Re: Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

[Guest guest]

Dr Kevorkian went to jail for doing the exact same thing the state is prepared to offer. Just a little food for thought. Hugs Akiba -- Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.htmlRemind me never to move to Oregon! lol Seriously, I wonder how the cost of this woman's cancer treatment meds compare with cost of MS disease modifying drugs? At what point of medical costs for someone with MS hit that point where it is cheaper to pay for their death? Let's see: regular meds, a new power chair, CRAB-T drug treatment, possible hospitalizations, in-home care...... To quote from the letter from Oregon about the decision: "Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan". Notice this part: "or change the course of this disease."Doesn't that fit with the disease-modifying drugs (CRAB-Ts)??? Aren't these drugs to change the course of disease? Granted, lung cancer is different from MS, but.......where will the line be drawn in the future?Sharon

Wednesday June 4, 2008

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

By Tim Waggoner

SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision.

Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free.

"I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy."

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."According to an AP story on Wagner's case, local oncologists in Oregon have said that, despite the Health Services Commission's assertion that they were just clarifying policies already in place, healthcare practitioners have observed a sizable shift in policy in the way recurrent cancer is treated in the state. Increasingly, say local oncologists, sufferers of recurrent cancer are not receiving coverage for chemotherapy. They are always, however, eligible for state-funded assisted suicide.

Wesley J. , a prominent conservative bioethicist, says that he was not surprised by the events.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario."

also mentioned a similar circumstance that had occurred in the past: "This isn't the first time this has happened either. A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide."

[Guest guest]

My husband died of terminal liver and biliary duct

cancer. He was, as California then out it "eased

out" with morphine which he legitimately needed

for intractable pain. This, and this is the big dif

ference, was Hans' own choice, made in writing

with witness (notary public) and signed by his own

attorney. There were copies all over his chart.

He had a choice. Then along came a nurse who

felt that there was "always hope," who in the mid

dle of the night got an ER doctor to turn off his

morphine. He lived approximately six more days

than he might have otherwise--in total agony.

He was the bravest person I have ever known--

throughout his long illness (NOT due to alcoholism,

etc.) To think that just because someone was on

Medicaid might deny that person the choice that

Hans had, that I still have, that any person would

wish to be able to make as to an advance directive,

is almost unthinkable. It matters not whether they

want out of it all fast, want to prolong it, or want

good quality hospital care, it should be up to the

patient and/or durable power of attorney person

so designated when the patient was well.

The problem with Kavorkian was that he was

enabling people to die who had no advance

directive, no statement from their physician(s)

that they had entered the end-stage of their di

sease. What he did was all about him, not centered

on the INFORMED consent of the patients, who were

not under his care, anyway. I can see no defense for

him, but can see that each individual would choose

differently under each of our unique circumstances.

And, I already have prepare my will, my advance

directive, etc. and every single one of my physicians

has a copy, as well as each of the three hospitals where

I might land.

I am no departing for this wild day in my life,

not to depart permanently, but to spend the

day with the kids, their spouses, the grandkids,

my friends, et. al.

Love,

n

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

http://www.lifesite news.com/ ldn/2008/ jun/08060402. htmlRemind me never to move to Oregon! lol Seriously, I wonder how the cost of this woman's cancer treatment meds compare with cost of MS disease modifying drugs? At what point of medical costs for someone with MS hit that point where it is cheaper to pay for their death? Let's see: regular meds, a new power chair, CRAB-T drug treatment, possible hospitalizations, in-home care...... To quote from the letter from Oregon about the decision: "Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan". Notice this part:

"or change the course of this disease."Doesn't that fit with the disease-modifying drugs (CRAB-Ts)??? Aren't these drugs to change the course of disease? Granted, lung cancer is different from MS, but.......where will the line be drawn in the future?Sharon

Wednesday June 4, 2008

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

By Tim Waggoner

SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews. com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescrib ed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision.

Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free.

"I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy."

