The Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover drugs for a physician-assisted death.

[megimoo]

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon: Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide

" At about $50 to KIll Her Vs $4,000-a-month drug to Help her .Its a lot Cheaper to Kill her Than to Help Her !

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law --" Insurance Industry's Cost Controls !"

the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing. Barbara Wagner(Paul Carter/Register-Guard) The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her.

Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. "It was horrible . "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.

'Dr. Death's' New MissionOpponents say the law presents all involved with an "unacceptable conflict" and the impression that insurance companies see dying as a cost-saving measure. They say it steers those with limited finances toward assisted death.

"News of payment denial is tough enough for a terminally ill person to bear," said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, a group that supports coverage of physician-assisted death.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

[Elspeth]

he news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing. The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her.

Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. "It was horrible . "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

I went to the link and read the entire story. Thanks, megs, for the link, btw.

This is something that I have worried about since the advent of physician assisted suicide. For the record, I think that people have the moral right to take their own lives under extreme conditions of terminal illness, but I also believe that everything else should be tried first, including morphine (or other pain killer) in combination with anti-depressants. However, there does come a point where death is only a matter of (a short) time and I would want the option myself under those conditions.

However, making physician assisted suicide legal is another matter. I have, against my own beliefs, been opposed to making physician assisted suicide legal precisely because of the story above: the bottom-line thinking HMOs will want the cheapest way out, and death usually is cheaper. (In fact, at 50 bucks, death is cheaper than my last set of antibiotics!)

I don't know how to resolve the issue in my own mind. I just know that for very practical reasons, I opposed Oregon's law and will oppose any similar law that tries to take hold in California.

[Troll]

For the record, I think that people have the moral right to take their own lives under extreme conditions of terminal illness, but I also believe that everything else should be tried first, including morphine (or other pain killer) in combination with anti-depressants. However, there does come a point where death is only a matter of (a short) time and I would want the option myself under those conditions.

However, making physician assisted suicide legal is another matter. I have, against my own beliefs, been opposed to making physician assisted suicide legal precisely because of the story above: the bottom-line thinking HMOs will want the cheapest way out, and death usually is cheaper. (In fact, at 50 bucks, death is cheaper than my last set of antibiotics!)

I don't know how to resolve the issue in my own mind. I just know that for very practical reasons, I opposed Oregon's law and will oppose any similar law that tries to take hold in California.

That pretty much sums up my overall position on euthanasia. If someone is terminally ill or completely incapacitated and has exhausted all their other options, I don't find it to be a legitimate role of government to force them to live against their will. I don't know enough about physician-assisted suicide to have a solid opinion on it, but I'm guessing that my opinion would probably vary from case to case.

[megimoo]

I went to the link and read the entire story. Thanks, megs, for the link, btw.

This is something that I have worried about since the advent of physician assisted suicide. For the record, I think that people have the moral right to take their own lives under extreme conditions of terminal illness, but I also believe that everything else should be tried first, including morphine (or other pain killer) in combination with anti-depressants. However, there does come a point where death is only a matter of (a short) time and I would want the option myself under those conditions.

However, making physician assisted suicide legal is another matter. I have, against my own beliefs, been opposed to making physician assisted suicide legal precisely because of the story above: the bottom-line thinking HMOs will want the cheapest way out, and death usually is cheaper. (In fact, at 50 bucks, death is cheaper than my last set of antibiotics!)

I don't know how to resolve the issue in my own mind. I just know that for very practical reasons, I opposed Oregon's law and will oppose any similar law that tries to take hold in California.

I find it interesting that one state will lock up Or Death, Jack Kevorkian for assisted suicide and yot another will advocate it as a cost control measure ?

[MrsSmith]

It may be wrong for the government to force someone to live, but it is far more wrong for them to refuse treatment while promoting assisted suicide. :mad: