Steven P. BarrettTOO CHEAP TO SAVE A LIFE, BUT $'s AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR LEGAL SUICIDE?
August 1st 2008 01:21
By Steven Barrett
In the last two days, columnists Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson brought light on an issue which has long been festering, especially in the light of increasing attempts in state legislatures to legalize physician-assisted suicide due to rapidly rising costs in keeping people alive. What a horrible lead. Not that it wasn't fairly "journalistically" passable -- but there's something else that's calling for attention here:
I'll make it easy for the morally relativisitic crowd who might find nothing wrong with any notions of balancing costs against protecting human life. My lead was designed to show how easy it is to slip into a utilitarian and coldly rationalistic mindset to justify an unjustifiable act: the taking of innocent and immeasurable human life merely because of cost considerations.
Maintaining human lives is an expensive social and moral duty and so are preserving, using and continually improving the tools and skilled people who work so hard to keep us healthy and live. Thus, we have no rights to play God with a calculator in our "hearts." None what so ever. None. I'm not even close to touching on the easy issue of "no heroic measures" taken for people in their last moments of death.
What I'm referring to involves social indifference to human value and a state government's twisted moral values. To wit: Oregon's unwillingness to pay for Randy Stroup's medical costs as he struggles with prostrate cancer, whilst making it financially more feasible for him to take his own life thanks to its assisted suicide law. According to Thomas:
Colson's column was equally morbid:
Really Long Link
This is where "fiscal conservatism" begins to scare the living hell out of me, and not just for the sakes of my wife and I, but our children and grandchildren. After reading the next few paragraphs, I hope you're scared, too.
Thankfully Townhall.com directly linked Colson's Breakpoint column so I was spared further pain from reading more readers' "comments" such as those posted in response to Cal Thomas' column. The vitriol and selfishness must've no doubt dismayed the columnist, and they flat out sickened me.
I'm not a fiscal conservative, nor am I a spendthrift on inessential matters that aren't pertaining to life, death, national security, infrastructure safety, etc. Given the opportunity (of choice) as a legislator, I'd vote to build hospitals specifically for the poor -- with no means tests, either -- in a heartbeat, HIV/AIDs hospices, etc., but not a penny for professors' art projects, and/or a tax break for K-Street, something for which I'd deserve to burn in hell for voting "positively" on if I could've helped anyone in need first.
This helps to explain why I'm a naive writer and not sitting in a state or federal legislature.
But Goddammit all, and I hate to swear in print, but this is one of those moments when it's appropriate, especially when you feel embarrassed by your "own." Take a good hard look at some of these comments. But please, don't judge all conservatives, nor even long-time activist conservatives in either party by the sentiments you'll see. In many respects, they reflect social and material selfishness at depths I'll admit to being too naive to believe actually existed. All parties and movements have their occasional Scrooges; but these voices expressed something darker. There are many similar voices expressed in other forums.
What these voices, if they are truly representative of a new trend in conservatism ascending in the GOP and other groups, are trying to tell us is that a very stark period of selfishness is about to hit and the results could be catastropic to the fabric of American society. It's certainly not conservatism as I know it: it's just ugliness.
I left a response of my own, knowing full well it'd be about as popular as (what Mother Angelica of EWTN instructed her nuns to be once, "a porcupine at a balloon party") -- but I didn't give a damn unless the balloons were consciences.
Mother Teresa
This dying elderly patient was worth all of India to Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
I'll make it easy for the morally relativisitic crowd who might find nothing wrong with any notions of balancing costs against protecting human life. My lead was designed to show how easy it is to slip into a utilitarian and coldly rationalistic mindset to justify an unjustifiable act: the taking of innocent and immeasurable human life merely because of cost considerations.
Maintaining human lives is an expensive social and moral duty and so are preserving, using and continually improving the tools and skilled people who work so hard to keep us healthy and live. Thus, we have no rights to play God with a calculator in our "hearts." None what so ever. None. I'm not even close to touching on the easy issue of "no heroic measures" taken for people in their last moments of death.
What I'm referring to involves social indifference to human value and a state government's twisted moral values. To wit: Oregon's unwillingness to pay for Randy Stroup's medical costs as he struggles with prostrate cancer, whilst making it financially more feasible for him to take his own life thanks to its assisted suicide law. According to Thomas:
Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment.