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."According to an AP story on Wagner's case, local oncologists in Oregon have said that, despite the Health Services Commission's assertion that they were just clarifying policies already in place, healthcare practitioners have observed a sizable shift in policy in the way recurrent cancer is treated in the state.

Increasingly, say local oncologists, sufferers of recurrent cancer are not receiving coverage for chemotherapy. They are always, however, eligible for state-funded assisted suicide.

Wesley J. , a prominent conservative bioethicist, says that he was not surprised by the events.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario."

also mentioned a similar circumstance that had occurred in the past: "This isn't the first time this has happened either. A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide."

[Guest guest]

I, personally, do think that people *should* have the choice. We ease our pets out, smoothly and easily, with one small shot, why can't we give ourselves the same dignity? What I objected to in that article was really that the state was, in a sense, advocating her death. And from the sounds of it, she was not ready to go. I certainly *don't* want the state (any state) telling me I need to die to save them money!!! That said...Have an awesome, wonderful, incredible day! Loveya Akiba -- Re: Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient My husband died of terminal liver and biliary duct cancer. He was, as California then out it "eased

out" with morphine which he legitimately needed

for intractable pain. This, and this is the big dif

ference, was Hans' own choice, made in writing

with witness (notary public) and signed by his own

attorney. There were copies all over his chart.

He had a choice. Then along came a nurse who

felt that there was "always hope," who in the mid

dle of the night got an ER doctor to turn off his

morphine. He lived approximately six more days

than he might have otherwise--in total agony.

He was the bravest person I have ever known--

throughout his long illness (NOT due to alcoholism,

etc.) To think that just because someone was on

Medicaid might deny that person the choice that

Hans had, that I still have, that any person would

wish to be able to make as to an advance directive,

is almost unthinkable. It matters not whether they

want out of it all fast, want to prolong it, or want

good quality hospital care, it should be up to the

patient and/or durable power of attorney person

so designated when the patient was well.

The problem with Kavorkian was that he was

enabling people to die who had no advance

directive, no statement from their physician(s)

that they had entered the end-stage of their di

sease. What he did was all about him, not centered

on the INFORMED consent of the patients, who were

not under his care, anyway. I can see no defense for

him, but can see that each individual would choose

differently under each of our unique circumstances.

And, I already have prepare my will, my advance

directive, etc. and every single one of my physicians

has a copy, as well as each of the three hospitals where

I might land.

I am no departing for this wild day in my life,

not to depart permanently, but to spend the

day with the kids, their spouses, the grandkids,

my friends, et. al.

Love,

n

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

http://www.lifesite news.com/ ldn/2008/ jun/08060402. htmlRemind me never to move to Oregon! lol Seriously, I wonder how the cost of this woman's cancer treatment meds compare with cost of MS disease modifying drugs? At what point of medical costs for someone with MS hit that point where it is cheaper to pay for their death? Let's see: regular meds, a new power chair, CRAB-T drug treatment, possible hospitalizations, in-home care...... To quote from the letter from Oregon about the decision: "Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan". Notice this part: "or change the course of this disease."Doesn't that fit with the disease-modifying drugs (CRAB-Ts)??? Aren't these drugs to change the course of disease? Granted, lung cancer is different from MS, but.......where will the line be drawn in the future?Sharon

Wednesday June 4, 2008

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

By Tim Waggoner

SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews. com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescrib ed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision.

Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free.

"I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy."

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."According to an AP story on Wagner's case, local oncologists in Oregon have said that, despite the Health Services Commission's assertion that they were just clarifying policies already in place, healthcare practitioners have observed a sizable shift in policy in the way recurrent cancer is treated in the state. Increasingly, say local oncologists, sufferers of recurrent cancer are not receiving coverage for chemotherapy. They are always, however, eligible for state-funded assisted suicide.

Wesley J. , a prominent conservative bioethicist, says that he was not surprised by the events.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario."

also mentioned a similar circumstance that had occurred in the past: "This isn't the first time this has happened either. A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide."

