Wednesday, July 4, 2018

America Needs a Medical Independence Day

June 21-23, 2018, was the Red Pill Expo. Twila Brase was one of the speakers. About the experience she wrote,
On Saturday, I was in Spokane, Washington speaking at the Red Pill Expo. As Christopher Nartey explains on Quora, in the movie The Matrix, “a person who picks the red pill will become aware of the Matrix itself and what the machines are doing to them. Someone who takes the blue pill gets to continue living in ignorance, none the wiser of what they are being used for.”
With about 400 people in the room, I spoke on the topic of “Getting the Government Out of Health Care.” I started by asking the attendees if they are truly willing to give up Obamacare subsidies and Medicare and if they are willing to use their dollars directly to charitably fund care for the poor. The blue pill is easier to swallow. The red pill takes work…but I gave concrete examples of how to restore health freedom (emphasis and link added).

In this case, it may be helpful to clarify we're specifically talking about getting government finance out of health care: “subsidies and Medicare.”

Brase also included a note from an attendee about her talk:
“It struck me that what you said was a great example of how to maintain principle while implementing practicality...practical suggestions with no compromise of principle. You posit the correct principle that gov't should be involved in "medical care" not at all and you present practical ideas and solutions that seriously honest people can apply to both receive appropriate and affordable medical care and fully reject gov't subsidies and control (theft and tyranny).” (emphasis in original)
This may be going a bit far. The purpose of government is not to be involved “not at all”—that's anarchy.

The purpose of government is to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good, including in health care.

Given the sometimes life-or-death nature of health care, and the vulnerability of one's patients, one of the most obvious possible evils by a medical professional is death. Yes, no matter the uniform or the title, it's still possible to commit murder, however sanitized one may try to make it appear.

The most obvious forms of this that we battle today are abortion at the beginning of life and euthanasia or assisted-suicide at the end of life. Yes, government has a role in stepping into medical care to punish anyone who would end the life of another.

Some may raise objections to this standard.

What about when a doctor has to decide which life to save?

If we're talking about abortion, this claim has been vastly over-applied. There's no such thing as abortion “to save the life of the mother” during the second or third trimester. Abortion that late in pregnancy is a multi-day procedure. There's nothing urgent about abortion if it takes that long. If the baby threatens the life of the mother at that stage, it can be delivered. There's no medical need to kill him or her.

What about if the patient is in a lot of pain and is suffering?

Respectfully, that's not our place. It's not the doctor's, nurse's, or patient's place to end a life just because there is pain and suffering. They may attempt to alleviate pain, but there's no justification for killing a patient in the name of ending pain and suffering. If the patient doesn't know Jesus, then death does not end pain and suffering. Some may attempt to emotionally manipulate the situation by accusing professionals of furthering their pain and suffering by not ending the patient's life, but no one is causing pain by allowing it to continue.

The bottom line is medical professionals should never allow a patient an elective end of life.

The attendees comments shed light on another claim.

Mentioning “theft” in this context seems to be a reference to taxes. A view of taxation as theft goes too far. God specifically condemns theft in the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19) and condones taxes in the New Testament (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 17:25-27; Luke 20:22-25). This is not inconsistent nor can it be (Hebrews 4:15; 6:18).

That doesn't mean, however, that those who view taxation as theft don't have a point. The point of government collecting taxes is to be able to fulfill its purposes. If the government is going beyond those purposes, then taxes may indeed be theft.

In this case, the attendee equates “theft and tyranny” with “subsidies and control.” If by theft we're talking about taxes collected for purposes of paying subsidies, this is a compelling point. Taxes-for-subsidies does not match either purpose of government. Government paying subsidies for someone is not a form of punishment. Not making as much money as someone else is not a form of good deserving of government praise in the form of subsidies, nor is making more money than someone else evil worthy of punishment. Forcibly collecting money from someone simply for purposes of directly or indirectly giving to someone else is indeed a form of theft.

No comments:

Post a Comment