The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death. (emphasis /sb's)
Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill Stroup, because it's cheaper than trying to heal him. How twisted is this? Some have called this a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics, but medical ethics have been in the deep freeze for some time. The American Medical Association, which once strongly opposed abortion, now buys into the "choice" argument despite Hippocrates' admonition that physicians make a habit of two things - "to help, or at least to do no harm."
How much is a human life worth? Body parts and bone marrow can fetch some pretty high prices, but a human life is more than the sum of its body parts. The reason this is important is that the federal government is now placing a price tag on individual lives and if government ever gets to run health care from Washington, bureaucrats will start making decisions similar to the one made for Randy Stroup.
The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death. (emphasis /sb's)
Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill Stroup, because it's cheaper than trying to heal him. How twisted is this? Some have called this a "chilling" corruption of medical ethics, but medical ethics have been in the deep freeze for some time. The American Medical Association, which once strongly opposed abortion, now buys into the "choice" argument despite Hippocrates' admonition that physicians make a habit of two things - "to help, or at least to do no harm."
How much is a human life worth? Body parts and bone marrow can fetch some pretty high prices, but a human life is more than the sum of its body parts. The reason this is important is that the federal government is now placing a price tag on individual lives and if government ever gets to run health care from Washington, bureaucrats will start making decisions similar to the one made for Randy Stroup.
Colson's column was equally morbid:
Really Long Link
Some 30 percent of Medicare expenditures go to caring for people in the last year of their lives. Internationally, many countries and insurance companies explicitly ration health care based on cost effectiveness. Simply put, if a year of “quality life” costs more than a certain amount—usually $50,000—they simply will not pay for the care.
Medicare, in contrast, does not have a monetary threshold—at least not yet. Instead, Medicare makes a determination based on whether the treatment is “medically necessary and appropriate.”
Medicare, in contrast, does not have a monetary threshold—at least not yet. Instead, Medicare makes a determination based on whether the treatment is “medically necessary and appropriate.”
This is where "fiscal conservatism" begins to scare the living hell out of me, and not just for the sakes of my wife and I, but our children and grandchildren. After reading the next few paragraphs, I hope you're scared, too.
A group of researchers at Stanford’s medical and business schools set out to determine if the $50,000 threshold was too low. They used kidney dialysis, which “typically has been used as a benchmark for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of all new technologies.”
In their new study, they conclude the $50,000 figure is much too low. They found that it costs $129,000 to provide a patient with what they called a “quality-adjusted” year of life—in their estimation, two years on dialysis was equivalent, quality wise, to one year off it.
To put it mildly, the implications of their findings are chilling. There is an obvious and disturbing question of how many people have died around the world because of the $50,000 threshold. While two years may not seem so long, it is priceless to those facing the end of life.
Even more frightening are the implications for the future: If Medicare were to follow the lead of other countries, how many Americans would be denied access to life-prolonging treatment?
To their credit, the authors of the study were aware of this and other ethical issues raised by their research. They also raised the prospect of the “sickest subgroups of patients” being “denied access to expensive treatments such as dialysis.”
It is not only the sickest who are at risk: When life is reduced to a cold calculation, the poor and marginalized are also at risk. We all are, as a matter of fact. Professor Peter Singer, for example, teaches packed classes at Princeton that funds should not be wasted on the terminally ill, or on abnormal babies—or who knows who is next, the severely disabled?
In their new study, they conclude the $50,000 figure is much too low. They found that it costs $129,000 to provide a patient with what they called a “quality-adjusted” year of life—in their estimation, two years on dialysis was equivalent, quality wise, to one year off it.
To put it mildly, the implications of their findings are chilling. There is an obvious and disturbing question of how many people have died around the world because of the $50,000 threshold. While two years may not seem so long, it is priceless to those facing the end of life.
Even more frightening are the implications for the future: If Medicare were to follow the lead of other countries, how many Americans would be denied access to life-prolonging treatment?
To their credit, the authors of the study were aware of this and other ethical issues raised by their research. They also raised the prospect of the “sickest subgroups of patients” being “denied access to expensive treatments such as dialysis.”
