Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JMJ333
As for slippery slope I could make the same argument, when you decide that need is a higher priority than productive effort, you have accepted the fundamental premise of Socialism.
26 posted on 05/19/2002 9:43:37 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Libertarianize the GOP
We are talking about human beings here. People that can no longer take care of themselves. What is your solution? Do you side with the pro-death crowd who seek to do away with anyone they find not "worthy." You are so concerned about socialism and people spending your tax dollars, but you really don't give a damn about the defenseless or you wouldn't be making such a trivial argument. You didn't even bother to address the comment about introducing competition back into the health care community to drive down cost--no--you are more concerned about having to spend your money on someone you don't care about. It is clear which direction we are headed--and it isn't toward moral based care for the helpless.

And the author is right. Your arguments are utilitarian in nature. I find it depressing.

27 posted on 05/19/2002 9:52:03 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Libertarianize the GOP;jmj333
The full paragraph:

Several years ago, the governor of a western state opined that the elderly had an obligation to society to go on and get out of the way. Obviously to him, physician-assisted killing is the expression of the right to kill for the good of society as a whole. In an analogous sentiment, Earl Shelby, a proponent of eugenics, warned against "a tyranny of the dependent in which the production of able persons is consumed by the almost limitless needs of dependent beings." Whether out of a Nazi-like desire to purify society, a more utilitarian desire to balance the state budget, or to better allocate limited resources, this view pushes well beyond the level of comfort for most Americans. Perhaps this is why it is not frequently verbalized by proponents of physician-assisted killing as validation.

I get suspicious when a quote appears out of context. I had to look hard, but I found it. To you, perhaps this appears to be "skimming over" something you find important. I submit that the author doesn't care if it's a government, a private insurance company, or a Doc with a big vacation coming up.....killing a patient should not be an option. I imagine you had to search as well, since the search for something fiduciary was probably on your mind. I saw only a couple of references to funding in this article. I think you're inserting an issue here.

again, that is a different issue. Personally, I am in the group that says public monies are far less productive, but this is a secondary issue. I do not disagree that the federal government in charge of anything outside constitutionally delegated functions is a bad thing. It's still secondary.

If the physician is to begin making value judgements on life based upon dollars, the slope is only a matter of degree.

The family is the natural enemy of the state. It is the family that should decide if they have the resources to maintain life or not. But even this is not the issue. Should our physicians (or anyone) have the option of removing the burden of guilt and/or debt by removing the patient? I think not.

35 posted on 05/20/2002 11:03:29 AM PDT by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson