Re: [asa] health care

Jack,

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. You say you think these
decisions should remain at the level of individual decisions between patient
and doctor. And you're also saying we need to shift from an individual
perspective to a community one, and that someone (doctors) need "more
power". But what can that mean? If it means government power, legal
authority to say "this is the treatment you should get" or worse "this is
the treatment someone who occupies your position on the Treatment Worthiness
Scale should get", that's not keeping decisions on the level of patient and
doctor. That's good old-fashioned decision by government, with the doctor
deputized with certain amounts of authority along with rules about how to
use that authority.

And if that's what is meant, then the "who is in a better position to make
these decisions?" question gets even blurrier than it is to begin with. At
that point we have to go back and look at the track record of modern
governments when it comes to respect for individual rights, humans as
persons, etc. And that's when the picture isn't just "not pretty", it's
downright ugly.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Jack <drsyme@verizon.net> wrote:

> I want to emphasize my point that I think the decisions about allocation
> of health care needs to remain at the level of individual decisions between
> the patient and the doctor, not with the government. I am claiming that
> doctors should have more control over these decision than they have now. We
> (doctors) have given up too much to individualism, and need to reclaim some
> paternalism for the sake of decisions made in the communities best
> interest. There is a large grey area here, and there should be much debate
> about what is reasonable, and what is not, and who should decide.
> Nevertheless, in the big picture, who is in a better position to make these
> decisions?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2009 10:31 PM
> *Subject:* 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 23:30:49 2009