deal with “terminally ill” people, sometimes they claim to give only “advice,” – they’re kind of all over the board in terms of what they’ve written and said over the past year.

In this particular case, Dincin was pretty open about who FEN “helps” — anyone with “unbearable pain and indignity” is the phrase used this time.  Dincin also makes the case for providing suicide assistance for people with dementia in this article – which makes me wonder if FEN and “Conflation & Con Jobs” aka “Compassion & Choices” might be coordinating their public outreach strategies.

Here are a few factually-challenged items from the end of the essay titled “Death with dignity“:

Who are those who have the heart to consign these people to a living hell? If the patient were their mother, would they? Do we not have a moral obligation to spare these patients and their families unspeakable torment?

We as a society do indeed have that power, and it is time we gathered in numbers and exercised it. That’s where my organization, Final Exit Network, comes in. We provide information and counsel to patients who approach us seeking to deliver themselves from torture and make informed choices. The impetus comes from within them; we do not “encourage” anyone. We go to great lengths to ensure that the person is capable of choosing rationally.

What we do is wholly different from physician-assisted suicide, since we never supply any equipment or administer any lethal chemicals. We are careful to keep our efforts within the law. That, however, has not prevented some local governments, notably Georgia and Arizona, from persecuting many of my colleagues — including our former medical director, Dr. Egbert.

Ending a life of unbearable pain and indignity is a basic human right. We at Final Exit Network provide compassion in the form of information and empathy, and we are proud of our work.

I read that, took some anti-nausea medication, and typed off a “comment” for the online copy of Dincin’s piece.

Then I reworked it and submitted it as a “reader comment” aka “letter to the editor.”  It was accepted and published online.  I am told that it was published on the Opinion page of the print edition of the Sun today (June 9).

Here is my response to the latest FEN propaganda piece:

As the research analyst for a national disability rights group that opposes legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, I am all too familiar with the Final Exit Network (FEN). I think it’s important that readers – and the editors – know that Jerry Dincin misled readers on several points in his essay published on June 7 (“Death with dignity”).

Mr. Dincin claims that authorities are “persecuting” FEN members in Georgia and Arizona. That is a gross distortion. The authorities in Georgia and Arizona initiated investigations after complaints by concerned relatives that the apparent suicides of their loved ones were aided and encouraged by FEN members. That’s not “persecution” — it’s “doing your job.”

In Georgia, the undercover agent who investigated FEN posing as a cancer patient asserted he was never asked for his medical records. Further, he reported that he was told that part of the “help” he would be given involved a FEN “exit guide” holding his hands down to prevent him from removing the helium-filled plastic bag meant to cause his death.

In Arizona, the person “helped” was a woman with no serious physical problems — but who had a history of emotional difficulties. Mr. Dincin didn’t mention that two of the defendants in that case have entered into a plea bargain and agreed to testify against other FEN members — including Larry Egbert.

The man “helped” in Georgia was a man successfully treated for cancer, and who was depressed over the surgical alterations to his physical appearance. Autopsy found him to be cancer-free.

Search for op-eds by FEN members and you’ll find the claims that members make about their goals, methods and “clients” to vary widely — apparently, they can’t keep their stories straight. The journalists at the paper might want to actually do some research and reporting on this case before giving the group a bully pulpit here.

People who follow this blog might notice that I mention two defendants entering into a plea bargain agreement when only one has been mentioned here.

My apologies for failing to report this until now, but one more of the FEN defendants has indeed cut a deal.  It should make for an “interesting” trial. –Stephen Drake

Connecticut: Superior Court Judge Dismisses Suit by Assisted Suicide Advocates

assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, Conflation and Con jobs, Connecticut, court decisions, Our News & Commentary Blog

Good news from Connecticut – Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma has dismissed the case brought by two doctors – with heavy assistance by Compassion & Choices (C&C) – which sought to decriminalize physician-assisted suicide through the courts.

Specifically, C&C, in a bold move, sought to have the court sanction “aid in dying” as a separate entity from “assisted suicide” – and therefore exempt from any laws against assisting in a suicide.

Judge Aurigemma didn’t buy it.  In fact, she put the phrase “aid in dying” in quotes – every time she used it – in her long memorandum dismissing the case.  I read this as a “hint” that she’s not viewing the term as a legitimate one. Aurigemma also rejected the argument that this kind of policy should be implemented through the courts – it’s exactly the kind of public policy that legislatures should be in charge of.

Here is a description of her analysis from the Hartfort-Courant:

The matter raises public policy concerns that the legislature is “uniquely positioned” to evaluate, Aurigemma wrote. Some of the concerns she listed echoed those raised by advocates for people with disabilities, who sought to intervene in the case, and argued that granting the doctors’ request could be dangerous to people with severe disabilities.

