The debate — OK, the shouting match — we are having over “health care reform” is about many things, including cost, who gets help and who does not and who, or what, gets to make that determination. Underlying it all is a larger question: Is human life something special? Is it to be valued more highly than, say, plants and pets? When someone is in a “persistent vegetative state” do we mean to say that person is equal in value to a carrot?Democrats should turn back from their rush to embrace a culture of death. And Republicans must not falter in their opposition to it.
Are we now assigning worth to human life, or does it arrive with its own pre-determined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ, or disability?
The bottom line is not the bottom line. It is something far more profound. Our decisions regarding who will get help and who won’t are more than about bean-counting bureaucrats deciding if your drugs or operation will cost more than you are contributing to the U.S. Treasury.
The secular left claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by “natural selection” stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. Why spend lots of money to improve — or save — the life of someone who evolved from slime and has no special significance other than the “accident” of becoming human? Policies flow from such a philosophy, though the average secularist probably wouldn’t put it in such stark terms. Stark, or not, isn’t this the inevitable progression of seeing humanity as maybe complex, but nothing special?
The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal God, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that God made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life’s value and our approach to affirming it until natural death. [Emphasis added.]
Thursday, August 13, 2009
What Value On Life?
I saw this interesting piece in my local paper this morning:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
I just have a few question. Do you really believe that the Obama health care plan is advocating the killing of the elderly? Do you buy the "Death Camp" propaganda being spread the Republicans? Are you against people thinking about, and planning for, the end of their lives? Because in all honesty, I welcome the chance to choose not being kept alive in a vegatative state. Why would you want to keep someone alive who does not want to be?
Cal Thomas hits another home run.
Great article. Shows exactly what this 'shouting match' is about: nothing based on reality.
The nonsense that the conservative movement is spewing forth regarding the NHS is hilarious.
I do regret that conservatives are so well organsed and effective in the dissemination of misinformation.
I just have a few question. Do you really believe that the Obama health care plan is advocating the killing of the elderly?
And the cognitively disabled, too. When asked his greatest regret during the campaign, Obama said that it was failing to object to the unanimous vote in the Senate to allow Terri Schiavo's parents access to the federal courts in their fight to keep their daughter alive.
The president has promised to contain healthcare costs. The only way to do that is to reduce the amount of healthcare that is delivered.
Do you buy the "Death Camp" propaganda being spread the Republicans? Are you against people thinking about, and planning for, the end of their lives?
I am against people being pressured to assent to the termination of their own lives, just as many women today are pressured to get abortions.
Jake, didn't you tell me before that it is not coercion for the father of a child to tell the mother that if she doesn't get an abortion, he will not support her efforts to raise the child (except financially)? Do you then think it so unlikely that in a government-run healthcare plan, when a patient is determined to be "within the last six months of life," care other than the merest palliative care will become unavailable? Do you think it unlikely that if a patient outlives that six months (as Terri Schiavo lived so much longer than her husband desired), that even basic nutrition and hydration will come to be considered "extraordinary care"?
These are valid concerns, I think, and the refusals of supporters of healthcare reform to disavow them and to write such disavowals into the legislation does nothing to assuage these concerns.
Because in all honesty, I welcome the chance to choose not being kept alive in a vegatative state. Why would you want to keep someone alive who does not want to be?
You have that ability now, no need for massive healthcare reform to achieve that.
Our concern, which you are ignoring, is that people who want to be allowed to live will not be.
Oliver, your open contempt, wholly without the slightest attempt at argument, contributes nothing to the discussion.
Don't be a troll. Once upon a time, you wanted to try to find common ground here. I put a lot of effort into that, and could never even get you to express your first principles.
my position is that the conservative movement in America is carrying out a wide-spread campaign of misinformation so as to mislead the public on the nature of the NHS and of Obama's healthcare plans.
And i think that this article is an example of it, and that it is regrettable.
You're mistaken. The conservative movement is trying to get the facts out. It's the government that is carrying out a wides-spread campaign of disinformation so as to mislead the public.
