faith * politics * culture * economics * social issues * history : for now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Why We Must Ration Health Care
"A utilitarian philosopher’s argument for placing a dollar value on human life"
I always have a simple question for these types of articles - why does the author presume that the individual is NOT the one who should value his own life and ration his own health-care accordingly?
The entire argument is based on the fallacious assumption that it is the government's domain to take care of people's health care. That is a terrible assumption to make.
How can the New York times NOT understand that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD already knows that health care is competing for our scarce resources? -a young couple is deciding whether to spend their scarce money on buying a new car to get to work or on expensive drugs that will help their mother live a bit longer. -a dying grandparent tries to decide whether to buy a new hip, or keep walking on a cane and pay for her grandson's college. Health care's scarcity is not the issue here. -an immigrant tries to decide whether to swim across rio grande and build houses so that he could pay remittances to his 5 children in mexico, knowing the health care will be hard to find, or to continue living in a place where the health-care is "free" but terrible.The issue is whether the individual (the young couple, the grandparent, the immigrant) should make a decision about their health needs, or whether we should have other people (The Excellent and Infallible Committee of Deciders of Who Shalt Have what Procedure and When) making these decisions about scarcity.
Do you have an answer for why people do not address the basic issue and instead try to muddle it by attacking some straw man (straw man being the an idea that somehow hoards of us must be taught that health care is not a free resource).
If anyone here started the day thinking that Health Care is a free resource - raise your hand! We'll have to send a thank you card to NYT for educating us, in that case.
What's more frightening to me is Singer's reasoning starting around page 5 of the piece--that a young human life is worth more than an old human life. Of course, Singer is famous for arguing that even new-born infants should not be considered fully human and may be dispatched if they have serious health challenges. I'm horrified by a world where the NICEs dole out the value of a human life and its measure of dignity.
The first article in the packet I sent around last month by Gene Outka mentions Paul Ramsey's line of reasoning for why "social worthiness" should never be a criteria for access to health care. Instead, he advocates a "random choice among equals" when there are limited resources.
I am sorry - but this analysis (in NYT and comments) misses one basic and fundamental point.
The point about the value of human life is only relevant IF we first grant that it is the society's business to 'doll out healthcare'; a point that I adamantly reject.
If, as in my world, it is the individual (NOT THE SOCIETY) who makes decisions for his own healthcare, then the individual himself can make the decisions about whether extending his own life is more important than buying food for his children, etc. This is a type of a decision that has been made in the world ever since Genesis 3 - ever since the fall, death, and scarcity of ALL resources.
In this way, the old man weighs out how important his life is to him, and puts forth the effort accordingly. The young man does the same. What business is it to society? Worth of life is not being compared in this situation, people just make their own decisions about their own resources, effort, and time.
If we accept Singer's (and others) assumption that society (i.e. - others) must provide healthcare, then the conclusion is inevitable that comparisons of worth of lives must be made. There is just no way around it. Every resource spent on an elderly person is resource that is not available to a young person. This is what makes it inhumane and anti-God to presume that society must provide healthcare: inhumane because we must give care to some and deny others, and anti-God because we presume an ability to properly judge the worthiness of one life against another (life itself), an activity that in the Bible is reserved for only God.
I always have a simple question for these types of articles - why does the author presume that the individual is NOT the one who should value his own life and ration his own health-care accordingly?
ReplyDeleteThe entire argument is based on the fallacious assumption that it is the government's domain to take care of people's health care. That is a terrible assumption to make.
How can the New York times NOT understand that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD already knows that health care is competing for our scarce resources? -a young couple is deciding whether to spend their scarce money on buying a new car to get to work or on expensive drugs that will help their mother live a bit longer. -a dying grandparent tries to decide whether to buy a new hip, or keep walking on a cane and pay for her grandson's college. Health care's scarcity is not the issue here. -an immigrant tries to decide whether to swim across rio grande and build houses so that he could pay remittances to his 5 children in mexico, knowing the health care will be hard to find, or to continue living in a place where the health-care is "free" but terrible.The issue is whether the individual (the young couple, the grandparent, the immigrant) should make a decision about their health needs, or whether we should have other people (The Excellent and Infallible Committee of Deciders of Who Shalt Have what Procedure and When) making these decisions about scarcity.
Do you have an answer for why people do not address the basic issue and instead try to muddle it by attacking some straw man (straw man being the an idea that somehow hoards of us must be taught that health care is not a free resource).
If anyone here started the day thinking that Health Care is a free resource - raise your hand! We'll have to send a thank you card to NYT for educating us, in that case.
What's more frightening to me is Singer's reasoning starting around page 5 of the piece--that a young human life is worth more than an old human life. Of course, Singer is famous for arguing that even new-born infants should not be considered fully human and may be dispatched if they have serious health challenges. I'm horrified by a world where the NICEs dole out the value of a human life and its measure of dignity.
ReplyDeleteThe first article in the packet I sent around last month by Gene Outka mentions Paul Ramsey's line of reasoning for why "social worthiness" should never be a criteria for access to health care. Instead, he advocates a "random choice among equals" when there are limited resources.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry - but this analysis (in NYT and comments) misses one basic and fundamental point.
ReplyDeleteThe point about the value of human life is only relevant IF we first grant that it is the society's business to 'doll out healthcare'; a point that I adamantly reject.
If, as in my world, it is the individual (NOT THE SOCIETY) who makes decisions for his own healthcare, then the individual himself can make the decisions about whether extending his own life is more important than buying food for his children, etc. This is a type of a decision that has been made in the world ever since Genesis 3 - ever since the fall, death, and scarcity of ALL resources.
In this way, the old man weighs out how important his life is to him, and puts forth the effort accordingly. The young man does the same. What business is it to society? Worth of life is not being compared in this situation, people just make their own decisions about their own resources, effort, and time.
If we accept Singer's (and others) assumption that society (i.e. - others) must provide healthcare, then the conclusion is inevitable that comparisons of worth of lives must be made. There is just no way around it. Every resource spent on an elderly person is resource that is not available to a young person. This is what makes it inhumane and anti-God to presume that society must provide healthcare: inhumane because we must give care to some and deny others, and anti-God because we presume an ability to properly judge the worthiness of one life against another (life itself), an activity that in the Bible is reserved for only God.