[Guest guest]

I believe in patients being given enough pain meds to be comfortable. I'm glad Hans made his own decisions, save for the interfering nurse.I also strongly believe we must fight against the state being able to make the decision for us. That is just so, so wrong.love Sharonhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MSersHEALTH/This email is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects. Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient http://www.lifesite news.com/ ldn/2008/ jun/08060402. htmlRemind me never to move to Oregon! lol Seriously, I wonder how the cost of this woman's cancer treatment meds compare with cost of MS disease modifying drugs? At what point of medical costs for someone with MS hit that point where it is cheaper to pay for their death? Let's see: regular meds, a new power chair, CRAB-T drug treatment, possible hospitalizations, in-home care...... To quote from the letter from Oregon about the decision: "Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health

Plan". Notice this part:

"or change the course of this disease."Doesn't that fit with the disease-modifying drugs (CRAB-Ts)??? Aren't these drugs to change the course of disease? Granted, lung cancer is different from MS, but.......where will the line be drawn in the future?SharonWednesday June 4, 2008Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer PatientBy Tim WaggonerSALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews. com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescrib ed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself."Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the

course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision.Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free."I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy."Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said.

"We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."According to an AP story on Wagner's case, local oncologists in Oregon have said that, despite the Health Services Commission's assertion that they were just clarifying policies already in place, healthcare practitioners have observed a sizable shift in policy in the way recurrent cancer is treated in the state.

Increasingly, say local oncologists, sufferers of recurrent cancer are not receiving coverage for chemotherapy. They are always, however, eligible for state-funded assisted suicide. Wesley J. , a prominent conservative bioethicist, says that he was not surprised by the events."We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario." also mentioned a similar circumstance that had occurred in the past: "This isn't the first time this has happened either. A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide."

[Guest guest]

This sickens me. It has to start somewhere. It will be the ill, or elderly, followed by the disabled. We have no sanctity of life. Sharon wrote: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.htmlRemind me never to move to Oregon! lol Seriously, I wonder how the cost of this woman's cancer treatment meds compare with cost of MS disease modifying drugs? At what point of medical costs for someone with MS hit that point where it is cheaper to pay for their death? Let's see: regular meds, a new power chair, CRAB-T drug treatment, possible hospitalizations, in-home care...... To quote from the letter from Oregon about the decision: "Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan". Notice this part: "or change the course of this

disease."Doesn't that fit with the disease-modifying drugs (CRAB-Ts)??? Aren't these drugs to change the course of disease? Granted, lung cancer is different from MS, but.......where will the line be drawn in the future?Sharon Wednesday June 4, 2008 Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient By Tim Waggoner SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself. "Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the

Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision. Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?" This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free. "I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy." Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good

for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."According to an AP story on Wagner's case, local oncologists in Oregon have said that, despite the Health Services Commission's assertion that they were just clarifying policies already in place, healthcare practitioners have observed a sizable shift in policy in the way recurrent cancer is treated in the state. Increasingly, say local oncologists, sufferers of recurrent cancer are not receiving coverage for chemotherapy. They are always, however, eligible for state-funded assisted suicide. Wesley J. , a prominent conservative bioethicist, says that he was not surprised by the

events. "We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario." also mentioned a similar circumstance that had occurred in the past: "This isn't the first time this has happened either. A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide." Blessings, Trista Christians who stand strong are like flowers; the more you crush them, the stronger the fragrance.

[Guest guest]

That drug company should be commended! I did a search and finally - after reading far more than I ever wanted of Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act", statistics, opinions, implications, yaddi yah - I found the name of the drug company. Genentech Inc. Their motto is "In Business for Life". It seems so for Barbara Wagner.

Barbara Wagner's lung cancer recurred, after two years in remission. Her Oncologist prescribed a chemotherapy med. A medication which could "slow the cancer growth and extend her life". A medication which could "decrease pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life", as studies show. She wanted to take the med. Her physician(s) felt it was appropriate and could prove beneficial. They felt she had a chance with this medication. And the state said no, but generously (<tongue in cheek>) offered to cover state assisted suicide if she so chose.

