This Post
Navigation
Recent Comments
Archives
On the topic of health…
The British public supports assisted suicide for terminally ill people. The Royal College of Nurses has moved from a position of opposition to ‘neutrality’ following a poll of its members which shows a nearly even division of opinion. The point of interest seems to be the avoidance of pain in the process of dying.
If you believe the report in Assisted suicide, there is a sophisticated awareness of the subtleties in the viewpoints. (One wonders how poll questions reveal sophistication.)
The ethical questions are, to be sure, complex. This is the nature of ethical matters in our time. The article refers to the ‘slippery slope’ argument in an off-handed manner. This is the concern that the approval of helping people in late stages of terminal illness now will lead to approval of assisted death in less clear cases later on.
This argument cannot casually be brushed aside. The question which has to be asked at every stage is, who decides? Who decides at what point the quality of life is no longer sustainable? Who decides when life is no longer worth living? Who decides who is not worth keeping alive?
Christian belief is criticised for its belief in the ‘exceptionalism’ of human life over other animal life. The idea that there is any ‘sanctity of life’ is dismissed out of hand. But it is. at the least, a voice against the diminution of human life to a utilitarian value which is determined by the people in power on a given day.
Suffering is an agonising human problem which begs for mercy. But not mercy killing. And those who value life have the responsibility to care for life in the midst of suffering.
But it is the nature of society that, when the value of life is diminished, more people are considered of less value. Consider Social Democracy in Germany under Hitler.
An interesting correlation between this article and the one on National Health Care. Many opponents to Universal Health Care cite the possibility of care rationing which would affect the elderly and the young the most. The fact that on average 1/4 of all healthcare expenses for a person are spent in the last year of their lives may foster a gradual callousing towards the elderly that may engender the philosophy that the elderly should do their “civic duty to die”. The cost for UHC and a shortage/decline of doctors are among the reasons given for likely rationing. An opponent of UHC may share your concern for children and the elderly.
Scott - 01 08 09 - 21:10
The correlation between the two articles is the extent to which ‘assisted suicide’, like non-universal health care, is available to those who have the money.
The fear of callous attitude to the elderly is not a ‘reason’. It is one of the scare-mongering logical fallacies. The fact is that under the current American system rationing takes place. Those without health care have no choice but to suffer or die without treatment they cannot afford. They don’t show up in the statistics. This sort of rationing is based on ability to pay. A compassionate opponent of UHC needs to factor this in to the calculations. UHC, as you call it, operates on the basis that ability to pay—or, wealth—should not be the deciding factor in access to health care. Capitalism is not known to be compassionate.
I know of no European UHC system where the elderly are invited to do their ‘civic duty to die’. To restate in another way what was said in the other article, health care is costly under any system. Rationing takes place in non-UHC systems by survival of the fittest, hardly a Christian system. Rationing in UHC systems, when it happens, and usually for short periods, pertains only to non-essential procedures.
I have yet to see any positive options offered by those who oppose UHC. How do opponents propose to resolve the moral blot of a nation that allows its children and elderly to be left without health care? Any nation with UHC cannot understand this. Any nation without cannot understand how a country of wealth would allow it.
The Editor - 02 08 09 - 20:38