Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

SALLY MORRIS: GABRIELLE GIFFORDS: WHEN IS 10% NOT “GOOD ENOUGH”?

It was a moment of drama in an already highly charged event: “I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak. And I want to tell you -- her husband Mark is here and he allows me to share this with you -- right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time ... Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.


“Gabby opened her eyes ... Gabby opened her eyes ... So I can tell you she knows we are here. She knows we love her. And she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey. We are there for her.”  The news was so exciting that President Obama re-wrote his speech on the way to the pep rally at the arena in Tucson.  It was delivered to the cheers of the crowd.

Of course we send our sincere wishes to Gabrielle Giffords for a rapid and full recovery, even as we deeply mourn the loss of those less fortunate who did not survive the vicious attack of an insane killer.  Giffords has shown a remarkable will to live and to regain a full life.  Let us hope that her progress continues apace.

Indeed, her doctors seem astounded at her survival, let alone her recovery.  Experts, after all, state that statistically, only 10% of those who sustain such horrendous injuries survive.  There is less data available as to the degree of recuperation of those lucky few within that 10%.

For Giffords, medical attention was provided without delay.  Immediately, drastic measures were undertaken to save her life, regardless of the likelihood that she might remain in a vegetative state even should she survive the bullet wound.  To relieve pressure on her brain due to swelling, sufficient bone was removed from her skull.  She is now receiving “aggressive” physical therapy.  She has, needless to say, benefited from round-the-clock care and we are seeing the results every day as she regains her strength and her capacity.  It is a miracle we all watch in awe and gratitude.

It has been explained that those with wounds such as Ms Giffords’ do not respond so well on the field of battle because it is impossible to treat the victims with this kind of speed and with the kind of technology applied to the case of Congresswoman Giffords’, Few would likely survive, or if they did by some miracle, we would never expect to see a full recovery.  In such a situation the concept of triage comes into play with the best cases for survival getting immediate attention and the rest waiting until 1) everyone else is taken care of or 2) they die waiting.

It is this situation which has alarmed those opposed to Obama Care.  Rewind, if you will, to the famous town hall meeting where one of Obama’s crowd, one Jane Sturm, stood up and posed a question.  Her mother, in her 90’s, was diagnosed as requiring a pacemaker.  Her doctor said he felt that due to her age she was a “poor risk” for the surgery and declined to perform it.  Unsatisfied with this failure to treat her mother, the woman said they consulted another doctor for a second opinion.  This doctor, fortunately, responded to the patient’s “joy of life”, her determination to recover and live a full, happy life.  This positive outlook encouraged the second doctor to agree to the pacemaker surgery.  Five years later this elderly woman was living a full and happy life with the pacemaker.  The question to Obama was, under the (then) proposed health care bill, would there be a way to factor in such a person’s “joy” and love of life when making decisions as to how much treatment he would receive?  Obama’s reply is now legend:  No, there would really be no way to legislate such matters as “spirit” or “will to live” – it’s just too subjective -  and in such cases as someone of advanced age who requires extraordinary measures (in this case a pacemaker), it is just better to give them the “pain killer”.  This would by reasonable extension, apply, as in a triage situation, to those whose actuarial chances for survival are below a fairly high percentage.  A grievous head wound, massive loss of blood, the mere expectation that full or nearly-full recovery was unlikely would place the patient in that “take the pain pill” category.

No one offered Giffords a pain pill.  She received, instead, the best care available on earth today.  She got it without delay and without reservation. 

No one consulted the famous protocol advocated by Obama sidekick Ezekiel Emanuel, who favors portioning medical treatment only to those with the best prospects.  Certainly Giffords, shot through the head at close range, with a 90% death rate against her, was NOT a prospect for treatment according to the measure of Emanuel.   But no questions were asked, no guidelines were looked up and weighed, no urgent appeal to Kathleen Sibelius for dispensation, no one ran it by the death panel; these matters had to wait because this was an EMERGENCY. 

By the standards set forth by the advocates of universal health care, a hypothetical 18-year-old victim of an auto accident, with a 60% chance of recovery, should have been seen first in the emergency room and would be in the optimum age group for treatment to boot.  Society had already invested in him and he was on the threshold of making his contribution to society.  Giffords, whose 10% prospects were, to be blunt, grim, would have been left in the hall on a gurney, and - not to sound brutal -  would have been labeled a potentially “useless eater” by Ezekiel Emanuel.  This is exactly the protocol advocated by President Obama’s recess appointment to head up the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, an admirer of Britain’s so-called “NICE” health care program.  This appointment is a disaster.

No one wanted medical neglect for Congresswoman Giffords.  Certainly not Giffords, herself.

Interestingly, Gabrielle Giffords has been a supporter of Obama Care.  Okay, that’s fair enough.  Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.  Consistency, however, is a virtue in this kind of circumstance.  There have been those thoughtful legislators who have expressed great concern that Obama Care was to cover the “masses” and not members of Congress, who “have their own plan” (and we can assume it’s a really good one).  One such leader is Congressman John Fleming (R-LA).  He felt so strongly that prior to passage of the health care bill he wrote a resolution – HR 615 – which calls upon members of Congress to sign on to the same health care plan proposed for the rest of us.  Fleming, a doctor himself, circulated this resolution for co-sponsors.  NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT, INCLUDING GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, ACCEPTED THIS RESOLUTION.  One would think it simply a matter of honor to sign onto this resolution.

In other words, Giffords supports Obama Care for us, for the various other victims of Jared Loughner, lying in a pool of blood (which, by the way, looks remarkably similar, no matter whose it is) but not for herself or her family.  Now, none of us supposes for a moment that Giffords would want less for other people in this case, but there we are.  This is exactly what her actions condone.  She supports Obama Care.  She does not support its application to members of Congress.  Why not?  I guess you could look up the works of Ezekiel Emanuel and other designers of universal health care programs like this and find your answer there. 

We can pray for Giffords’ recovery and restoration to her full and productive life.  We wish the same for the other victims of this atrocity.  And perhaps an event like this will bring into focus for Congresswoman Giffords the concerns so many of us who oppose national health care plans have expressed over and over.  Our medical treatment should not be contingent on who we are, what the actuarial tables or government guidelines dictate.  We should strive to provide the best care we can under every circumstance.  Those with an extraordinary will to survive and recover should have the chance to do so.

Having wished a speedy recovery to Congresswoman Giffords, we should next contact our own Member of Congress and urge him to 1) support the Fleming Resolution, HR 615, 2) ask Congress to de-fund every aspect of Obama Care, revisit the illegitimate, non-essential recess appointment of Berwick, and perhaps with that we can see success in 4),  the repeal of Obama Care. 


Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

No Comments Yet

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?