Your new-found trust in the American government is touching, but misplaced.
Some conservatives are spreading misinformation about the NHS (for example, wondering whether Stephan Hawking like people would be given a chance to live in England). That is true, regrettable, and counterproductive.
However, having fools and liars support a position does not render that position false. We don't need to draw analogies from the NHS. We can see what happens in the US when the federal government runs a healthcare system.
Paul, you're a veteran and IIRC self-employed. Do you pay for health insurance for yourself, or do you rely on the Veteran's Administration and your medical benefits?
Ori, I do not have veterans' health benefits; those are for retirees and combat veterans.
I am also not self-employed; I rely on employer-provided health coverage.
Oops, my mistakes. I forgot that "assume" stands for "make a donkey out of you and me".
Anyway, of all the US military veterans I know who do qualify for VA benefits, only one uses them. Those that have a different choice prefer to avoid the government system, which gives a hint as to how good it is.
I think the issue is who pays for care. I find it odd that so many people on the right-wing seem to be opposed to the very notion of health insurance, yet scream about the possibility of plugs being pulled. Who is paying for the end-of-life care if there is no health insurance?
Who says there's no health insurance, Elizabeth?
Part of our complaint is that this proposal will inevitably make such care unavailable entirely, except to those who, like our Congressmen and Senators, are not in the program.
Who on the right-wing opposes private health insurance? I know the Amish don't, but they're a fringe group.
The issue is whether the insurance will be provided privately or by the government. If it is provided by the same government that writes the laws, it would be a lot harder to sue to require a particular treatment to be available if it's deemed too expensive.
“forced euthanasia"
"orwellian and evil"
"death panels"
"Stephen Hawking would have died"
Analogies with the "Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany"
Doesn't sound like honest and objective debate to me.
You know full well I could make a similar list of things said by government officials calling people Nazis, "un-American", a "mob", etc.
The comments remain false and deliberately misleading.
"The president has promised to contain healthcare costs. The only way to do that is to reduce the amount of healthcare that is delivered."
Really??? That is only way to reduce healthcare costs? You don't think it is possible to maintain healthcare coverage and reduce its cost? Yea, right.
"(as Terri Schiavo lived so much longer than her husband desired)"
Wrong again, Terri's husband was brave enough to fight for her wishes to not live in that horrific state. It wasn't her husband's desire to compassionately end her life, it was hers, as was proven in court and upheld by the law. I understand why Obama regrets his decision.
"Part of our complaint is that this proposal will inevitably make such care unavailable entirely, except to those who, like our Congressmen and Senators, are not in the program."
Where do you come up with that?? And, since more than 40 million people have no health insurance, end of life care isn't available to them right now, unless they have the means to pay for it, and many of them do not.
Shhhh elizabeth....don't present facts to this debate...the religious right won't know how to react. I kid, I kid!!!! But Elizabeth brings up a good point. For the most part, the Republicans try to scare everyone into thinking that health care reform is going to kill seniors, kill the mentally incapacitated, or kill the poor. My goodness... the paranoia is quite enjoyable. I mean, we are actually laughing at you. You are a source of enjoyment to us. Thank you for a good laugh.
Here's a sane voice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1
I know many people who live in Europe, and I haven't heard any of them complaining about lack of health care in their countries.
As a UK passport holder I can travel to any EU country and receive healthcare for free. As a tourist or as a resident.
It's great.
It seems to me, with all the verifiably false statements made by Republicans, that they should turn back from their rush to embrace a culture of lies and mis-information and instead consider re-entering the debate from a more honest, and dare I say it, moral angle.
Yes, Oliver, of course President Obama has told only the consistent truth. And if you believe that, I have clocktower in London to sell you.
A few links, my time is short:
Canadian Health Officials: Our Universal Health Care Is 'Sick,' Private Insurance Should Be Welcomed
Canadian healthcare system "imploding"
Answering the Krugman rant
Wow. Leave for a few weeks to get home tasks caught up and computers repaired, and sneer-ridden secularists start multiplying like rabbits...
A question, to those of you who're working overtime to show your lack of manners in your rush to decry "republicanism" (which shows how little you read this blog, if you're under the mistaken impression that Paul and I are "Republican, right or wrong" types):
You all are abortion-tolerant, yes? And you all think euthanasia (a.k.a. physician-assisted suicide or homicide) should be legal and available, right? And you all think that homosexuality should be considered "normal" (i.e. treated as equivalent to heterosexual marriage under civil law, and promoted/presented as such in the social/educational arena), true?
Just trying to get some facts straight about my audience, first...
Elizabeth wrote:
Where do you come up with that?? And, since more than 40 million people have no health insurance, end of life care isn't available to them right now, unless they have the means to pay for it, and many of them do not.
Part of the main *point* is exactly what is meant by "end of life care". Does it mean "do no harm, and offer care without discrimination against age, disability, etc."? Then I'll agree with you. Does it mean euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary? Then I'll condemn it as notorious and evil. Surely you see the difference?
Question: do any of you approve of the involuntary euthanasia being done in Europe (certainly in the Netherlands [see above link]--the "epicentre of the Culture of Death"--but spreading rapidly through Scandinavia and the rest of Western Europe)? Any ideas as to why it started, and why it's so widespread?
Paul, you seem to be saying that it's okay for Republicans to lie and deliberately mislead people because Democrats do it as well.
No, I'm saying that it's hypocritical of you to only criticize the lying of one side, while ignoring the lies of your own side.
But I don't admit that conservatives have lied about socialized healthcare, nor about the President's proposals.
Dude, we're talking about the health care debate. Not anything else. We're talking about the lies and non-truths that you and the conservatives are using to sully said debate:
“forced euthanasia"
"orwellian and evil"
"death panels"
"Stephen Hawking would have died"
Analogies with the "Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany"
"Ted Kennedy wouldn't have been treated by the NHS"
All lies. All verifiably false.
And yet you won't concede that conservatives have lied and that you've been writing blog posts based on those lies.
Where is your integrity?
I didn't say any of those things.
I posted one link to one article, which I think does a good job of explaining why many of us don't like the current proposal. I have not been "writing blog posts based on those lies".
But the "death panels" one is true, they took them out of the bill last week. For now.
To be fair, as I look over the article and your comments, I can see none of those things have been mentioned explicitly. So I apologise for saying you have been "writing blog posts based on those lies".
Having said that, I do feel the conservative position is informed by those "lies" and I feel the article (and you, by association) implicitly accepts the idea of death panels and forced euthanasia.
Your co-writer, Paladin, has however written of forced euthanasia and death panels.
Perhaps for your readers sake it would be constructive to state your position on the idea of "death panels" and "forced euthanasia" in Obama's health care proposals.
I don't trust the president as far as I can throw him on these issues, Oliver. This is the guy whose greatest regret, as he said during the campaign, was that once he had faltered in his support of euthanasia.
They said last week that they'd taken out the "death panels" but that was after they'd denied they were ever there.
The president has promised to pay for everyone's healthcare, and spend less money doing it, but Congressmen and Senators won't be covered by the program? I'm suspicious, and naturally so, I think.
Let me throw another point in here. Assume, for the moment, that President Obama's political appointee who will head this program will do a really good job, and build us a system free of waste and inefficiency.
What then? Political power in the US tends to swing like a pendulum between the Democrats and the Republicans. Would you have trusted George Bush Jr.'s appointee to manage your healthcare? Clinton's? George Bush Sr.? Reagen? Carter?
The UK has a tradition of civil service that makes it harder for politicians to muck up things like the BBC and the NHS. We do not. There is no Sir Humphrey Appleby to protect things from the elected officials here.
Unless you trust both Obama and George Bush to do a good job of it, you don't want the government messing with things.
Your co-writer, Paladin, has however written of forced euthanasia and death panels.
I did?
I certainly mentioned forced euthanasia--and I supplied a link to the references--but would you please show me where I commented on "death panels", even once? I'll often comment about this-or-that, quite happily; but would you be kind enough to let me comment *first*, before taking me to task for the comment?
In the interest of full disclosure, I certainly believe that the "health" panels appointed by the Obama administration (and superintended by the loving and nurturing ministrations of Kathleen Sebelius) would lead inexorably (if not stopped by concerted effort) toward a culture of euthanasia (voluntary or involuntary, free or coerced). Seriously, put two and two together, here: if there's not enough money in the federal coffers to pay for *desired* life-extending care for the disabled, sick and elderly, or even if the given hospital needs the bed, and the patient isn't dying "quickly enough", such "counseling" sessions--especially coming from an administration (I hesitate to say "regime", though I came close) which sees no moral difficulty with abortion and euthanasia on general principle--cannot but slip down the slope of "encouraging an 'expedited death with dignity' (with many platitude-laden rationalizations, of course: sparing pain, not making the heirs poor, etc., etc.)".
Y'know... I *really* am getting weary of secularists "decrying" warnings about abortion mandates and "death panels", when those same secularists actually would have no moral qualms with either one, if either (or both) were manifested in all their (anti-)glory! Their complaints are thoughtless, at best, if not outright duplicitous (read: dishonest).
"when those same secularists actually would have no moral qualms with either one"
And you know this how? While I'm sure there are some on the fringe who would support mandated abortions, you're not seriously suggesting that this view is held by all "secularists" or even that it's a mainstream view within secularists, are you?
Non crankycon, I don't think Paladin was discussing mandated abortions, but abortion mandates.
A mandated abortion would be requiring a woman to have an abortion. An abortion mandate would be requiring a medical provider, such as a hospital, to make abortions available.
Catholic hospitals would obviously have a problem with providing abortions, even to women who wanted them.
Thanks, Ori; that's exactly what I meant (though the Obama Administration's support of UN "population reduction through abortion liberalization", which takes the curious form of 1- and 2-child policies--would you deny that those abortions are forced?--makes me wonder how far-fetched "abortions for the common good" would be, especially for mentally disabled mothers, Down's Syndrome babies, etc.).
So, NCC, all coyness aside: DO you support the taxpayer funding of abortions (under Medicaid/welfare, or what might replace it/them)?
ah...my bad...well then more (but not all) secularists would be in favor of that. I, for one, would object to Catholic hospitals being required to perform abortions (as long as other avenues are available)
I do support taxpayer funding of abortions, but probably not in all cases. I also don't feel all that strongly about such funding. I definitely oppose conditioning receipt of federal funds on a hospital's willingness to perform abortions.
sorry...that was me
NCC,
Okay (and apology accepted--no harm, no foul), but don't you consider it less than fair for Christians (and all pro-life people) to pay for mass-murder of provably innocent unborn children, without so much as the offer of a tax exemption for those who object? I, for one, would find it a catastrophe for *any* tax-payer-funded abortions to be done, even if I were exempt... since there are far too many dupes who wouldn't think twice about buying Uncle Sam the abortionist's curettage with their tax dollars; but surely you see that it'd be unfair for the state to tax *me* to *support* such a bloodbath? It's a lame example, but think of the state forcing you to subsidize explicit (Federal) radical Islamic Jihadist recruiting and training; I think you'd be less than neutral about that...
That's a difficult path to go down (exemptions for things you don't agree with). We are a republican form of government in which we elect people to enact laws. By necessity, there are going to be some laws and expenditures that you disagree with. For example, should people who disagree with the war in Iraq because they believe it involved the mass killing of innocents be entitled to a tax exemption? Of course not.
(*sigh*) I see your point, as such... but this is where things go, when moral relativism holds sway on a society. The War in Iraq was of a completely different order than is the War on the Unborn, on several counts, of which here are only two:
1) The War in Iraq never had the targeting of innocent civilians as its express purpose, or in any of its approved protocols (e.g. no military person was ever given orders to "kill innocent civilians"). The War on the Unborn does so as a matter of course (e.g. the unborn child, provably innocent of all moral wrongdoing, is targeted for death by every procured abortion). Deaths of innocents in the War in Iraq are always either accidental or in defiance of U.S. law; deaths in procured abortions are the stated goal.
