What editorial writers are saying about end-of-life discussions

A sampling of newspapers across the country shows how editorial writers tried to clarify the issue and detail the intent of the proposal.

End-of-life discussions are useful

In truth, there are no "death panels" in the proposed legislation to overhaul the health care system. HR 3200, the main proposal in the U.S. House, makes periodic, voluntary end-of-life discussions with your doctor a covered expense under Medicare (Sec. 1233). In truth, Republicans supported such discussions in Medicare proposals when George W. Bush was president. That's it. No euthanasia, no arbitrary decisions about who should live or die, no mandatory anything. Miami Herald, Aug. 20

Distortions doom end-of-life counseling

From a practical standpoint, consultations must be removed from the legislation to save more-pressing elements of reform. Willful distortions of optional end-of-life counseling spiraled out of control. This is not a proud moment in American politics. Financing beneficiaries' optional consultations about a range of end-of-life care is a good idea. Families need it. Patients benefit. But a well-orchestrated rumor campaign ensured this element of the plan could not survive. Seattle Times, Aug. 16

Resuscitating the "end of life" talk

There's a larger failing involved here: Many doctors shy away from the "facts of death" conversation not only because Medicare doesn't cover it, and the subject is painful, but also because they're not sure how to broach the topic. They often have little or no training in geriatrics. Between 2005 and 2030, the number of older adults in the United States will nearly double, but most doctors, right now, aren't required to demonstrate the competence in geriatrics that they're required to demonstrate in, say, pediatrics and obstetrics. Oregonian, Aug. 10

Stop distortion: There's no "death panel"

End-of-life care is a difficult issue, but one Americans should discuss -- with family members, attorneys and doctors. Especially doctors. They will likely be involved in end-of-life care, if it becomes necessary. They should be compensated for consulting with patients on the issue. That is what the House legislation strives to allow: consultation. It's not about death panels. It's about planning, which is important for individual patients and the health-care system as a whole. Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Aug. 14

Debunking the "death panels"

After the "birthers," now come the "deathers." Just as there were those who believed, in the face of all evidence, that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was a fake and that he was not really native-born, there are those who believe, all evidence to the contrary, that his health care reform encourages, even requires, euthanasia. Ventura (Calif.) County Star, Aug. 13