Comments on: The Nataline Sarkisyan case: I’m just shocked, shocked, to learn Edwards has lied again

By: February 6 roundup

February 6 roundup — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:30:45 +0000

[…] Late, but worth noting: blogger nails John Edwards’s demagoguery on Nataline Sarkisyan case [Matthew Holt @ Spot-On, via KevinMD; more here, here, and from Ted here] […]

By: Melvin

Melvin — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:53:34 +0000

Mister Guty–It already does; that’s why Canadians are coming to U.S. hospitals.

Canada, if I understand the definition right IS a single-payer system.

Oh, yeah: “Between $15,000 and $50,000 in CIGNA stock”–isn’t that much; it wouldn’t pay for a transplant operation.

Also, it was Mr. Nuesslein, not Ted, who brought up the bone-marrow transplant in his post.

Nice try. You must be an Edwards supporter.

By: Mister Guty

Mister Guty — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:23:30 +0000

Gee…you own a lot of stock in CIGNA *and* you take their side…what a surprise…

Oh yeah, and bone marrow transplants kill patients…right, that’s why they do them in the first place…give me a break!

You people have no problem with big businesses making health care decisions for you, but God forbid we let a democratically-elected govt. do the “deciding”, which will never happen BTW in a single-payer system.

By: Samson Isberg

Samson Isberg — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:57:30 +0000

Imagine that; if you were about to die, the doctors asked you if you would kindly donate your liver (or whatever organ of your choosing) to a stranger; – in order for said recipient to live three additional months on this planet, in a hospital bed, with tubes going in and out of her body, receiving debilitating medication and in great pain – would anyone say yes?

– Or would you rather donate your liver to Dean Martin?

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:59:54 +0000

Prometheus was Republican? I thought the Ancient Greeks were Democrats?

By: anon

anon — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:48:38 +0000

In John Edwards’ America, there will be livers for all workers, and they’ll be extracted from Republicans if necessary.

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:39:52 +0000

It’s my understanding from reading other articles about this case that the young lady’s doctors believed that her recurring leukemia (treatment for which led to her liver failure) was going to prove fatal, and that the liver transplant, even if successful, would only prolong her life by about 3 months. If that is true, then it seems to me that it would have been irresponsible for any doctor to perform (or approve) a transplant. The young lady’s health was already seriously compromised by the effects of the chemotherapy and the bone marrow transplant. Doctors determined that there was little chance that the liver transplant would be sucessful, given her condition. Why then should an available donor liver have been given to this patient, when there are so many other people waiting for livers — people who, unlike this poor young lady, actually would have their lives saved by a transplant? We have a limited amount of donor livers available to people in need. We have an obligation to make sure that livers (and other donor organs) go to those who are most likely to have their lives saved. It makes no sense to transplant a donor liver into the body of a person who is unlikely to survive the transplant operation and who, if she does survive the operation, is unlikely to survive her underlying illness for more than a few months. Some people think it was “cruel” to deny this young lady even a very slim chance of surviving for a few more months. I think it would have been more cruel to deny some other liver transplant patient on the waiting list the chance at life that that person would have been denied if the liver had gone to the young lady in this story.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:28:21 +0000

The situation is even worse than reported here. The patient got a bone marrow transplant, which treatment is not efficacious but is expensive, political and dangerous. In my mind the bone marrow transplant probably killed the patient.

It was just a few months ago that Senator Bill Frist made a diagnose based on a a several second clip from 11 hours of video of Terri Schiavo. That was absolutely disgusting. So to is John Edwards rant against insurance companies.

We seem to be country of perverts.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:18:02 +0000

Eric,

You made several errors in your post.

I’m willing to concede that independent doctors are those hired by parties with no direct financial stake in the outcome of the decision. That includes those retained by CIGNA, but not those retained by the insurance company itself, the family, or their attorneys. The most independent doctors unanimously concluded what Ted said they did.

Ted also didn’t say that the specific article you’re looking at said that the hospital would have gone ahead with the transplant anyway. I’m not going to link it all for you, but there are a number of reports that do state that, as well as the fact that even if you do take only the general principle that hospitals most often make the decision Ted said they would, an impartial observer (i.e, not a personal injury lawyer) would assume the general practice applied here unless there was a specific reason to make an exception. No evidence that this case is different from the norm is available.

So yes, Edwards lied, and Ted did not exaggerate.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:59:53 +0000

I care about policies, not individual parties. John Edwards is using this lawsuit to promote some very bad policies, and that has more impact than the lawsuit itself. I'd be just as critical if a Republican were misusing this case. If John McCain or Mike Huckabee picks up the cudgel to demonize CIGNA, I'll be just as critical. We've criticized Republican Trent Lott and, just today, Republican Ron Paul. We've celebrated Democrats who have been willing to support constructive solutions to civil justice reform.