No, I did not watch the September 12 CNN-Tea Party Express debate between Republican presidential candidates; it is doubtful I will watch any GOP, disturbed as I am by the current roster and their stated positions.
(Before you take me to task for proudly stating my intention to remain uninformed, I am not saying I will not follow the campaign or endeavor to be as knowledgeable as possible on all the presidential candidates’ positions. Anyone who believes that televised debates are a valid means of determining candidates’ worthiness for office must also believe that voter ID laws, like Indiana’s, are necessary to stem rampant voter fraud.)
Ron Paul is a Texan, a U.S. representative, and the self-proclaimed, “America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government.” Oh yeah, he’s also a doctor.
The CNN host asked Paul a hypothetical question about a healthy 30-year-old who opts not to carry health insurance, and who goes into a six-month coma. Paul stated that, “freedom … is all about taking your own risks,” and that paying for this hypothetical patient’s intensive care should not be the responsibility of the government.
This doctor is stating that, because this patient took a risk on ever needing extensive medical care, he is left to face the consequences without assistance from a government that he has, involuntarily supported with his taxes. Even if he hasn’t paid a dime into the government’s coffers, would not the compassionate position be that a government with the means to save citizens’ lives, should? And isn’t compassion at least an implicit requirement of the medical profession?
My feeling is that an element of compassion, along with a sense of service, should be requisite for members of Congress, but that is undoubtedly an impractical, bleeding heart attitude.
Shocking as I find Paul’s position on this issue, the big story is the audience reaction to the debate host’s follow-up question, “Are you saying that society should just let [the hypothetical patient] die?”
Someone—possibly more than one individual—shouts, “Yeah!” A smattering of laughs ensued from the crowd.
And I wonder how heartless, self-serving politicians get elected, and re-elected.
Something I did recently watch was the 10-episode season of the British sci-fi series, Torchwood. Long unavailable for my viewing, I was able to watch the previous (five-episode) series, titled “Children of Earth,” and it is both thoughtful and deeply disturbing.
The latest Torchwood series hinged on a “Miracle Day” when all humans on Earth simply cease to die. World governments are forced to take action when populations, undiminished by death, soar beyond sustainable levels, fast. Some, including the U.S. government, adopt “categories of life,” a scale of classification based on one’s condition at the time the “miracle” struck.
Category 1 is “dead alive,” those who would be deceased were it not for the end of death. The government essentially defines what “life” is, and which categories get what (if any) medical care. Eventually, it comes to light that “category ones” are being incinerated in giant, government-run ovens.
How far is it from a doctor denying care to the uninsured, and the public supporting the decision to let them die, to relieving stress on the medical system through categorization and incineration?
0 comments:
Post a Comment