I recently read a piece in the Irish Times worrying that economics was entering into the debate over euthanasia. But I can’t help but think it’s always been there.
Let’s face it, without any agreed upon morality concerning human life and ethicists unable to agree that about the value of human life, some concern must fill the vacuum and form the bedrock of our opinion. And once life is no longer priceless, a price tag is necessarily affixed. After that, it’s all just haggling.
And just in case you’re OK with that, please remember that in economics everything comes down to supply and demand and unless there’s a big demand for you when you get sick or injured and you’re no longer contributing the supply of you will likely soon be zeroed out.
In economics, once people are no longer contributing to society there’s very little economic case that can be made to extend their lives. When they talk about “quality of life” what they’re really talking about is the cost/benefit analysis of you.
Our culture is happily shrugging off that old time religion but remember it will be replaced by something. And that something is economics. And more people have died in the name of economics than any religion. That’s right communism, I’m talking to you. Take that Dawkins!
December 20, 2010 at 4:54 am
Matt,
This is simply the result of accepting utilitarianism as the underlying and guiding principles upon which we base everything. It's what makes Swift's "modest proposal" so brilliant. Think of most of swifts justifications, they're economic, simply because he's reflecting the general move to utilitarian principles which have their historical roots in earlier British economic theories. This is why Lewis says in responding to Smart's critique of Lewis' critique of the humanitarian theory of punishment that he has one more desire than humanity's happiness, namely that it be of a certain quality.
December 20, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Are you sure? Stephen Hawkins says it the laws of gravity> I jest. A very perceptive and well written piece.
anonymous has got it right with Utilitarianism and lifeboat ethics. In Delaware several years ago, utilitarianism was proved wrong. 7 men survived for 4 days in a boat made for 4 people…becaused they loved each other and not one wanted to be saved without the others. Let us cling to Jesus Christ
December 20, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Just out of curiosity, what kind of healthcare system do you want?
Unlimited heathcare is simply unavailable, so economics will play a part in heathcare decisions whether you like it (or whether it is moral) or not.
Shall we have the market decide? With the poor being allowed to die on the street?
Or shall we have doctors decide how best to allocate limited resources?
December 21, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Dutchman,
You can't have it both ways. On the one hand people like you lectured that it is immoral for the poor to be deprived of health care (of course, that was a strawman). But now that you've gotten what you wanted (ObamaCare), you lecture us that it is immoral to give health care to all -that health care is finite and must be rationed by the "experts".
December 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Jerome:
Thank you for telling me what I believe, otherwise I might not have known. (Until now, I had thought I was AGAINST "ObamaCare," thanks for straightening me out on that.)
Now, FOR THE RECORD, what sort of system do YOU want?
1] Where the market decides who gets healthcare (and where the poor don't get it).
2] Where doctors allocate heathcare resources as best they see fit.
3] Or do we go on pretending that there are unlimited resources and that everyone will get all the heathcare they want.
December 22, 2010 at 7:06 am
It concerns me that the discussion has shifted so far from the subject at hand. Can anyone recall when people carried medical insurance to cover medical care? or when we had medical professionals not health care professionals? A hint: one might look at the Hyde amendment, and the subsequent battles over an international right to health and reproductive health. When Ms. Pelosi tells you we can save $20,000 by preventing a delivery and this is preventive medicine, it might appear that rationing people is part of her solution to costs.
December 22, 2010 at 5:12 pm
I keep asking this question again and again.
Whenever a proposal for a single-payer healthcare system comes up, opponents begin yelling about "rationing" and euthanasia.
Well, on September 11, 2009, Crystal Lee Sutton (The real-life Norma Rae) died from meningioma, a form of brain cancer that she had been diagnosed as having for several years. She had been struggling with her health insurance company, which had delayed her treatment.
Now, how is that NOT rationing?