Ethical dilemmas for one and all

In case you don’t have enough medical/political/ethical dilemmas on your plate, William Saletan tossed out a hefty bunch, in last Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, to chew on:

The most powerful revolutions of our age aren’t happening in Washington, the Muslim world or the global economy. They’re happening in science and technology. At a pace our ancestors couldn’t have imagined, we’re decoding, replicating and transforming the human body. These revolutions are changing how we live, what we think and who we are.

Bodies used to be unalterably separate. Yours was yours; mine was mine. That isn’t true anymore. Organ transplantation has made human parts interchangeable. Thanks to aging and obesity, global demand for kidneys and liver tissue is increasing. Meanwhile, anti-rejection drugs and other innovations have turned more and more of us into potential donors. But supply isn’t keeping up with demand, so doctors, patients and governments are becoming more aggressive. Death is being declared more quickly so organs can be harvested. Rich people are buying kidneys from poor people. Governments are trying financial inducements to encourage donation. The latest proposals, outlined in Sally Satel’s “When Altruism Isn’t Enough: The Case for Compensating Kidney Donors” (2008), include tax credits, tuition vouchers and cash. As pressure grows from the left through socialized medicine, and from the right through free markets, organs will increasingly be treated either as a commodity or as a community resource.

The one that catches my eye (see Looking at One’s Own End-of-Life Choices, 7/30; Palliative Care: Rush Limbaugh vs the Grannies, 7/24, and a slew of other recent posts) is confronted in a reasonable, head-on fashion.

Beyond transplantation and mechanization looms the broader question of longevity. Over the last half-century, the age a 65-year-old American could expect to reach has increased by one year per decade. In 1960, it was 79. Today, it’s 84. Life expectancy at birth has passed 78 in the United States and 83 in Japan. We have no idea where these trends will end. It’s been just six years since we decoded the first human genome and less than two years since we learned how to make adult cells embryonic.

The cost of caring for old people will be enormous, but that’s just the beginning. We’re fixing and replacing worn-out body parts for older and older patients. How much life do we owe them?

The long-run solution, outlined by Robert N. Butler in “The Longevity Revolution” (2008), is to treat longer life as a resource, not just a goal. That means exploiting its benefits, like wisdom and equanimity, while focusing medicine and lifestyle changes on extending health and productivity rather than dragging out the last bedridden months.

It is well past time for us to stop looking at prolongation of life, regardless of quality, as the be-all-and-end-all of health care. Religious groups, right-wing factions and assorted others are screaming that even coverage of honest conversation with one’s physician about prognosis, treatment and options is going to shove people into early graves. But conversations of such sort, and civil discourse in general, are desperately needed.

OK, according to the above statistics this writer still has eight years before my projected demise; but I am definitely one of the grannies Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk profess to be protecting. Thanks very much; rather than drawn-out bed-ridden months I will take wisdom and equanimity any day, if our health care reformists will please focus on addressing health and productivity for all ages. Problem is, the voices of “protection” are drowning out the voices of reason. Which makes this not just a dilemma but a potential national tragedy.

Crossroads – You – The Updated Owner’s Manual – NYTimes.com.

Health Reform 101 for Seniors

At an annual reunion gathering of California Senior Leaders today at the University of California, Berkeley, AARP California Executive Council member Bob Prath (himself a CA Senior Leader) made a valiant effort at outlining key segments of the proposed Health Reform bill which are of primary concern to over-50 generations.

Those segments include, in no specific order of significance or degree of complexity: guaranteed access to affordable coverage for Americans 50 to 64; closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap (known to insiders and more than a few others by now as the “doughnut hole”); approving generic versions of biologic drugs; preventing costly hospital readmissions by creating a follow-up care benefit in Medicare to help people transition to home; increasing funding for home-and-community-based services through Medicaid to help people stay in their homes and out of institutions; and improving programs that help low income Americans in Medicare afford needed drugs.

If that list of details seems daunting, it was not so to the Senior Leaders. Word had already circulated that Prath had read the entire 3,000+ pages of the bill, and no eye was going to glaze over. Covering it all, though, despite a carefully prepared power point presentation, was somewhat of a challenge in the after-lunch time whittled down to less than 30 minutes by the irrepressible tale-sharings of the reunion attendees.

Prath was asked, afterwards, for suggestions of where and how anyone over 50 might find concise and useful information, short of undertaking his own feat of studying 3000+ pages. Much, he says, can be learned through Health Action Now, and those worried about exorbitant drug bills can get some good, practical help from a nifty AARP brochure, “Don’t Dump Dollars into the Doughnut Hole.”

More enlightenment from the time-squeezed power point will appear in this space over the next few days.

1 4 5 6