How ObamaCare Will Save Money
July 29, 2009 | Permalink
It is interesting that many European countries with socialized medicine support euthanasia and death with dignity...
Posted by: Russ | Jul 29, 2009 9:59:49 AM
The ultimate "Big Government" law is not allowing one to ends one's own life in a dignified manner.
Posted by: RobertSeattle | Jul 29, 2009 3:14:35 PM
Ah, so somehow it is more humane to allow sick, depressed people to kill themselves than it is to treat them and improve their quality of life.
Somehow it is superior to treat the elderly as expendable, as useless baggage, than to treat them with respect and to honor them.
Somehow it is better to have people who have worked and achieved and accomplished things, upon hearing that they have cancer or another terrible disease, give up and do themselves in, than to have people who, under the same circumstances, put their energies into fighting for their lives.
Somehow it is preferable to have a society based on radical individualism, where all that matters is the individual and his wants, than to have a traditional society in which individuals are part of greater wholes, like family, church, community, and nation.
P.S.: I bet that RobertSeattle is in favor of abortion and euthanasia--both of which are the legalized killing of innocents--and opposed to the death penalty, which is the state-sanctioned killing of the guilty. An interesting moral world such people inhabit, but I don't want to live there.
Posted by: Sparticus | Jul 30, 2009 12:26:33 AM
Of course, in your American non-socialist healthcare systems, patients commit suicide when they get the medical bill.
Swings and roundabouts, roundabouts and swings.
Posted by: Geeza | Jul 30, 2009 2:58:23 AM
Ah euthanasia. Some people want it to be legalized so that they have the right to die. If you want to kill yourself, it's really not that hard, so long as we keep defending our second amendment rights. But if you legalize euthanasia, you then give the government the power to determine when it's alright to kill an innocent person because "That's what they would want." No thanks. I'm a huge personal freedom buff, and even I can see that euthanasia is just a scam to give doctors the power to legally kill you.
Posted by: Andrew Clunn | Jul 30, 2009 11:16:51 AM
Andrew Clunn is exactly right. After something becomes allowed, it is only a short step to its being required.
Case in point: in Germany, prostitution is legal. It has actually happened that an unemployed woman who was collecting unemployment benefits was threatened with their loss if she did not take an available job--as a prostitute.
Read about it here (includes link to original article):
The sheer evil of requiring women to become prostitutes boggles the mind. Euthanasia--a greater evil because it is murder--will be just as mandatory one day if it is widely legalized.
Posted by: Sparticus | Jul 31, 2009 12:25:46 AM
> Ah, so somehow it is more humane to allow sick, depressed people to kill themselves than it is to treat them and improve their quality of life.
I think, Russ, it's more a question of who is, in the end, in charge of one's own body.
If someone is blatantly non compos mentis, sure, prevent them from making an irreversible decision in that state, if you reasonably can.
But if someone is in a rational state of mind (and no, not wishing to live under the available conditions does not indicate an irrational state of mind) then, yes, in the end, it is THEIR choice -- not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of some @%#^#&$%& gummint bureaucrat's -- as to whether or not the conditions of future life are worth the mental strain inflicted.
Mind you, this is NOT in most ways the same as what is being discussed regarding socialized health care -- not paying for an available operation just because someone is old is NOT putting the decision in the hands of a responsible, compassionate individual but placing it into the hands of an unelected and disinterested bureaucrat.
Think: Do you really, really want life and death decisions regarding your treatment options being made by someone who used to work for the DMV and/or the TSA?
> Somehow it is preferable to have a society based on radical individualism, where all that matters is the individual and his wants, than to have a traditional society in which individuals are part of greater wholes, like family, church, community, and nation.
LOL, Russ, like any idea, there's a middle ground. The notion of which you speak -- both pro- and anti- -- can be argued to the extreme by either side. The true ideal is somewhere in the middle -- with authority and responsibility vested in the individual at the endpoints, but with adequate social pressures and respect supplied by the canalization and environment of the groups you mention. Not, however, by the enforcements of The Law, except where clearly required by the exigency of the situation.
Hence abortion should be legal but strongly discouraged. As should drugs and premarital sex. And as should euthanasia. Since it's not all that easy to commit suicide (those genes get weeded out quickly), making it legitimate by giving an avenue towards it which included a decent amount of counseling would not necessarily be A Bad Thing -- because it would avoid any number of botched suicides (probably notably greater than the successful ones) that such counseling could prevent -- in addition to encouraging people who are suicidal to seek help before attempting it.
