« Campus Parking Now Tried to Ruin My Day... Comes Up Short | Main | DI Article Up: Race-Baiting for Fun and Profit »
February 26, 2006
Universal Health Care and Euthanasia
There are two events that should give people pause when considering universal health care. First is Hurricane Katrina and several facilities euthanisizing patients not because of terminal illness, but because they didn?t think they could move them. Second is Charlotte Wyatt who doctors want to euthanize (or more accurately let die) because they don?t think she is worth saving. A court has rules that the doctors can make this decision even though it is contrary to the will of the parents. In the first case, it is people making mistaken practical judgments. In the second case, it?s little more than outright eugenics.
It is one thing to let some one commit suicide because they've lived a full life and have little hope of recovery. It is another to mandate death to people because they aren't worth taking care of. The first case can be called "right to die". The second case is more properly called the "right to kill". Confusing the two makes it easier for the "right to die" crowd to be a "right to kill" crowd.
Right now it is particularly difficult for people to be put to death against their stated (or their family members) will in the United States; that is until universal health care is introduced (and hopefully it never will be). To summarize, the government can't be trusted to know which phone calls belong to terrorists and which belong to moms planning on getting their kids to soccer practice. The government can't be trusted to get industry advice and not sell out to the rich. The government can't be trusted even to hold prisoners captured on the field of battle. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY HEALTH CARE!!!
The problem comes in that the government uses different priorities to make decisions than people do. For instance, the Irish Health Service had other priorities in mind when deciding on health care for the elderly. Or stateside, an Illinois pension fund seems to be operating under different priorities then actually keeping pensions around for teachers. Bureaucrats like wasting money, when they waste too much there isn?t enough to take care of business. Apply this to health care and it means people without money who have come to rely on public health care will get screwed.
What happens when people get screwed by the health care system? Well they'll be euthanized more often than they are now. New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them. Not because they were terminally ill. Not because they were in incredible pain. It was because they assessed the situation and didn?t think it worth trying to find a way to help them. The difference is when they aren't the government, they'll be prosecuted. When they are operating with a government imprimatur, they'll get away with it more likely than not. The government will decide who is worth treating and who should die based on some dollar calculation.
If the NSA can't be trusted to listen to some phone calls, what makes people think that this health care calculus will be honest?
Posted by John Bambenek at February 26, 2006 10:01 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://jcb.pentex-net.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/897
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Universal Health Care and Euthanasia:
» Universal Health Care is when ... from ProLifeBlogs
... the government decides who is worth treating and who should die based on some dollar based calculation. If the NSA can't be trusted to listen to some phone calls, what makes people think that this health care calculus will... [Read More]
Tracked on February 27, 2006 1:59 AM
Comments
If anyone did give extra pain medication to patients in New Orleans, they likely were "do not resuscitate" patients and in pain - patients who were unlikely to survive - taking away pain may be a humanitarian gesture more than criminal activity.
But such actions are to my Libertarian thinking preferable to a Government-paid doctor making such a decision - as happens in Europe. This is a conflict of interest of the first kind.
And the idea that someone "pulling the feeding tube" on "dear old dad" is immoral avoids a basic issue.
What's the morality of people NOT discontinuing tube feeding when others are working, against their will, to pay for such care?
Posted by: Frank Zavisca, M.D, at March 16, 2006 1:54 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
