So says the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.

I say “may be removed” in the title because Senator Chuck Grassley is a Republican, the Senate contains 60 Democrats, and his statements don’t mean jack until they’re supported by the Democrats that are actually trying to write and ram through ObamaCare in both the House and the Senate.

Jim Geraghty had a thoughtful look at the “end-of-life” measures within the legislation over at The Campaign Spot a few days ago:

(Read more after the leap)

I’m going to take some time to clear up some of the misperceptions about the “end-of-life counseling” provisions in the various Democratic health-care bills.

“End of life counseling” isn’t mandated under the Democrats’ legislation. As the bill is currently written, at age 65, you’re simply invited to participate in a discussion with a doctor about when the government will stop paying for your health care. The federal government has even generously decided to underwrite the costs of this meeting between you and the doctor about when the government will stop paying for your health care.

The decision of when you stop draining valuable and limited government resources and accept your demise is an intensely personal decision, between you, your doctor, and the yet-to-be-appointed members of the medical review board. And of course, it is absolutely unimaginable that this process could somehow lead to an incentive to limiting how much the government will spend on your health care as you become older and older. The federal government’s newfound emphasis on eliminating “unnecessary and wasteful” expenditures in health care will find some other procedures to eliminate, like all those blue pills when the red pills are just as good and cost half as much.

Don’t let these crowds of nervous seniors confuse you; they’re probably confused themselves. Government programs never have unintended consequences, and federal programs never expand and grow beyond their original purpose and mandate. As you look at your federal government, you can rest assured that they have absolutely no problem spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on medical procedures to keep you alive, even if the actuarial tables suggest you’ll be dead pretty soon anyway.

The last thing this provision could be is a slippery slope leading to an Eskimo ice floe.

A columnist for the Washington Post had similar concerns about the infamous and politically explosive “Section 1233″ of the bill:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.

. . . Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But 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.

To which Geraghty added, ever tongue-in-cheek:

Speaking as a right-wing wacko, if the federal government had a long history of handling complicated questions in a professional manner with delicacy, sensitivity, caution, and recognition of unintended consequences, then I would have more faith in this provision not leading to something profoundly disturbing.