|
| ||
|
|
GUEST COLUMN
5/06/2006 Have I mentioned lately that the world has gone mad? By Carrie K. Hutchens I was reading some comments on the Andrea Clark case. (Andrea Clark being the woman in St. Luke's Hospital in Houston, Texas. The Andrea Clark who was determined to be a futile care throw-away by an anonymous Ethics Committee. An Ethics Committee that decided she had ten days to get out or be intentionally put to death? That Andrea Clark.) Some of the comments were about the insurance companies having so much say in what care will or will not be given to "anyone". How the insurance companies are not allowing the doctors to practice medicine and be true physicians to the people in their care. How the insurance companies certainly take those premiums, but don't always so readily uphold their end of the bargain when it comes time to pay out. Yep, that is what people are saying. Think it might be because it is true? Think there might be something "MIGHTILY WRONG" with the system and laws as they have become? Let's look at this "world gone mad"... An insurance company gets to decide not to pay for certain treatment whether by declaring it is "futile care" or whatever. Insurance company refuses payment. Hospital/doctors refuse to provide treatment due to insurance company's refusal to pay. Patient who has no means of paying for care has to pray to qualify for some other form of assistance. Patient dies -- family can't "prove" the patient died from lack of care or would have anyway. (In other words, patient's family can't prove the person would/could have survived, if the proper treatment had been afforded to him/her. How come it doesn't EQUALLY matter that the insurance companies and hospitals can't prove the person wouldn't/couldn't have survived if given the proper treatment?) Insurance company wins! The insurance companies "are" usually holding the winning hand. Winning hand by "the power of money and time" -- not what is "right". If a person doesn't survive -- if the insurance company has to answer to anything -- it is the claim the person couldn't be saved anyways. Futile situation. If a person does survive -- then see -- "there was no harm from non-payment". Payment wasn't needed in their opinion. How many people can afford/obtain the power attorneys that will even try to go against the insurance companies? How many people suffered helplessly at the hands of the insurance companies and system that puts money before human lives? How many people could have lived longer and/or suffered less -- if only -- the insurance companies lived up to their promises just because it was "right" to live up to them? Premium vs. Promised Payment/Service For Said Premium. I'm sure we won't have a chance to find out. Likewise... I have no doubt that more and more people are going to become affected by the trend of killing off the innocent because they are vulnerable and can't fight back "at the moment". That concept means it will at some point come back to those who thought the thought was for everyone but they. Someday, it could be actually he or she or some loved one dear to them -- if any are. Could be he or she left to feel helpless in the desperate fight that so many have found themselves in. Do we give them pity, when so little pity has thus far been given for Andrea Clark and those such as she? Maybe it is time to call and write and fight for "life" simply because... Did I mention that the world is going mad? Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Other work by Carrie Hutchens: Media Contradicts Media Contradicting Media
| |
|
| ||
