The Value of a Life
Tuesday is election day in the United States. For many, this election is not about issues; rather, it is about electing an idea. It is about the opportunity to put a "black"man in the White House.
I will not presume to tell you who to vote for. But I'd like to bring your attention to one issue - the value of life.
The following editorial ran in our local newspaper on August 3, 2008. It is by conservative columnist, Cal Thomas.
THE PRICE IS (NOT) RIGHT
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
Most inhumanities start small, like the beginning of a tsunami, but then build, as they head toward inevitable and unstoppable destruction.
It is difficult to pinpoint the precise beginning of the cultural tsunami that has devalued human life. Did it begin with the subjugation of women? Did it begin with slavery? The Nazis made their contribution with the Holocaust and Josef Mengele’s hideous human experiments. Surely unrestricted abortion added to the growing list of inhumanities.
Now we have the next wave. Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostrate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment. The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death.
Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill Stroup, because it’s cheaper than trying to heal him. How twisted is this? Some have called this a “chilling” corruption of medical ethics, but medical ethics have been in the deep freeze for some time. The American Medical Association, which once strongly opposed abortion, now buys into the “choice” argument despite Hippocrates’ admonition that physicians make a habit of two things — “to help, or at least to do no harm.”
How much is a human life worth? Body parts and bone marrow can fetch some pretty high prices, but a human life is more than the sum of its body parts. The reason this is important is that the federal government is now placing a price tag on individual lives and if government ever gets to run health care from Washington, bureaucrats will start making decisions similar to the one made for Randy Stroup.
Various government agencies contribute estimates for a concept known as the “Value of Statistical Life.” Like housing prices, the value of life has gone down in the eyes of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA says human life this year is worth $7.22 million. That’s a drop from its previous estimate of $8.04 million. The Department of Transportation calculates the value of human life at $5.8 million, an increase from $3 million. At the Consumer Product Safety Commission, human life is unchanged from the last estimate of $5 million.
According to The Washington Post, several federal agencies have come up with figures for the dollar value of a human life to analyze the costs and benefits of new programs they believe will save lives.
Saving lives is the announced intention, but if government gains the power to determine when a life is no longer “worth” saving and orders the plug to be pulled or the death pill to be administered, then what? This is the future of the socialized medicine that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party wish to impose on us.
In a culture that values all life, difficult decisions can be made about a life that is at an end and should be allowed to “go.” That is a far cry from having a government bureaucrat or panel of “experts” play God and decide, based on cost alone, when your or my life no longer has value in the eyes of the state.
How we view and value ourselves affects how we view and value others. If we are mere evolutionary accidents with no moral value greater than cole slaw, then we quickly begin viewing others as part of the vegetable family. But if we are something far more special, even to the point of having a Creator who has “endowed” us with value beyond that of gold, silver and paper money, then should we not be treated as such, even by the state?
The Randy Stroup case won’t be the last of its kind. Just as Jack Kevorkian’s illegal assisted suicide preceded its legalization in Oregon, so, too, will Randy Stroup be the test case in what amounts to mandated medical euthanasia ordered by the state.
When pro-lifers warned about the “slippery slope” more than three decades ago, they were dismissed as alarmists. Not anymore. Their prophecy is now being fulfilled.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.
(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Frankly, this scares me. There are many proponents of government health care, who claim it would eliminate the problem of the uninsured, and give access to health care to everyone in the country. But when has a government program done what it was designed to do, and in a fiscally responsible manner? The Social Security program is in trouble; FDR's "New Deal" pushed this country into deep debt; the Welfare program is fraught with waste and deception. Why do we think that universal health care, funded by our government (i.e., you and me, through higher taxes), will really do what it is supposed to do? I'm afraid that there would be many more Randy Stroup's - people with curable illnesses who are denied care simply because it's going to cost too much.
My husband has Multiple Myeloma, which is a cancer of the plasma cells in the bone marrow. Although it is treatable, and new drug therapies are being discovered every year, the disease is ultimately fatal. And MM is an expensive disease to treat. One of the most popular treatments is a drug called Revlimid, which costs in excess of $6000 per month. Can you imagine the federal government paying out $72,000+ a year for one drug for one individual, especially if the patient will ultimately die? And what about when another drug must be added to Revlimid . . . we're talking tens of thousands of dollars more.
What is the value of a life? Who decides who gets treatment, and who doesn't? Do you want a bureaucrat in Washington playing God, denying treatment to my loved one or yours simply on the basis of cost? When you step into the voting booth on Tuesday - and preferably before you do, stop to consider the candidates' views on the value of life. Then vote accordingly. You never know if you'll be the next Randy Stroup.