It is not only the sickest who are at risk: When life is reduced to a cold calculation, the poor and marginalized are also at risk. We all are, as a matter of fact. Professor Peter Singer, for example, teaches packed classes at Princeton that funds should not be wasted on the terminally ill, or on abnormal babies—or who knows who is next, the severely disabled?
Thankfully Townhall.com directly linked Colson's Breakpoint column so I was spared further pain from reading more readers' "comments" such as those posted in response to Cal Thomas' column. The vitriol and selfishness must've no doubt dismayed the columnist, and they flat out sickened me.
I'm not a fiscal conservative, nor am I a spendthrift on inessential matters that aren't pertaining to life, death, national security, infrastructure safety, etc. Given the opportunity (of choice) as a legislator, I'd vote to build hospitals specifically for the poor -- with no means tests, either -- in a heartbeat, HIV/AIDs hospices, etc., but not a penny for professors' art projects, and/or a tax break for K-Street, something for which I'd deserve to burn in hell for voting "positively" on if I could've helped anyone in need first.
This helps to explain why I'm a naive writer and not sitting in a state or federal legislature.
But Goddammit all, and I hate to swear in print, but this is one of those moments when it's appropriate, especially when you feel embarrassed by your "own." Take a good hard look at some of these comments. But please, don't judge all conservatives, nor even long-time activist conservatives in either party by the sentiments you'll see. In many respects, they reflect social and material selfishness at depths I'll admit to being too naive to believe actually existed. All parties and movements have their occasional Scrooges; but these voices expressed something darker. There are many similar voices expressed in other forums.
What these voices, if they are truly representative of a new trend in conservatism ascending in the GOP and other groups, are trying to tell us is that a very stark period of selfishness is about to hit and the results could be catastropic to the fabric of American society. It's certainly not conservatism as I know it: it's just ugliness.
I left a response of my own, knowing full well it'd be about as popular as (what Mother Angelica of EWTN instructed her nuns to be once, "a porcupine at a balloon party") -- but I didn't give a damn unless the balloons were consciences.
"Human Life Is Immeasurably Sacrosanct" (My response -- or two cents.)
"You can't just make the gov't care for everyone's entire life," wrote a Floridian above.
WRONG AND IMMORAL POSITION. All human life is immeasurably sacrosanct and worthy of saving and providing for. Who among any of us is so arrogant to assume the role of God when it comes to allocating money to save a life? We have so many people nowadays bragging about being "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal," but have so many of these folks ever given thought to what one of the greatest conservatives had to say about this monstrous mentality? "Tight fists/loose morals" crowd. (Wm.F.Buckley, my add here.)
A wise man said once, "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel in order to be tough ... The ancient injunction to love thy neighbor as thyself is still the force that animates our faith--a faith that we are determined shall live and conquer in a world poisoned by hatred and ravaged by war." Or, pushing "fiscal conservatism" to its extreme limits of national stinginess and social indifference. Who's the "wise man"? Look him up. (not WFB)
"You can't just make the gov't care for everyone's entire life," wrote a Floridian above.
WRONG AND IMMORAL POSITION. All human life is immeasurably sacrosanct and worthy of saving and providing for. Who among any of us is so arrogant to assume the role of God when it comes to allocating money to save a life? We have so many people nowadays bragging about being "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal," but have so many of these folks ever given thought to what one of the greatest conservatives had to say about this monstrous mentality? "Tight fists/loose morals" crowd. (Wm.F.Buckley, my add here.)
A wise man said once, "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel in order to be tough ... The ancient injunction to love thy neighbor as thyself is still the force that animates our faith--a faith that we are determined shall live and conquer in a world poisoned by hatred and ravaged by war." Or, pushing "fiscal conservatism" to its extreme limits of national stinginess and social indifference. Who's the "wise man"? Look him up. (not WFB)
Missionaries of Charity
There's not one so-called "statesman" or "stateswoman" in favor of assisted suicide in any corner of the globe who can match the dignity of these Nuns carrying for the dying in their Kalighat Home For The Dying in Calcutta. Not one ... in all of the entire world.
| 64 |
| Vote |
Comment by Damo
It dies not surprise me that such attitudes exist.
No does t surprise me people wish to promote deadly compassion.
