Penn bioethicist Art Caplan writes on the Science Progress website (a project of the Center for American Progress) about how former VP Dick Cheney has benefited from a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) to assist his failing heart.
Excerpts:
” As Cheney resumes his active role in GOP politics, is he aware that the only reason he is alive is as a result of taxpayer-supported government research at the National Institutes of Health? He might want to mention that the private sector did not do the basic research that led to the invention of the LVAD–public money played the crucial role.
The left ventricular assist devices are used when a heart is no longer capable of pumping blood on its own and cannot recover. Those who receive them will die with them. Which leads to another topic Cheney should be talking about–how he will die.
…
… it is important that the former vice president and anyone else with an LVAD have a conversation with their doctor about end-of-life planning. While politically it has proven difficult to keep a financial incentive in place in Obamacare to encourage this conversation, it is crucial that those who are dependent upon a last ditch technology like an LVAD talk about their wishes and values with their doctors and their families.Dick Cheney has spent his life combating the untoward influence of big government on individual freedom and as a critic of many nondefense federal programs. Ironically, it is federal spending that created the machine that allows him to continue to push his point of view. And it is the very program he and the GOP have condemned as “death panels” that provides the best hope that he will enjoy the kind of death he chooses. He and the rest of us must do whatever we can to encourage advance care planning as part of our routine medical care.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Walter Lipman
January 17, 2011 at 1:43 pmWell and nobly said. I’ve linked my Facebook account into this, because it puts the lie to the notion of “death panels” more elegantly than anything else I’ve seen.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like