The state's response, canned or not, is appalling. This isn't about the "right to chose". It isn't about the philosophical stance, the political views, nor the religious beliefs tangled up in the general topic... It isn't about supporting state assisted suicide or disagreeing with it. It is about a woman who has a chance to fight cancer, to live, to find benefits from this medication, and who chooses that option being told "nope, too bad, but hey if you wanna die we're all for helping you out". That is wrong.

"Treatment of advanced cancer meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not covered by the Oregon Health Plan, said the unsigned letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the plan in Lane County."

She was told they "would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

I wonder what the comfort and care is, as determined by those in charge of determining. Clearly the comfort and care the chemotherapy med might provide doesn't fit.

No one thinks the state has outright mandated state assisted suicide for this woman. The letter didn't state, "we won't cover chemotherapy, but we will cover suicide and your date of death is determined to be August 7th, 2008". We see they've given the "option" of state assisted suicide.

Yet when you get right down to it, denying this woman the course of treatment which could improve and even save her life isn't giving her much choice. She has, in essence, been given the choice of taking pills and dying or allowing the cancer to take it's course and kill her, in what we all know would not likely be a pleasant experience. They have given her the choice: she can choose the rock or the hard place. Where is life offered? One could certainly argue that this is a sort of mandate of it's own, with that aspect of discussion introduced.

Their "list" of what is acceptable needs revamped. Now, is this the state, overall, or is this "LIPA, the Eugene company which administers the plan in Lane County"? I know in Arizona, each area has a specific insurance company or companies which a person may choose when determined eligible for benefits. So, is it the State or the Company? Both? ("Officials of LIPA and the state policy-making Health Services Commission say they've not changed how they cover treatment of recurrent cancer.") Either way, things needs changed. Yup, I understand finances, need to control and dole, and all the intricate details. But denying care (life, when we get right down to it) and offering suicide in it's place is not okay.

It is all the more unsettling to read of the physicians who find this response by the state to be increasingly common.

"But local oncologists say they've seen a change and that their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer no longer get coverage for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care."

"It doesn't adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community, said Dr. Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center."

So often there might be a rant, vent or soapbox pulled out, regarding insurance companies, the lack of care, the problems in health care in general. Criticism of the insurance companies decisions which deny what a physician feels is appropriate care for their patient, denies what a patient feels is appropriate for themselves, placing people in a position of not having access to care they deserve, not being able to afford what they need, of suffering when it needn't be suffered, etc., etc., etc. These are issues we read and say often. And here a woman is denied life saving/improving care and offered death instead?

No, it isn't about state assisted suicide being supported or disagreed with. It's about something so very wrong with our health care system going to an extreme degree. It is about taking the individuals rights away from them and allowing others to dictate life or death. And, should the discussion take the course, one could introduce the argument that selective extermination is being employed.

The "choices" given this woman, the response by her state, knowing where we or our loves ones could fall down the road... this is upsetting and venting of concern is warranted. It is all to easy for something intended to be of good to go so very wrong.

And those are my pennies, mostly found on various sidewalks.

Challis

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html

Drug company supplies cancer drug Oregan Health Plan won't.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1422648~Drug_company_supplies_cancer_drug_Oregon_Health_Plan_won_t.html

Genentech

In Business For Life

http://www.gene.com/gene/index.jsp

[Guest guest]

Great post Challis, Good for you.

Regards,

Tom

Re: Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

That drug company should be commended! I did a search and finally - after reading far more than I ever wanted of Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act", statistics, opinions, implications, yaddi yah - I found the name of the drug company. Genentech Inc. Their motto is "In Business for Life". It seems so for Barbara Wagner.

Barbara Wagner's lung cancer recurred, after two years in remission. Her Oncologist prescribed a chemotherapy med. A medication which could "slow the cancer growth and extend her life". A medication which could "decrease pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life", as studies show. She wanted to take the med. Her physician(s) felt it was appropriate and could prove beneficial. They felt she had a chance with this medication. And the state said no, but generously (<tongue in cheek>) offered to cover state assisted suicide if she so chose.

