by Marcus Emery

Created on: August 22, 2009   Last Updated: August 23, 2009

How the misconception of healthcare death panels originated is a somewhat loaded title. Is it really a misconception? To me, and many others of a certain age, the published description of end of life counseling raised instant apprehensions.

We remember the various horrors of the mid-Twentieth Century. Eugenicists and rulers began to pare down the unfit by sterilizing great numbers. They escalated to outright murder of vast populations, even in the homeland of our ally, the Soviet Union. More recently, the Pol Pot pogroms depopulated large areas of his nation.

We are alert to the danger, even in this Post-Modern era, of servants turning on masters. We entrust our elected servants with sufficient power to govern; only to the extent that we are governed according to our desires. The absolutism and whims of royal government led us to form this singular republican arrangement.

So when the reputedly lengthy Healthcare Reform Bill was voted on by our representatives, without (by their own admission) having read it; we asked for content from the bill. A Senator admitted that he had not read it. When he, at a town hall meeting, was jeered; Secretary Sebelius scolded the audience. She said he could have not read it; for it wasn't written yet.

However, there were circulating, in print, on the Internet, and in the electronic media, reports about, and excerpts from, the bill which described end-of-life counseling. To many of us the end of life is death.

There are times when it is fitting for a person's health and longevity to come before governmentally selected panels: Judicial trials for murder or treason. Other than these our health concerns are between the doctor and the patient. No government should interfere between the patient and her doctor in reproductive counseling; it is maintained.

How, then, can we justify governmental interference in the doctor-patient relationship of any other Americans?

Now, this has been written at some length in a case-making fashion. But it is not meant to be argumentative. Hopefully, it explains why the reaction to the so-called end of life counseling aroused the specter of death to many Americans.

Misconceptions often arise when we are presented with overly generalized messages. The Healthcare Reform package, if there is one, has had many forms and representations. From the clamor and confusion, Americans must interpret its content and import as best we can. The test of common sense according to our understanding will be graded by us when and if we see the final paper.

Our medical system is the best on Earth. We can live with it as it is. Without specifics and clarity in the present proposal; how can we have a true conception of its import?

Learn more about this author, Marcus Emery.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.