Holding Faith,
I will not presume to tell you who to vote for. But I'd like to bring your attention to one issue - the value of life.
The following editorial ran in our local newspaper on August 3, 2008. It is by conservative columnist, Cal Thomas.
THE PRICE IS (NOT) RIGHT
on July 30, 2008 2:56:57 |
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
Most inhumanities start small, like the beginning of a tsunami, but then build, as they head toward inevitable and unstoppable destruction.
It is difficult to pinpoint the precise beginning of the cultural tsunami that has devalued human life. Did it begin with the subjugation of women? Did it begin with slavery? The Nazis made their contribution with the Holocaust and Josef Mengele’s hideous human experiments. Surely unrestricted abortion added to the growing list of inhumanities.
Now we have the next wave. Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostrate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment. The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death.
Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill Stroup, because it’s cheaper than trying to heal him. How twisted is this? Some have called this a “chilling” corruption of medical ethics, but medical ethics have been in the deep freeze for some time. The American Medical Association, which once strongly opposed abortion, now buys into the “choice” argument despite Hippocrates’ admonition that physicians make a habit of two things — “to help, or at least to do no harm.”
How much is a human life worth? Body parts and bone marrow can fetch some pretty high prices, but a human life is more than the sum of its body parts. The reason this is important is that the federal government is now placing a price tag on individual lives and if government ever gets to run health care from Washington, bureaucrats will start making decisions similar to the one made for Randy Stroup.
Various government agencies contribute estimates for a concept known as the “Value of Statistical Life.” Like housing prices, the value of life has gone down in the eyes of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA says human life this year is worth $7.22 million. That’s a drop from its previous estimate of $8.04 million. The Department of Transportation calculates the value of human life at $5.8 million, an increase from $3 million. At the Consumer Product Safety Commission, human life is unchanged from the last estimate of $5 million.
According to The Washington Post, several federal agencies have come up with figures for the dollar value of a human life to analyze the costs and benefits of new programs they believe will save lives.
Saving lives is the announced intention, but if government gains the power to determine when a life is no longer “worth” saving and orders the plug to be pulled or the death pill to be administered, then what? This is the future of the socialized medicine that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party wish to impose on us.
In a culture that values all life, difficult decisions can be made about a life that is at an end and should be allowed to “go.” That is a far cry from having a government bureaucrat or panel of “experts” play God and decide, based on cost alone, when your or my life no longer has value in the eyes of the state.
How we view and value ourselves affects how we view and value others. If we are mere evolutionary accidents with no moral value greater than cole slaw, then we quickly begin viewing others as part of the vegetable family. But if we are something far more special, even to the point of having a Creator who has “endowed” us with value beyond that of gold, silver and paper money, then should we not be treated as such, even by the state?
The Randy Stroup case won’t be the last of its kind. Just as Jack Kevorkian’s illegal assisted suicide preceded its legalization in Oregon, so, too, will Randy Stroup be the test case in what amounts to mandated medical euthanasia ordered by the state.
When pro-lifers warned about the “slippery slope” more than three decades ago, they were dismissed as alarmists. Not anymore. Their prophecy is now being fulfilled.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.
(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Frankly, this scares me. There are many proponents of government health care, who claim it would eliminate the problem of the uninsured, and give access to health care to everyone in the country. But when has a government program done what it was designed to do, and in a fiscally responsible manner? The Social Security program is in trouble; FDR's "New Deal" pushed this country into deep debt; the Welfare program is fraught with waste and deception. Why do we think that universal health care, funded by our government (i.e., you and me, through higher taxes), will really do what it is supposed to do? I'm afraid that there would be many more Randy Stroup's - people with curable illnesses who are denied care simply because it's going to cost too much.
My husband has Multiple Myeloma, which is a cancer of the plasma cells in the bone marrow. Although it is treatable, and new drug therapies are being discovered every year, the disease is ultimately fatal. And MM is an expensive disease to treat. One of the most popular treatments is a drug called Revlimid, which costs in excess of $6000 per month. Can you imagine the federal government paying out $72,000+ a year for one drug for one individual, especially if the patient will ultimately die? And what about when another drug must be added to Revlimid . . . we're talking tens of thousands of dollars more.
What is the value of a life? Who decides who gets treatment, and who doesn't? Do you want a bureaucrat in Washington playing God, denying treatment to my loved one or yours simply on the basis of cost? When you step into the voting booth on Tuesday - and preferably before you do, stop to consider the candidates' views on the value of life. Then vote accordingly. You never know if you'll be the next Randy Stroup.
Holding Faith,
posted by Ginny @ 2:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home