The state's response, canned or not, is appalling. This isn't about the "right to chose". It isn't about the philosophical stance, the political views, nor the religious beliefs tangled up in the general topic... It isn't about supporting state assisted suicide or disagreeing with it. It is about a woman who has a chance to fight cancer, to live, to find benefits from this medication, and who chooses that option being told "nope, too bad, but hey if you wanna die we're all for helping you out". That is wrong.

"Treatment of advanced cancer meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not covered by the Oregon Health Plan, said the unsigned letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the plan in Lane County."

She was told they "would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

I wonder what the comfort and care is, as determined by those in charge of determining. Clearly the comfort and care the chemotherapy med might provide doesn't fit.

No one thinks the state has outright mandated state assisted suicide for this woman. The letter didn't state, "we won't cover chemotherapy, but we will cover suicide and your date of death is determined to be August 7th, 2008". We see they've given the "option" of state assisted suicide.

Yet when you get right down to it, denying this woman the course of treatment which could improve and even save her life isn't giving her much choice. She has, in essence, been given the choice of taking pills and dying or allowing the cancer to take it's course and kill her, in what we all know would not likely be a pleasant experience. They have given her the choice: she can choose the rock or the hard place. Where is life offered? One could certainly argue that this is a sort of mandate of it's own, with that aspect of discussion introduced.

Their "list" of what is acceptable needs revamped. Now, is this the state, overall, or is this "LIPA, the Eugene company which administers the plan in Lane County"? I know in Arizona, each area has a specific insurance company or companies which a person may choose when determined eligible for benefits. So, is it the State or the Company? Both? ("Officials of LIPA and the state policy-making Health Services Commission say they've not changed how they cover treatment of recurrent cancer.") Either way, things needs changed. Yup, I understand finances, need to control and dole, and all the intricate details. But denying care (life, when we get right down to it) and offering suicide in it's place is not okay.

It is all the more unsettling to read of the physicians who find this response by the state to be increasingly common.

"But local oncologists say they've seen a change and that their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer no longer get coverage for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care."

"It doesn't adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community, said Dr. Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center."

So often there might be a rant, vent or soapbox pulled out, regarding insurance companies, the lack of care, the problems in health care in general. Criticism of the insurance companies decisions which deny what a physician feels is appropriate care for their patient, denies what a patient feels is appropriate for themselves, placing people in a position of not having access to care they deserve, not being able to afford what they need, of suffering when it needn't be suffered, etc., etc., etc. These are issues we read and say often. And here a woman is denied life saving/improving care and offered death instead?

No, it isn't about state assisted suicide being supported or disagreed with. It's about something so very wrong with our health care system going to an extreme degree. It is about taking the individuals rights away from them and allowing others to dictate life or death. And, should the discussion take the course, one could introduce the argument that selective extermination is being employed.

The "choices" given this woman, the response by her state, knowing where we or our loves ones could fall down the road... this is upsetting and venting of concern is warranted. It is all to easy for something intended to be of good to go so very wrong.

And those are my pennies, mostly found on various sidewalks.

Challis

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html

Drug company supplies cancer drug Oregan Health Plan won't.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1422648~Drug_company_supplies_cancer_drug_Oregon_Health_Plan_won_t.html

Genentech

In Business For Life

http://www.gene.com/gene/index.jsp

[Guest guest]

Yes. I can only hope that the publicity surrounding

Barbara Wagner's case will cause full treatment--

rather what Senator Kennedy is receiving--to be

available to each of us, should that be needed.

If we made real health care available to all, we

might have the strength and the energy to fight

for other causes impacting all of us.

Love to you all,

n Rojas

Re: Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient

That drug company should be commended! I did a search and finally - after reading far more than I ever wanted of Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act", statistics, opinions, implications, yaddi yah - I found the name of the drug company. Genentech Inc. Their motto is "In Business for Life". It seems so for Barbara Wagner.