2) The War in Iraq, even by the most generous estimates, caused the deaths of 300,000 people--most of whom were combatants. The War on the Unborn has caused the deaths of over 40 million children *each year* since 1995, worldwide, making a total of at least 580,000,000 children dead in that war.
The War in Iraq could be supported or rejected by an honest and moral person; but not so with abortion. The difference is qualitative, not just quantitative (though the quantitative difference is still appalling--see #2, above).
My point wasn't really about the War in Iraq...pick an issue, and people will have very definitive disagreements and it's just not practical to have people "opt out" by issue.
Obviously, you feel very strongly about abortion. If you accept that an "unborn" is a person from conception, then you're right, it would not be possible for an honest and moral person to support abortion. But, whether you agree or not, a lot of people do not view an "unborn" as a person at conception.
My point is not to try to convince you that abortion is moral; rather, just that you should at least try to understand where the other side is coming from...it will help you in your goal of convincing people who are in the middle.
We are a republican form of government in which we elect people to enact laws.
If that were true, your argument would hold more sway. But when the Courts abrogate power to themselves to strike down the laws which our ostensibly elected republican form of government enacts, your argument rings rather hollow.
@cmatt
Let's assume for a minute that you're correct (though you may want to look up what aborgate means because "abrogat[ing] power to themselves" makes no sense, but I get what you mean). Whether laws get made in this country by legislature or courts has nothing to do with my point that we simply don't have a government system that allows for opt-in or opt-out by issue.
So, explain to me how my argument rings hollow. Specifically, how does the "fact" that courts make some laws in this country render individual citizen exemptions from funding certain initiatives any more plausible or practical?
Sorry for the delay; real life has priority, in my time... :)
NCC, you wrote:
My point wasn't really about the War in Iraq...pick an issue, and people will have very definitive disagreements and it's just not practical to have people "opt out" by issue.
I grant, readily, that the issue can strain the limits of practicality (whatever that might mean at any given time, to any given group)--but then, so did the American Revolution, the Civil Rights movement, etc. (examples abound). In any ethical society, good principle must take priority over utility; sometimes, we need to do the right thing, no matter how hard the difficulties press against us.
Case in point: if the Government were to decree a special tax for the express purpose of killing American Jews, and using their skins for cheap upholstery (yes, I know the historical accounts of that are muddled--but use it for an example) to subsidize a flagging economy, wouldn't you consider it justifiable to say "no, I won't pay"--and to enforce that will through the legal system if possible, and to refuse to participate personally?
My point is this: I certainly think it'd be better that there be no tax for immoral activities at *all*; but there are some things which are so morally repugnant that--even if an administration or Congress or activist judiciary writes them into law--"appeals to diversity/pluralism" just don't cut it, as arguments for paying taxes to support them. I argue that abortion is one of those things... and I think it's provable.
But, whether you agree or not, a lot of people do not view an "unborn" as a person at conception.
That gets into murky water; it's arguable that the phenomenon you describe is mostly willful ignorance.
My point is not to try to convince you that abortion is moral; rather, just that you should at least try to understand where the other side is coming from...it will help you in your goal of convincing people who are in the middle.
That's a fine-sounding idea... but I've found that it doesn't usually work, in real life. As an illustration to the contrary, which would you regard as more authentically Christian: a Christian who refuses to water down the Gospel and stands firm in the face of persecution, or a Christian who bows to expediency in order to seem even-tempered and "fair"? The latter might well win more smiles and nods, but it won't win any more converts; why should it? If Christianity is just one more social club (whose music--at least in modern Masses--is often more boring than that of the secular culture), why join? It's just as easy to smile and nod at something from the outside, and it's that much less of a bother not to change what you already have!
Post a Comment