The more this society values the material means for living, the less it seems to value life itself - - especially life that is inconvenient and imperfect. A woman's so-called "right to choose" is protected by the state, the right to life is not. In short, "lifestyle" has triumphed over life as such. Yet, the triumphant monster of "choice" is not satisfied with the sacrifice of millions of unborn children on its altar. The agents of "choice" are exploring new ways to satisfy the monster, the next logical step.
The next logical step is, of course, "doing something" about the physically imperfect children who escaped the abortionist, about the disabled who ask for "futile" health care, about the old and infirm who cling to life and use up "resources."
The logic is quite powerful. If tearing apart an unborn healthy child is a permissible "choice," then why shouldn't a baby with Down syndrome be "allowed" to die from neglect? It's the humane thing to do, you know. If funds for health care are limited, then why waste precious resources on the elderly or the disabled? They have a "poor quality of life" anyway. They would be better off dead.
The logic is quite compelling once you accept the premise that the "right to choose" trumps all other rights, that the right to life is not a sacred endowment from our Creator but contingent on someone's selfish "choice."
Recent events illustrate how much our society has fallen under the spell of this mistaken "logic."
On June 5, Attorney General Janet Reno reversed the ruling of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that "controlled substances" (e.g. narcotics legitimately used to alleviate pain) could not be prescribed to assist suicide. Reno instead specifically authorized such use in states where physician-assisted suicide is legal (so far only Oregon). Reno is protecting the "choice" to do something very wrong. It will take passage of the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act to correct her arrogant abuse of power.
In July, Princeton University announced that "bioethicist" Peter Singer of Australia's Monash University will, next year, become the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values. Years ago, this professor of "human values" achieved notoriety for arguing that the life of a healthy pig or a dog has superior value to that of an infant with a birth abnormality.
Boston Herald (10/28/98) columnist Don Feder quotes Singer as stating, "That a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it." And "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." According to Singer, "No infant, defective or not, has a strong claim to life as a person."
The Daily Princetonian (9/24/98) quotes Amy Gutmann, director of the Center for Human Values, to the effect that Singer has "a mainstream philosophical view." The parents of current or prospective Princeton students should take note.
In September, the case of a disabled man made headlines. The man had suffered brain damage in a car accident three years earlier. Now a circuit court judge ruled that the man's wife could have his feeding tubes removed.
After initial disagreement, relatives of the man decided not to oppose the wife's request. The man then died for lack of food and water.
The rationalizations for this turn of events are by now familiar: "Everyone did this out of love and compassion for him," reported the Washington Post (9/29/98). Moreover, "Even for folks who are cognitively with it, [such starvation] seems relatively pleasant. They just fade away." So says a medical authority quoted by the Washington Post. And another medical authority assures us that with the administration of pain-killers "family members can be sure that there is no suffering" during such an involuntary execution. There you have it: "Compassionate" killing that's "relatively pleasant," and "there is no suffering."
Finally, on November 22, CBS's 60 Minutes aired a "snuff film" in which Dr. Jack Kevorkian administered a lethal combination of drugs to a man afflicted with Lou Gehrig's disease. Nearly 16 million households were tuned in to the revolting spectacle. According to the Washington Post, TV celebrity Mike Wallace, the program segment's host, dismissed criticism of the program as "mindless" and "baffling." (Mr. Wallace is an advocate of assisted suicide.) And CBS News President Andrew Heyward declared himself "proud of what we did." Proud of giving this seriously disturbed pathologist a national platform?
The dangers on the euthanasia front, however, aren't limited to voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Involuntary euthanasia through the denial of lifesaving medical treatment is at least as big a threat. It could start with Medicare "reform."
A bipartisan commission is scheduled to report in March 1999 its recommendations for "reform" of Medicare. Because of the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, Medicare is running out of money. That means one of three things must happen: (1) taxes must be raised in order to keep benefits at their current level, which most regard as politically highly improbable; (2) the available funds must be stretched to cover the larger number of beneficiaries, resulting in rationing; or (3) older Americans must be permitted to add their own money to government payments in order to obtain health insurance that does not ration care.
In 1997, NRLC won a great victory when the Balanced Budget Agreement allowed Medicare beneficiaries to add their own funds to government payments to get so-called "private fee-for-service" plans that can legally offer unmanaged care--health insurance that pays for what you and your doctor consider necessary to preserve your life and health. By the year 2000, insurance companies should have gotten past the regulatory thicket to offer such plans.
Meanwhile, however, a recent editorial in the Washington Post has urged the Medicare reform commission to eliminate this choice. The Clinton Administration, infamous for its 1993-94 proposals to ration health care for all, will likely make this a key legislative priority next year.
In January, you must tell your congressman and senators that a vote to prohibit Medicare recipients from adding their funds to government payments to purchase fee-for-service health insurance is a vote for involuntary euthanasia. The notion that the government would prevent you from taking care of yourself is outrageous. Be emphatic about that.