Barbara Wagner's lung cancer recurred, after two years in remission. Her Oncologist prescribed a chemotherapy med. A medication which could "slow the cancer growth and extend her life". A medication which could "decrease pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life", as studies show. She wanted to take the med. Her physician(s) felt it was appropriate and could prove beneficial. They felt she had a chance with this medication. And the state said no, but generously (<tongue in cheek>) offered to cover state assisted suicide if she so chose.

The state's response, canned or not, is appalling. This isn't about the "right to chose". It isn't about the philosophical stance, the political views, nor the religious beliefs tangled up in the general topic... It isn't about supporting state assisted suicide or disagreeing with it. It is about a woman who has a chance to fight cancer, to live, to find benefits from this medication, and who chooses that option being told "nope, too bad, but hey if you wanna die we're all for helping you out". That is wrong.

"Treatment of advanced cancer meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not covered by the Oregon Health Plan, said the unsigned letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the plan in Lane County."

She was told they "would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

I wonder what the comfort and care is, as determined by those in charge of determining. Clearly the comfort and care the chemotherapy med might provide doesn't fit.

No one thinks the state has outright mandated state assisted suicide for this woman. The letter didn't state, "we won't cover chemotherapy, but we will cover suicide and your date of death is determined to be August 7th, 2008". We see they've given the "option" of state assisted suicide.

Yet when you get right down to it, denying this woman the course of treatment which could improve and even save her life isn't giving her much choice. She has, in essence, been given the choice of taking pills and dying or allowing the cancer to take it's course and kill her, in what we all know would not likely be a pleasant experience. They have given her the choice: she can choose the rock or the hard place. Where is life offered? One could certainly argue that this is a sort of mandate of it's own, with that aspect of discussion introduced.

Their "list" of what is acceptable needs revamped. Now, is this the state, overall, or is this "LIPA, the Eugene company which administers the plan in Lane County"? I know in Arizona, each area has a specific insurance company or companies which a person may choose when determined eligible for benefits. So, is it the State or the Company? Both? ("Officials of LIPA and the state policy-making Health Services Commission say they've not changed how they cover treatment of recurrent cancer.") Either way, things needs changed. Yup, I understand finances, need to control and dole, and all the intricate details. But denying care (life, when we get right down to it) and offering suicide in it's place is not okay.

It is all the more unsettling to read of the physicians who find this response by the state to be increasingly common.

"But local oncologists say they've seen a change and that their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer no longer get coverage for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care."

"It doesn't adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community, said Dr. Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center."

So often there might be a rant, vent or soapbox pulled out, regarding insurance companies, the lack of care, the problems in health care in general. Criticism of the insurance companies decisions which deny what a physician feels is appropriate care for their patient, denies what a patient feels is appropriate for themselves, placing people in a position of not having access to care they deserve, not being able to afford what they need, of suffering when it needn't be suffered, etc., etc., etc. These are issues we read and say often. And here a woman is denied life saving/improving care and offered death instead?

No, it isn't about state assisted suicide being supported or disagreed with. It's about something so very wrong with our health care system going to an extreme degree. It is about taking the individuals rights away from them and allowing others to dictate life or death. And, should the discussion take the course, one could introduce the argument that selective extermination is being employed.

The "choices" given this woman, the response by her state, knowing where we or our loves ones could fall down the road... this is upsetting and venting of concern is warranted. It is all to easy for something intended to be of good to go so very wrong.

And those are my pennies, mostly found on various sidewalks.

