It’s about time: Other than the disability rights movement and Nat Hentoff, it seems to me that the Left has been not only supine in the face of the oncoming “duty to die,” but its enablers. Maybe the worm is beginning to turn. Mickey Kaus at Slate believes—silly man—-that he should have a right to live. From his blog:
I want to make the decision to cut off treatment, not have it made by a cost-watching health board. Choice! The resonance with the abortion debate seems obvious. ... Both are life/death decisions. Are they both best handled by individuals and their families in consultation with their doctors? You’d think the case for “choice” at the end of life might be stronger, since the life at stake is likely to be able to participate in making that choice. ...
Update: Prof. Althouse distinguishes this kind of choice from “right to die” cases. “It’s one thing to deny the choice to die, quite another to deny the choice to live.”
Health care rationing and Futile Care Theory about taking away that very choice. As the post points out if someone doesn’t want life-sustaining treatment, more power to them. But utilitarian bioethics boards shouldn’t be able to force that “choice” upon us.
I have always believed the medical futility debate is extremely winnable because for once the “choice” soundbite cuts against the culture of death.
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
