And this is the precise goal of Zero's death panels.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
From Wikipedia: Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective.
He has served, on two occasions, as chair of philosophy at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996, he ran unsuccessfully as a Green candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004, he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. He has been voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.[1] Singer serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal.
Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. Not all members of the animal liberation movement share this view, and Singer himself has said the media overstates his status. His views on that and other issues in bioethics have attracted attention and a degree of controversy..
Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion may be stated as the following syllogism:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.[15]
In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that defenders of abortion attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life:
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[16]
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[18] Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject. Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.
Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer's disease. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".[19] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.[20] [edit]
**********************************
I apologize for the length of this excerpt, but I hope that the convenience of reading it here may make a difference.
Same key sentences I picked. If the care were truly "futile," the patient would die on his own, end of story. The problem is care that is keeping alive a person not deemed worthy of life by the Authorities.
I see this situation EVERY DAY!!!!
The patient, should he/she or their family be able to pay for it (via insurance or cash), should be able to avail themselves of EVERY care measure or procedure they desire.
However, if the taxpayer is paying for it (medicare or medicaid) cost/benefit analysis MUST have a place in care decisions.
Real case: the other day I had a 88 y/o medicare patient that had been confined for the last 6 years in an Alzheimer’s unit in a nursing home, bedbound for the last year. Patient doesn’t know who she is or where she is. Her family, other than an elderly sister, has nothing to do with her. She fell while trying to get up at the nursing home and broke her hip and badly shattered her shoulder.
It was determined that the shoulder could not be repaired, but surgery was done to pin the hip. This surgery costs upwards of $25K. Tax dollars! Then, she was sent back to the same nursing home, bedbound, on hospice care.
Can anyone really justify the expenditure on surgery? Come on! I mean, there is no reason this lady should be in pain, but why fix a hip she’ll never use, and hasn’t used - in years!
I don’t want any part of telling someone “Sorry, but you’re not worth saving.” but there is a point where some care IS “futile” and we the taxpayer should not be funding every individual’s desire to stay with us a few extra hours or days. And, far more often than not, it is a guilty family member, not the patient, that is pushing for such.