Ted Kennedy and the End of All Health Care

Watching the traveling funeral cortege of Senator Edward Kennedy inevitably triggered memories of the funeral of John F. Kennedy-- the most tragic funeral of my time. The assassination broke America's heart. Its now iconic images mirrored our shared grief. If those images could speak they would remind us that we mourned both the man and also the tremendous optimism he inspired, an optimism wounded but never killed. John Kennedy encouraged us to believe that idealism, humane attitudes, and caring would prevail in our country. He helped America rediscover its soul and its purpose. Ted Kennedy turned his brother's inspiration into a living trust that year after year paid out generously to our benefit. When Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy stood with Barack Obama, that same hope, that same belief, that same trust were rekindled in millions of people around the world, as America once again reaffirmed its soul and its purpose.

Watching entrenched interests oppose the meaningful health care reform Kennedy sought, I've wondered who's now winning the battle for America's soul?

As the debate over insurance coverage proceeds, let's remember that there is an end to all health care--it ends with a funeral. Before that end comes for each one of us, does our health care system provide a few simple essentials as we move through life to death?

Let's ask: First, was no harm done to us? Was our suffering alleviated? Were we treated with dignity?

In today's health care system, caring and dignity are sometimes in short supply. Those who lack basic health services want in to our health system--which is a basic human right.

However, even if Bill Gates wrote a blank check so that every American could access the full spectrum of high tech health care, that's no guarantee of caring or dignity as the film Money-Driven Medicine, which Bill Moyers aired this week, reveals.

In the film, the medical infrastructure bore down on one family to force their daughter to undergo costly heroic treatments for childhood leukemia. These treatments destroyed her quality of life and were ultimately ineffective. Finally, near the end, her parents faced up to the sad inevitability of their daughter's passing, and wanted to spare her additional suffering, and allow her to die with dignity. But they did not have that right. Their doctors threatened to sue them if they opted not to put their child through yet another round of painful treatments. They had no choice but to watch the suffering of her final days.

Obviously, no one wants necessary treatment to be refused based on the profit motive.
But neither should we have treatments imposed upon us based on the profit (or legal) motives--and that occurs just as often. If there's little to no gain from invasive treatments, where is the imperative to use them no matter what?

Where you stand in the health care debate may depend on whether you are seen as a profit center-- or as a profit loss-- by the medical, insurance, and drug industries. Those deemed a profit loss demand and deserve more inclusion. They have suffered or seen loved ones suffer due to lack of appropriate care.

Those deemed a profit center don't exactly want "out," but they want to avoid high tech care, unless absolutely necessary. They aim to reduce the need for it by using approaches that keep people healthier longer. They want the right to choose and receive insurance coverage for health care that serves their needs. They've suffered or seen loved ones suffer from from treatment excesses, such as drug side effects, drug interactions, complications from surgery, vaccine injuries, unnecessary tests, hospital-based infections, and/or invasive procedures that were unsuccessful in prolonging life.

Being either a profit loss or a profit center is life-threatening. As Money-Driven Medicine reveals in a survey of health mortality outcomes by state, whether you are under-served or over-served, there is absolutely no difference in mortality. You can die just as readily through receiving treatment, as you can from being denied treatment. That should serve as acautionary to us all.

However we show up in business' ledger entry, either way, we're not being accorded human dignity. So in the health care debate, let's not lose sight of the end of health care. In the end, what matters are human caring, respect, and dignity.

Get the free ezine, the Health Outlook at www.health-journalist.com

Follow Alison Rose Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/healthattitude

Comments

[Lesscancer]

Thanks Alison for your spot on post-
Health care seemingly more and more sounds like a math problem.
We need to keep the "care" in health care.

Bill Couzens, Founder Less Cancer

[liftitup]

Thanks for staying on the story, Alison. The for-profit approach to life has penetrated so deep into the fabric of our society. As we pull on this thread, the others will follow. May we all wake up soon.

[RMankovitz]

It may well be that Ted Kennedy was also a victim of our profit-driven health care system.

As a research scientist and author of several books on illness prevention, my suggestion for someone diagnosed with brain cancer is as follows. Before undergoing treatment with conventional oncology methods (chemo/radiation) , contact the Burzynski Clinic in Texas. See:

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/

Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, developed the antineoplaston treatment for cancer and, in my opinion, has cured more people of brain cancer than all of the oncologists in this country combined. Never heard of him? Both the FDA and the oncology industry tried to put him out of business , but those of us in the alternative health field came to his defense. Finally, even the FDA had to admit his procedure works, and they are presently running supervised clinical trials.

Unfortunately, you first have to qualify for these trials to get the antineoplaston treatments. In other words, the FDA is using the clinical trial approach to choke off widespread access to this amazing therapy, in some cases insisting that you first go through the horrors of chemo/radiation, which unfortunately lowers chances of success. The rest of the oncologists are ignoring him.

I hope I am wrong, but I doubt Ted Kennedy was given this option.

For a list of Burzynski's more than 250 peer-reviewed research papers on cancer treatment:

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ph/media-corner-publications.html

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[Alison Rose Levy - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, Roy, for your mention of Dr. Burzynski's amazing and highly effective work. I first became aware of it over sixteen years ago. While it certainly can't be said that every integrative therapy available is as powerful for treatment of major acute-stage diseases as his is, the truth is that integrative health is not only about "prevention" or diet, as important as both of those approaches are.

There are a range of treatments for a number of the serious ailments out there, but the general public is not aware of them due to the kind of opposition you describe here, Roy. All too often, what happens in our for-profit health environment is that "business competitors," ie. practitioners offering other services try to subvert those who treat an ailment more successfully or less invasively than they do. This leads to the healers offering these protocols try to "fly below the radar" so they don't get shut down.

As a result, few people know of -- or benefit from their treatments, although people in the fieldl, like you and me, Roy, may be aware of some of them.

For more on health information and action, sign up for free ezine at www-health-journalist.com

[RMankovitz]

Alison:

I completely agree with your comments. Keep up the good work.

Regards from me and Hans Gruenn.

[LordMoon]

Without somone to care, to provide empathy, and support then health "care", really is just a ledger sheet, looking only for checks in the right boxes, and for sums that add up in the plus column.

Perhaps, Healthcare should not be viewed as business at all but rather, a way of caring for sick people, and helping them get well so they can be productive members of society.

But, too often, what happens afterward, is never addressed, and those who provide direct care, are at the bottom of the system, over worked, undervalued, and disrespected. Devalued, to increase profits, and decrease overhead.

Conversly, those at the top, expect to be treated as kings, with the power of life or death, immune to the consequnces of their decisioins, rewarded as royalty, believing that they unconstrained by law or constitution, protected by vast armies of lawyers whose sole job is to protect them rather than the public's good.

[Alison Rose Levy - Huffpost Blogger]

Beautifully and eloquently stated, LordMoon. Thank you so much for your wise comments.

You are so right that it does not bode well for a society, aiming to be a democracy, which allows these kinds of divisions.

Nurses are the unsung heroes and heroines of health care. When those who provide direct care to us are underpaid and disrespected, it is we ourselves who are being undervalued and disrespected.

It's a sad and painful wakeup call when people fall into the hospital health care system. That's why I always encourage people to become informed and empowered in their own self-care.

Sign up for the free ezine at www.health-journalist.com