Re: [asa] health care

I think the suggestion that the Christian commitment to "sanctity of life"
adds up to "preserving every life to the maximum extent possible" simply
doesn't wash. I know in the Catholic Church - which tends to talk about
"sanctity of life" constantly, and is perceived to do so to an extreme -
it's explicitly stated that "preserving every life to the maximum extent
possible" or goals close to such is rejected as a moral obligation.
"Extraordinary means" to prolong life are entirely optional rather than
obligatory, and refusing such means on the grounds of burden to family or
otherwise are acceptable.

At the same time, there is a strong rejection of euthanasia - typically seen
as an active killing, offering up drugs or "treatments" that are themselves
designed to kill the recipient. For myself, that is a key area, and one of
massive importance - the line between recognizing death as a natural, and
inevitable, part of this human life, and regarding death as a desirable
thing, a solution to a problem. Worse, an accounting problem.

I also think in this debate far too much emphasis is placed on the role of
government, when (as always) the major work required is at the level of the
individual, culture, and community. "There is a problem, how should the
government solve it?" often strikes me as a red herring - maybe the problem
isn't one appropriate for government to solve. Maybe fewer problems than we
think are.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 25 22:31:48 2009