« Breaking The Last Enigma Messages | Main | Simpsons More Popular Than Constitution »

February 27, 2006

A Few Brutal Truths

Britain has socialized medicine — the fabled and much hoped-for (by socialists and ultra-Leftists mostly) — single-payer system we keep hearing about. [Slightly off-topic yet somehow related: I heard a guy on the radio the other day saying that the problem with our health care system is that we don't pay enough; so his plan is to make health care so expensive that we'll beg the government to take it over!] And in Britain, the state has decided that a mentally-retarded baby's life is not worth living: that her fragile health, in essence, will cost the government so much money that it's best to let her die rather than trying to save her if she needs medical intervention, while other children with similar viruses but not retarded would get treated. In other words, the state has decided, over the objections of the baby's parents, that their baby's life is not worthwhile. (For, apparently, her own good!)

Now, there are a few brutal truths about this situation. The first is that the state's action here is so egregiously immoral that I cannot find words to describe it. Obviously, all healthcare is rationed, either by government action or by ability to pay (although in the US system, it is generally the case that ability to pay is not a barrier to world-class treatment if the illness is not chronic): all things that are demanded and are in limited supply will be assigned by some priority scheme; that is unavoidable. Yet the government has, by taking over health care decisions, decided that it has the sole responsibility and privilege of deciding whose life is worth living, and I cannot imagine a scarier thought than that power in politicians' hands.

The second is that the parents are likely partially to blame for this situation, and I am not referring to the genetic situation. Let me transfer this to myself, because I really don't mean to be critical of Charlotte's parents, who are in a heartbreaking situation. If the state were to say that my child's life would not be saved by medical treatments, I would begin by leaving the country for a place where my child could get care. Were I prevented from doing so, or financially unable to do so, and were I unable to get relief through the political system, I would make an appeal for funds and try to get private treatment. In extremis, if all else failed, I would gather my truest friends and sufficient weaponry, go to the hospital, and ensure by force that my child was appropriately treated. After which, I would lay down my weapons, surrender meekly, and would explain how I blackmailed my friends, so they were not responsible for what they did. My child's life is worth the jail time.

And that said, if the parents in this case would like to come to the US, and get appropriate treatment for their child here, I would be more than willing to contribute to the cause, and to ask others to do so as well. Obviously, the Wyatts love their children, and want the best for them. The problem here is that the governmental system they live under, by choice, is flawed, and will not save their child. I hope they make the right choices, and I hope the situation turns out well for them.

(hat tip: WizBang)

Posted by jeff at February 27, 2006 8:12 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/880

Comments

Nothing new here. Once you give government the power to solely supply health care, they will also deny health care to whoever they please, and for whatever the reason. Who didn't see this one coming?

Posted by: Vulgorilla [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 8:19 AM

The actuarial assessment of an individual's life value, down to the minute, is standard practice with insurance companies when they pay on life policies. Having established the principle for the dead it was but a short step to application for the soon-to-be-not-living. There is another class of problems that we have yet to encounter, but which will be manifest should we ever reach the point where life extension beyond a century or two becomes feasible... but remains cost prohibitive for the bulk of humanity. Let's suppose a millionaire could arrange for himself and several family members to live for three centuries in relatively robust health? How would you propose to resolve the resulting dilemma for those limited to threescore and ten?

Honestly, I have no answers. But it isn't hard for me to imagine such a situation destroying the very fabric of a culture. Let us hope that if life extension is a real possibility the technology that enables it has a cost structure closer to a Trek than a Rolls Royce.

Posted by: Demosophist at February 28, 2006 11:28 PM