The Value of a Life- Part 2
Where will you be if this guides our health care system?
You’d be hard-pressed to look around anymore and not find evidence of the de-valuing of human life. From the violent cop-killing video games kids play to the questionable fashion statements of college students wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the faces of murderous dictators, a culture obsessed with death and violence lurks in some of the most unexpected places.
In Part 1 of this post (scroll down to read), I wrote about how early-20th century progressives have influenced the thinking of many of today’s leaders—in politics, the media, and in academia. The issues of life—and death—are coming up more and more in public affairs, nowhere more so than in the health care debate.
Last summer, Sarah Palin was lampooned for suggesting that the health care bills (still under consideration) contained what could only be described as “death panels”. (see George Bernard Shaw promoting that very idea decades ago in Part 1).
As anyone who’s followed this has come to realize, she wasn’t so far off. When you know who’s been advising President Obama on health care, it all starts to make a lot of sense.
The Special Advisor for Health Policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, has been the person giving advice to the president on the complete over-haul of the US health care system. Note that Dr. Emanuel is un-elected and accountable to no one other than Obama, and he is also the brother of the very gangster-like Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff.
In a 2009 article from the British medical journal Lancet, Dr. Emanuel and others wrote about the possible ways that medical resources could be disbursed among the population (i.e. rationed) in the event that there is a shortage of something—vaccines, hospital beds, medical personnel…or money, for that matter.
They debate the pros and cons of various rationing methods, such as a lottery, sickest first, what saves the most lives, etc. But after determining that most of these are subject to corruption (what human endeavor isn’t?), they came up with what they call the “complete lives system”.
The complete lives system basically boils down to the chart above. It brings in elements of the other forms of rationing, but “prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life.” The bulk of health care resources would be given to those aged 15 or so until 40, when it begins to steadily decline. It drops off sharply after 60.
So, just to give an example, in the event of a crisis (and what isn’t a crisis to a politician?), an 80-year-old veteran could be denied care in favor of, say, a 25-year-old illegal alien, just because the younger person hasn’t had a chance yet to be 80, but the older person has already been 25. Therefore, they say, this is not age discrimination. According to the article, “because all people age, treating people of different ages differently does not mean that we are treating persons unequally.”
The very young fare no better. If you’re “off the chart” on the other end, Dr. Emanuel and friends are just as compassionate. Get a load of this quote from the Lancet article: “The death of a 20-year-old young woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.”
I bet the parents of the 2-month-old girl would see things differently.
So, who would make these decisions? Probably not you and your family doctor. Hmmm…maybe a group of people…who work for the government…sort of a panel of people? Deciding who lives—and who dies?
No, never! Not in America, right? Only a crazy woman from Alaska and extremist Tea Partiers think that.
When President Obama spoke to a group of rabbis last year about health care, he told them, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” The arrogance of that statement is frightening. In the New Testament, Jesus– and only Jesus– is referred to as the Author of Life. Only He should be deciding when it starts and ends.
We’re already going into this health care legislation with a shortage of money– everyone knows that. Also, there’s been a nursing shortage for years. Is it really so hard to believe that in years to come, under the complete lives system, some “compassionate” government-appointed counselor couldn’t persuade a young mother to forgo care for her special needs baby “for the greater good”? Or that an elderly person couldn’t be talked into taking a pill, rather than have a surgery that would improve their quality of life?
As Thomas Jefferson said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
The Value of A Life- Part 1
Thirty-seven years ago, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that all women had the right to end the lives of their unborn children, calling it “reproductive freedom”. The legacy of the decision Roe v. Wade is more than 50 million lives lost, with that figure growing larger by the day.
We’re now living in a time when people in the highest places of power have questionable ideas about life…where it starts, when and how it should end, and shockingly, who should be allowed to have it at all? In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama made some outrageous comments about abortion and how he sees the unborn. In referring to his two young daughters, he said, “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But, if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Punished with a baby. People everywhere longing to be parents would beg to differ with you on that one, Mr. President. Did his mother ever feel as if she were punished with a baby? I hope not.
An even more worrisome example of this de-valuing of human life is found in the words of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Last summer, in an interview with the New York Times, she stated, “Frankly, I had thought that at the time when Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly, growth in populations that we don’t want too many of.” [emphasis mine]
What?!!! Who and where are the populations we don’t want too many of? Who gets to decide that? This is truly alarming! It’s a classic example of the progressive ideal that was popularized in the early part of the 20th century with eugenics-loving “forward thinking” people like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She didn’t think the poor, blacks or immigrants should be allowed to reproduce. (I guess she really didn’t believe in “reproductive rights” after all did she?). Then there’s British playwright George Bernard Shaw. Click here to see rare film footage of him explaining his sinister ideas about how to get rid of “undesirables” in society. Part 2 of this post will have more on this modern-day death culture that had it’s roots in the early progressive era.
How can there be no adverse effects to a nation that has gutted a generation of its own people?
Among those whose lives were terminated before birth, there may have been another statesman (or woman) like George Washington (could we ever use him now!); or someone with the intelligence of Albert Einstein, who may have discovered a cure for AIDS or other diseases for which there is still no known cure. There may have been one–or many– individuals with benevolent hearts like Mother Teresa’s.
How do you measure the value to a society of songs and books that will never be written, businesses that were never started, and dreams that never had a chance to see the light of day? We’ll never know what might have been.
Just a blob of tissue?
Liberty Belle Blog 