Challis

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient.

http://www.lifesite news.com/ ldn/2008/ jun/08060402. html

Drug company supplies cancer drug Oregan Health Plan won't.

http://www.examiner .com/a-1422648~ Drug_company_ supplies_ cancer_drug_ Oregon_Health_ Plan_won_ t.html

Genentech

In Business For Life

http://www.gene. com/gene/ index.jsp

[Guest guest]

Right on, once again my friend! Smyelin groovy wrote: That drug company should be commended! I did a search and finally - after reading far more than I ever wanted of Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act", statistics, opinions, implications, yaddi yah - I found the name of the

drug company. Genentech Inc. Their motto is "In Business for Life". It seems so for Barbara Wagner. Barbara Wagner's lung cancer recurred, after two years in remission. Her Oncologist prescribed a chemotherapy med. A medication which could "slow the cancer growth and extend her life". A medication which could "decrease pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life", as studies show. She wanted to take the med. Her physician(s) felt it was appropriate and could prove beneficial. They felt she had a chance with this medication. And the state said no, but generously (<tongue in cheek>) offered to cover state assisted suicide if she so chose. The state's response, canned or not, is appalling. This isn't about the "right to chose". It isn't about the philosophical stance, the political views, nor the religious beliefs tangled up in the general topic... It isn't about supporting state assisted suicide or disagreeing with it. It is about a woman who has a chance to fight cancer, to live, to find benefits from this medication, and who chooses that option being told "nope, too bad, but hey if you wanna die we're all for helping you out". That is wrong. "Treatment of advanced cancer meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not covered by the Oregon Health Plan, said the unsigned letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the plan

in Lane County." She was told they "would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide." I wonder what the comfort and care is, as determined by those in charge of determining. Clearly the comfort and care the chemotherapy med might provide doesn't fit. No one thinks the state has outright mandated state assisted suicide for this woman. The letter didn't state, "we won't cover chemotherapy, but we will cover suicide and your date of death is determined to be August 7th, 2008".

We see they've given the "option" of state assisted suicide. Yet when you get right down to it, denying this woman the course of treatment which could improve and even save her life isn't giving her much choice. She has, in essence, been given the choice of taking pills and dying or allowing the cancer to take it's course and kill her, in what we all know would not likely be a pleasant experience. They have given her the choice: she can choose the rock or the hard place. Where is life offered? One could certainly argue that this is a sort of mandate of it's own, with that aspect of discussion introduced. Their "list" of what is acceptable needs

revamped. Now, is this the state, overall, or is this "LIPA, the Eugene company which administers the plan in Lane County"? I know in Arizona, each area has a specific insurance company or companies which a person may choose when determined eligible for benefits. So, is it the State or the Company? Both? ("Officials of LIPA and the state policy-making Health Services Commission say they've not changed how they cover treatment of recurrent cancer.") Either way, things needs changed. Yup, I understand finances, need to control and dole, and all the intricate details. But denying care (life, when we get right down to it) and offering suicide in it's place is not okay. It is all the more unsettling to read of the physicians who find this response

by the state to be increasingly common. "But local oncologists say they've seen a change and that their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer no longer get coverage for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care." "It doesn't adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community, said Dr. Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center." So often there might be a rant, vent or soapbox pulled out, regarding insurance companies, the lack of care, the problems in health care in general.

Criticism of the insurance companies decisions which deny what a physician feels is appropriate care for their patient, denies what a patient feels is appropriate for themselves, placing people in a position of not having access to care they deserve, not being able to afford what they need, of suffering when it needn't be suffered, etc., etc., etc. These are issues we read and say often. And here a woman is denied life saving/improving care and offered death instead? No, it isn't about state assisted suicide being supported or disagreed with. It's about something so very wrong with our health care system going to an extreme degree. It is about taking the individuals rights away from them and allowing others to dictate life or death. And, should the discussion

take the course, one could introduce the argument that selective extermination is being employed. The "choices" given this woman, the response by her state, knowing where we or our loves ones could fall down the road... this is upsetting and venting of concern is warranted. It is all to easy for something intended to be of good to go so very wrong. And those are my pennies, mostly found on various sidewalks. Challis Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html Drug company supplies cancer drug Oregan Health Plan won't. http://www.examiner.com/a-1422648~Drug_company_supplies_cancer_drug_Oregon_Health_Plan_won_t.html Genentech In Business For Life http://www.gene.com/gene/index.jsp Blessings, Trista Christians who stand strong are like flowers; the more you crush them, the stronger the fragrance.