You get my vote here:
a-Because I am a big fan of the late Mother Teresa.
b-Because Peter Singer a vegetarian Hitler in the making with dark thoughts and darker plans. The best thing that ever happened to Australia was his departure.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
But where does such a cycle end and for what age?
Many, many post middle aged men and women are far more fit, industrious and mentally fit ~ than the young adults sleeping on their couches.
In terms of simple economics: is the investment in preserving their lives of sufficient value to reap the largest return value on that investment?
Apparently, the mantra of the day can be summed up as: Value received for value given is the new god or benchmark for preserving life.
Where do these elitists envision themselves to be in 20 years anyway, when the generation following in their footsteps decide they aren't worthy of their support? That their useful utility to society is obsolete and valueless.
I am going to use this for the basis of a post today, this pisses me off.
Comment by Anonymous
Thanks for your comments. I take it you were referring to that guy in FL. Believe me, I've seen a lot more of that kind of "thinking" coming from that state than I'd care to admit. When things start to tank in any state or country, that's when selfishness starts rearing its ugly head much higher than it had when the problems actually began surfacing in the first place.
Glad to have a fellow fan of Mother Teresa. I got to watch her work a crowd at the UMass/AMherst football stadium some 23 years ago and I'll never forget it for as long as I live. But I would've preferred to see her work with the people who needed her LOVE and kindness the most and most urgently.
As for SInger, yeah. He's a piece of work for sure. Goes to show how far down the "Ivies" in our country have sunken to when guys like him get rock star treatment and big bucks. Sick.
Raven,
You're wings are soaring today, Brother! Thanks for your comments. THis isn't anything against youth to say this, but when you hit our age, and you look back at who you learned so much from and how "old" they were -- they weren't in their twenties, were they? Same for 30's and maybe 40s. But older. And that's because it takes time to learn some of the greatest lessons we'll ever learn and be able to hand on down.
I look at the Mother Teresas, the John Pauls, Benedicts, Billy Grahams, Maggie Thatchers, some of the older businessmen in my hometown, oldest college prof's I had, the elderly priest who co-presided at my wedding, and one of my oldest friends, in his seventies, as my present day examples and teachers.
But why? They've BEEN THERE, for good or bad. Experience carries its own authority, so long as it's used for good purposes to lift up our spirits. The Peter Singers, the selfish guy in FL, the cheapskates who'll always consult their calculators before their hearts can never win my respect. Never.
Hell, I'd just as soon BANKRUPT Ft. Knox to save one human being's life to prove one incontrovertable point and by doing it in such fashion, it'd demonstrate that I meant business.
After all, the road to Auschwitz and the other work/death camps didn't start from a beer hall. It originated from an engineer's lab where the person in charge made sure God was kept out.
But I'm gonna leave this on an "up note" with the closing lines from a Hank Williams, Jr. song, "I ain't going peacefully,":
I'll be up there swingin'
I'm just trying to make a hit
And be sure and have a little bit of fun when I'm singin'
No I ain't goin' peacefully
I'm gonna put up a fight
I've been known to take a chance and make people dance
And stomp their boots all night
Comment by Damo
BTW here is my summary on Peter Singer's views:
Really Long Link
Comment by Anonymous
Only the most naive among us would believe that any state or federal prosecutor would have the backbone to file such charges knowing full well Princeton and its well-established network of old boy/old girl grads would pull out all the stops to protect their alma mater from suffering any financial losses. At least that's the way it goes nowadays.
But not so long ago, before American universities, especially our elite Ivies, got suckered into hiring the likes of SInger e/a -- they'd pull out all the stops to make damn sure that if a Princeton pres or a trustee wanted to keep his or her job, Singer would be sent packing, and pretty damn quick.
It sickens me every time when I think of that scene in A Beautiful Mind where John Nash is depicted as being ridiculed for his schizophrenia while trying to make a comeback at Princeton, knowing full well sick bums like Singer are given equal tenured status as the truly gifted human beings whose courage to struggle in spite of disabilities that Singer would deem suitable to justify putting a person like Nash "out of his misery."
Thanks for sharing this Damo. I put the article in my "mental health" file in my "favorites."
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Very well done, Steven, and very thought provoking. We should all be more like Mother Theresa!