Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says “Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations.”

“You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach,” he concludes.

Bioethicist Frank Beckwith notes Lane’s analysis in comments of his own that appeared on the blog of the publication First Things.

“Supporters of H.R. 3200 claim that its end of life counseling provision, section 1233, is merely voluntary for the patient,” Beckwith explains.

“But a closer look shows...

Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says “Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations.”

“You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach,” he concludes.

Bioethicist Frank Beckwith notes Lane’s analysis in comments of his own that appeared on the blog of the publication First Things.

“Supporters of H.R. 3200 claim that its end of life counseling provision, section 1233, is merely voluntary for the patient,” Beckwith explains.

“But a closer look shows that section 1233 includes conditions and financial incentives for physicians and other health care providers that create a setting in which an elderly patient’s decision to appropriate this option is likely to be less than voluntary,” he writes.

Beckwith says anyone with elderly parents should be “deeply concerned” about the section.

“If, let’s say, H.R. 3200 or something close to it were to become law and the public option pushes private insurance into near non-existence (as would surely happen with all the incentives in place), then there will no neighboring state to which to run,” he says. “You won’t be able to take your business elsewhere, since there will be no elsewhere.”

“And to whom will you issue your grievance, a special ‘health court,’” Beckwith asks.

Such a court, he says, would be “one likely informed by a youth-worshipping culture and a utilitarian bioethics philosophy that sees the elderly (not to mention, handicapped infants) as burdens that are siphoning away valuable resources that could be put to better use in support of society’s “real persons” and more productive contributors.”