Among the concerns:

•Would physician-assisted suicide threaten the most vulnerable people in society? If so, how could they be protected from pressure or coercion?
•Would it shift doctors’ and insurers’ focus away from treating depression and providing pain control and palliative care?
•Would allowing doctors to help patients die erode patient trust in the doctor’s role as a healer?
•Would it open the door to the possibility of involuntary euthanasia?

“The legislature is the most appropriate body to evaluate these important questions as well as a host of other complex issues,” Aurigemma wrote.

I suspect this won’t be the end of C&C’s efforts in Connecticut.  But for now, it’s a real setback for them and a time for a short celebration for those of us who continue to fight these efforts. –Stephen Drake

betancourt v. trinitas, futility, litigation, new jersey, Our News & Commentary Blog, thaddeus pope

Today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal has a very good article on the Betancourt v. Trinitas case in New Jersey.  (All of the previous posts on the case can be found by accessing this link)

Suzanne Sataline provides the best summary of the issues in the case – as argued by stakeholders on both sides.  Here is a brief summary of what happened to Ruben Betancourt from Sataline’s article “Court Weighs Death Decision“:

Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Elizabeth argues that Mr. Betancourt was in a persistent vegetative state and that giving further care was unwarranted and unethical, prolonging a painful death. The hospital is appealing a lower-court judgment from 2009 that ordered Trinitas to provide life-saving treatment to the patient.

Mr. Betancourt died in May 2009, a year before the appellate judges heard arguments. While his care decisions may now be academic, legal observers say they expect the court to rule in the closely watched case because New Jersey courts have not shied from such debates, which have become more common across the country.

Not Dead Yet, along with other disability rights groups, filed an amicus brief in the case. NDY is referenced in the article, along with other significant players on both sides:

Several organizations have weighed in on the fight. The New Jersey Hospital Association and the Medical Society of New Jersey argued that families have no constitutional right to demand end-of-life care and that hospitals have a duty to conserve their limited resources for all patients.

Not Dead Yet, a disability-rights organization based in Rochester, N.Y., backs the family, saying it fears that a decision in favor of Trinitas could mean that a hospital would have the power to overrule a patient’s directive. Thaddeus Pope, a professor at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del., filed a brief in support of the family, saying that the hospitals are seeking too much ultimate authority.

This is probably the most even-handed media treatment of the case that has appeared in print.  I’m told that Ms. Sataline spent a significant amount of time making sure she had a complete understanding of the facts of the case.

More later on this case – either on developments or on other commentary about it.  –Stephen Drake

Not Dead Yet UK Launches “The Resistance Campaign”

activism, advocacy, assisted suicide, euthanasia prevention coalition, jane campbell, Our News & Commentary Blog, policy, United Kingdom

(The picture at the right is of disability activists in the UK. Most in the picture are using wheelchairs.  Several are holding signs.  There are two signs that can be read.  One says “You cut our money – you cut our lifeline;” and the other says “Increased poverty/Increased disability”).

Not Dead Yet UK has launched “The Resistance Campaign,” urging all Members of Parliament (MPs) to sign on to the ‘Resistance’ Charter 2010 – protecting the lives of disabled and terminally ill people.

Key points from the charter:

· A recognition that disabled and terminally ill people should have the same legal protection as everyone else
· A commitment to support disabled and terminally ill constituents to access the health, social and other services that they need
· A commitment to oppose any change to the current law, which makes assisted suicide illegal.

 The campaign has gotten coverage on the BBC, The Guardian, and Public Service.

Here’s an excerpt from Jane Campbell’s column about the campaign in The Guardian:

Disabled and terminally ill people have had to deal with fear, prejudice and discrimination since the beginning of time. Our lives have been devalued by statements such as “he/she’d be better off dead”. In recent years, calls for a change to the law prohibiting assisted suicide have grown louder and more frequent. They capitalise on fear. Fear of pain, fear of loss of dignity, fear of being a burden. And, yes, fear of witnessing those fears being felt by those we know and love. The solution offered to the fear of disability and illness is final: suicide.

Yet suicide is not well thought of in our society. It is “committed” by the mentally ill and those unable to face the future. In both cases, society does all that it can to prevent suicidal thoughts being enacted. Life is too precious to be solely entrusted to individual action. That society is willing to protect us, even from ourselves in times of personal crisis, defines our – and its – humanity.

However, those seeking a change to the law on assisted suicide say such ideals have no place when considering severely disabled and terminally ill people. Such lives, it seems, are not so precious: ending them prematurely should be a matter of individual choice. Perversely, if you can take your own life without assistance, society generally strives to protect you; but, if assistance to die is needed, they argue, it should be provided. The option to choose the time of one’s death is to be reserved for those for whom assistance is required.

No equality there. Yet many see this as irrefutably logical and compassionate.

We here in the US applaud our brothers and sisters in the UK for continuing to present a powerful resistance to policies that endorse the ideas that disabled people are better off dead, as good as dead – and cheaper if we’re dead. –Stephen Drake