Suicide is never "easy" -- it runs very much against the grain of human nature. But the notion that there are no circumstances which aren't intolerable to the human spirit is itself ridiculous -- and that's even BEFORE you grasp that we now have the power to defacto inflict a torturous life continuation on someone thanks to machinery which did not exist 100 years ago, and thus represents the "abnormal state", not the just and natural progression towards death at some point which would have occurred much, much sooner.
The fact is that, simply because we do have the power to prolong life, does not mean we have the right to inflict such a prolonging onto any person if they don't wish it.
If the person would die in a less technological society without question, AND they choose not to take advantage of modern technical means to continue life, then that is, and should be, their choice when/if in a rational and lucid state of mind.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Jul 31, 2009 12:17:02 PM
> Of course, in your American non-socialist healthcare systems, patients commit suicide when they get the medical bill.
Yes, as opposed to committing suicide when they find they can't see a doctor for five months, despite excruciating pain, under socialized systems.
Nice trade off.
I'd rather take my chances with the bill, thanks. If my head explodes or something when I see it, I'm down with that.
The fact is, services are going to get rationed -- which one do you want to depend on to make the choice as to how:
1) Your own resources and the charity of other people
2) the fiat of some bored, annoyed, and unelected DMV-type bureaucrat who could care less about your life and suffering?
There is no other option.
There's a reason the Canadians flee to the USA, and the Brits flee to Europe and the USA... and it's because their "wonderful" systems suck for anything beyond very basic care.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Jul 31, 2009 12:25:53 PM
> But if you legalize euthanasia, you then give the government the power to determine when it's alright to kill an innocent person because "That's what they would want." No thanks.
This is an amusing leap of fantasy.
There is a difference between the government telling YOU you may commit suicide and the government forcing you TO commit suicide.
How some people make this ridiculous equivalence as you have is beyond me.
The current law is the one which violates human rights and dignity, not one which allows other individuals to assist someone seeking to do so.
And as far as it being "easy" to commit suicide, spoken like a truly ignorant fool.
You need to look into the stats on failed suicides, including "second shot" statistics (where there are two bullet holes, the first one where they pulled the trigger but jerked the gun at the last second) before you comment any further.
As I mentioned above -- suicide is never "easy". It's not in the nature of a human being to make that choice -- any genes which make it easy got removed from the gene pool thousands of generations ago.
Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Jul 31, 2009 12:33:59 PM
O Bloody Hell,
There is a huge difference between suicide and euthanasia. This difference is that in one I kill myself, and in the other I have someone else do it for me. If I want to kill myself, then I'll do it, I don't need help (though I'm currently perfectly happy living, thank you.)
You say that it's 'tough' to commit suicide, so we need euthanasia to help people. If you're not willing to take your own life, then maybe it's because you don't really want to die! Honestly, I'm not going to give government the power of life and death over innocent people just because some people want to die but don't have the balls to do it themselves.
Posted by: Andrew Clunn | Jul 31, 2009 2:02:37 PM
To clarify, legalized suicide? Sure. Assisted suicide? No such thing, just murder.
Posted by: Andrew Clunn | Jul 31, 2009 2:34:27 PM
OBH, you get so much right--and yet, your naivete would disarmingly charming, were it not so off.
Canada and other bastions of single-payer joy ALREADY HAVE state-enforced euthanasia--they just don't call it that. Denial of service and intractable waits end up being de facto forced euthanasia.
Making euthanasia another health "care" option would only make it easier for the faceless, conscienceless bureaucrats to deprive of life someone who's "too old" or otherwise "a burden," regardless of the patient's wishes.
And it is the exact view you espouse above--that the individual is in charge of his own life and his own body--that leads directly to that hell on earth. It is an atheistic, nihilist view that can only come from the rejection of God.
Posted by: Sparticus | Aug 3, 2009 1:29:28 AM
What a crock of nonsense.
Look at Canada, and most of Europe.
Allow me to make a stretch, if you're going to make such a reach..
The US needs to evolve and implement public health care, and then perhaps there would be less violence because there would be less pressure on the poor and people with nothing to lose...
Posted by: radmila | Aug 4, 2009 1:23:24 PM
Usually when Americans rob for drugs, they're of the illegal variety.
Posted by: Tom McMahon | Aug 4, 2009 7:52:14 PM
If the single-payer system is so wonderful, why is it that wealthy Canadians frequently escape their People's Paradise and come to the US for health care? Here's just one horror story from KanadaKare: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105511
Public health care? Just what does the government do more efficiently than private enterprise? I guess that the well-known efficiency of, say, the post office has effectively eliminated any competition, like UPS, FedEx, DHL, and the like.
Perhaps turning off your liberal groupthink and turning on the reasoning faculties God gave you will allow you to see how ludicrous your proposal is.
Posted by: Sparticus | Aug 5, 2009 11:40:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.