Thursday, January 6, 2011

Why We Fight

Forgive the World War II reference, but as I write this, I am reminded of the estimate of 45,000 deaths attributable to lack of access to health care, not even counting the countless maimings, wounding, and psychological hurt inflicted on the uninsured and under-insured in America, it seems appropriate. It is not an existential threat to our democracy, but this is, make no mistake, a battle for the soul of our country. As Michael Moore put it in “Sicko,” is America about “we”or “me?”

As physicians, we are obliged to be about “we.” In the Charter on Medical Professionalism, we are enjoined to seek social justice in the delivery of medical care, to be good stewards of our health care resources. Specifically, physicians “should work actively to eliminate discrimination in health care, whether based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, or any other social category.”

We are also our patients fiercest advocates, and that includes those who can afford to see us and those who cannot. We all have our favorite collection of horror stories of the American healthcare system leaving individuals to fend for themselves with no hope of accessing the system until it is too late. Part of my anecdote collection is here, and I always trot it out when I am told a third hand anecdote about how bad health care is in “other countries.” For most Americans, health care is pretty good, but for the uninsured or under-insured, America is a third world country: access to care is completely dependent upon ability to pay.

Remember that, only in America of all advanced nations, have we answered “No!” (or perhaps “Hell, no!” from some) to the question of whether, as Uwe Reinhardt has put it, “As a matter of national policy, and to the extent that a nation's health system can make it possible, should the child of a poor American family have the same chance of avoiding preventable illness or of being cured from a given illness as does the child of a rich American family?” Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan argues that lack of access to health care is a fundamental road block to equality of opportunity in America, that placing the additional hurdle of untreated illness on a large segment of society is inherently unjust.

It has been pointed out that Americans are singular in the world in our Christian religiosity, but this religiosity is characterized by public policy consistent with ruthless Social Darwinism in many respects, while Europeans are pointedly irreligious, yet have structured their societies to function along a very progressive commitment to social safety nets, social justice and equality of opportunity, as well as a very Teddy-Rooseveltian distrust of great accumulated wealth.

I, as do many, take pride in my religion's unwavering commitment to Social Justice, Glenn Beck's disapproval notwithstanding. It is what keeps me a Catholic, and I am sure it is what keeps many in other traditional churches. It is, in fact, fundamental to every religion, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and more, and most non-religious philosophical paradigms as well. I am well aware, however, that the most influential book outside of the Bible in America, “Atlas Shrugged,” and its author, vehemently reject all such sentiment as counter-productive nonsense. And this book is widely commended by conservatives who consider themselves deeply religious Christians.

So, this basic ethical commitment to fairness, tending to the sick, the poor, the treating of others as we would wish treated, is pervasive among every population in the world, except for those who follow the Ayn Rand school. I cannot fathom this, as I think the cognitive dissonance of holding both Christianity and Rand dear would be incapacitating, but there it is, and it is rampant in our political and clerical classes.

The argument is frequently made to me that their Christianity only allows for individual charity, not state sponsored programs. That is nice in theory, but as even Mike Huckabee acknowledged:
“If there are a certain number of kids from single-parent homes who aren’t going to school and don’t have health care, you can say that’s not government’s job,” Huckabee told me. “Well, sweet and fine! But you know what? If the kid’s sitting outside the door of the hospital choking with asthma, do I sit there and say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t think, philosophically, government should get involved’? I’d much rather the kid get help than I sit around and say I’m so pure in my ideology.”
And, frankly, the milk of human kindness has not flowed freely enough anywhere in the world to provide health care to a population, and I don't expect it to do so now. I don't think giving it another century to work itself out is a reasonable strategy.

We fight because of the fundamental unfairness of the system to so many. One in six Americans is uninsured, another one in six under-insured; the deaths, injuries, bankruptcies, anguish and degradation of basic human dignity are why we fight. The America I grew up in was working on being better than this. The Great Society programs of LBJ took us a long way forward, and we have been painfully stuck in place until the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act in 2010.

PPACA represents our rejection of treating so many of our brothers and sisters and our patients as lesser human beings, less deserving, less worthy of our help. Let's keep fighting for “We the People,” and fight those only concerned about “me.” Ayn Rand and Glen Beck notwithstanding.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Palliative Care May Trump Heroic Measures in Life Expectancy | Miller-McCune Online

Palliative Care May Trump Heroic Measures in Life Expectancy | Miller-McCune Online

Another commentary regarding the NEJM Palliative Care article, health reform and a quote or two from me (Thanks, Joanne!)

Sphere: Related Content

Book Review - Churchill’s Empire - By Richard Toye - NYTimes.com

Book Review - Churchill’s Empire - By Richard Toye - NYTimes.com

Winston Churchill is remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour
— but what if he also led the country through her most shameful one? What if, in
addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a
raw white supremacy and a concentration camp network of his own? This question
burns through Richard Toye’s superb, unsettling new history, “Churchill’s
Empire” — and is even seeping into the Oval Office.



The Book Review is titled "The Two Churchills," and makes the point that for all the things we admire Churchill for, he was not always right.

Sphere: Related Content

AMA Morning Rounds on NEJM Palliative Care Article

Early palliative care may prolong survival, enhance quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer.


The New York Times (8/19, A15, McNeil) reports that a trial "paid for by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and private philanthropy" appears to "shed new light on the effects of end-of-life care." In fact, it "confirmed what...specialists had long suspected," that is, patients with "terminal lung cancer who began receiving palliative care immediately upon diagnosis not only were happier, more mobile, and in less pain as the end neared, but they also lived nearly three months longer." The paper appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.



Notably, "palliative care specialists lament that their image as the medical world's grim reaper deprives patients and their families of care and support that can ease the burden of serious illnesses that exact a steep physical, psychological, and social toll," the Boston Globe (8/19, A1, Smith) reports on its front page. "All too often, they said, patients and doctors outside their field equate palliative medicine with hospice care, even though hospice is the refuge for people who have stopped aggressive treatment and whose death is imminent." But, "palliative care...is available at any juncture during a life-threatening illness and, at its core, is designed to make living with a serious ailment more comfortable, incorporating everything from exercise to counseling to pain medication."



The current study illustrates that and is "one of the best tests yet of palliative care," the AP (8/19, Marchione) reports. It should also "ease many fears about starting it soon after diagnosis, doctors say." Researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) began their study by looking at "151 people newly diagnosed with cancer that had spread beyond the lung."



Seventy-seven of the "newly diagnosed patients were assigned to receive palliative care along with the standard treatment for the cancer," while the "other 74 patients received the standard treatment without palliative care," the Los Angeles Times "Booster Shots" (8/18, Roan) blog reported. The team eventually discovered that "patients receiving palliative care...scored higher on measures of quality of life and enjoying the time they had left. They also were more likely to express their wishes regarding resuscitation at the end of life."



What's more, those "who received palliative care in addition to standard care had...a 50 percent lower rate of depression and they lived 2.5 months longer than patients not receiving palliative care early," HealthDay (8/18, Doheny) reported.



MGH's Jennifer S. Temel, MD, told WebMD (8/18, Mann), "We were surprised by the magnitude of impact that palliative care had on quality of life, which normally decreases over time in these cancer patients, and the magnitude of the impact it had on depression." And, "the survival benefit was the most surprising thing," she added. "Cancer care and palliative care are not mutually exclusive." Bloomberg News (8/19, Cortez), the Wall Street Journal (8/18, Hobson) "Health Blog" and MedPage Today (8/18, Bankhead) also covered the study

Sphere: Related Content