Euthanasia For Thee, But Not For Me: Harry Reid & The Utilitarians
March 14, 2010 / 11:37 am • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierWell, Dan Riehl did it. He got the Left in a frothing, spewing rage by noting the absurdity of leftist utilitarian arguments regarding end of life decisions and abortion.
Bart Stupak reported that during behind-the-scenes meetings Nancy Pelosi was trying to convince Bart that abortion was a good thing—you know all those babies that wouldn’t need health care then. Abortion saves money!
So Dan wrote the piece that needed to be written: He talked about how old people have lived their lives, don’t really serve any useful purpose and so why should anyone pay for the healthcare, in this case of Harry Reid’s wife, for said old person?
The Democrats love utilitarian arguments. They use them for all sorts of things—from killing babies to leaving the Vietnamese to the communists. But like all good Utilitarians, they value their own utility higher than every one else’s utility. Thus, the foam-at-the-mouth outrage by lefties when someone uses their arguments against them.
See, Dan believes in the sanctity of life for all the helpless, as do I. So I would give Harry Reid’s wife the same care that I’d give a premature baby or an unborn baby from a poor mother. All life is sacred and deserves care.
But on the left, people who believe they are smarter than you want to pick and choose who lives and who dies. They will set up committees to decide who gets care and who does not and the arguments will be utilitarian ones: only 10% of people with this sort of cancer survive, and this drug is very expensive, so we’re not going to treat this person. The chance is too small, the cost to society too great. For the greater good, here’s a pill for your pain. [Unless, you happen to be the wife or daughter of a Dear Leader, of course….]
Dan’s absurd argument gets down to the philosophical differences between the left and right. Of course he would treat Harry Reid’s wife, if it were up to him. But leftists view people, other than those they know directly, in the abstract. They are numbers and lists—not actual people who have families and friends who care for them.
Americans don’t want to be part of some list at the mercy of some bureaucrat. They want their life to mean something. They want their lives to be as important as Harry Reid’s wife is to him.
And Americans are afraid of the reality: there will be two worlds in health care—one for Congress and one for everyone else. And they’re right. That’s exactly how it will be.
