Subject:
|
Re: Hmm, so now state legislatures are practicing medicine...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:52:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
166 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > Can any pro-lifer not see the contradiction here?
>
> Well I would not group anit-abortionists with the pro-life crowd. After all a
> lot of those people belive "that shooting an Abortion Doctor is okay because of
> the hundreds of lives it will save." I guess that is sort of digressing a bit
> from the topic though. Or is that where you were headed?
Is there a real difference between a pro-lifer and an anti-abortionist? Well,
obviously there are different life decision situations, that people might have
different opinions about, so hmm, here is the list I can see (I've included some
common phrases used to describe these cases):
1. Life decisions for humans who would not continue to live without medical
intervention. Some make distinctions between babies (who are born) and people
"in the prime of their life" (whatever that means...) and the elderly.
(Terminating Life Support, Medical Rationing)
2. Life decisions for humans who may have committed some vile crime. (Death
Penalty)
3. Life decisions for the unborn. Some people make distinctions depending on how
far the pregnancy has progressed. (Abortion)
4. Life decisions for the terminally ill. (Suicide, Assisted Suicide,
Euthanasia)
5. Life decisions for those who see no hope for a future. (Suicide)
6. Life decisions for those who are presenting a current danger. (Self Defence)
To me, I guess a pro-lifer is someone who wants to preserve life for at least
#1, #3, #4, and #5. I find those who then exclude #2 to be hypocritical.
Of course my personal opinion is that all of these situations have some
equivalencies. I also feel you can never make absolute rules that you can always
apply to each of these cases. While I have resolved that the death penalty is
fundamentally flawed, I also can conceive of it being the best solution in a few
(very few) cases (I'm just about convinced it was probably good to end McVeigh's
life for example). I would far rather see safe sex, abstinence, or adoption be
used than abortion. On the other hand, I think we do need to pay more attention
to the resources used to preserve lives. There was an interesting article in the
Oregonian (Portlands news rag) about the "Level 3" ward for premature babies. It
made me wonder if we are expending too many resources on these babies. For
example, how many lives would be improved if the same resources were spent on
nominally healthy, but unwanted children? I also fear that we expend far too
many resources on often meaningless extension of life for accident victims or
the elderly. And again, how far would the same resources go if they were put
towards helping nominally healthy, but destitute people suffering from
debilitating but easily treated conditions?
I would like to see people think about each case instead of immediately pigeon
holing. Why should we continue to try and keep this poor woman alive? It's
pretty clear that the likelyhood of her waking up tomorrow and stepping back
into life is about zero. Is some 18 year old who killed a few people truly less
likely to wake up tomorrow and step into life as a productive citizen? That's
what some people (who advocate for the death penalty while also advocating for
keeping this woman alive) seem to suggest. Of course there is a better argument
for most unborn, on the other hand, what is the likelyhood that a child born in
crack addiction will grow up to be as productive a citizen?
These questions can be very hard. But it is also clear to me that we can not put
unbounded resources into medical care. No matter what resources we do put in,
one will always be able to claim that more resources would let more people live
longer. Well, ok, unless you assume that there's some medical breakthrough out
there that will allow for imortality without requiring 100% of the imortals
productivity just to keep the imortal's clock ticking. Of course the next
question that arises is: So what, we have imortality that doesn't require 100%
of the imortal's resources. Where is the now skyrocketting population going to
live and what is it going to eat. Guess what! There is only so much resource to
feed people. Therefore, we can't have imortality. Therefore, we must ration
health care. So, why not ration it with compassionate and thoughtful cost
benefit analysis?
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
