Could Euthanasia come to Britain?

From Hot Air:

In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

As Ed Morrissey points out, this is one obvious and natural end result of "free" national health care. If care isn't rationed through price by the free market, it has to be rationed in some other way. (I know "rationing" sounds like some sort of scary word, but it's just a basic economic concept--the supply and price of goods and services is affected by the demand.) You just can't give unlimited care to everyone in the country--there aren't enough doctors, hospitals, nurses. You have to make choices about how to distribute the care, and you end up with LONG waiting lists and denials of service. When this isn't enough, the government starts thinking about how to cut further, and one choice is to make less care available to old, very sick people.

Note that the article starts out talking about allowing people the option to choose euthanasia, but Warnock soon starts talking about people with dementia, who by definition wouldn't have the capacity to make that kind of choice for themselves. So, who makes the choice? Family? Doctors? A government bureaucrat in the health care system?

If you believe every human life is precious and sacred, this trend should be a big concern.

And that's not even mentioning that "free" health care isn't free at all. If the Democrats succeed in enacting some sort of nationalized health insurance system, believe me, we will pay for it big time in taxes. If the experiences of places like Britain and Canada are any indication, we'll also pay in time--weeks and months spent waiting to get approval to get a doctor's appointment, see a specialist, etc. (I know this happens to some extent in the US too, mostly driven by insurance companies, but from everything I have read it is far worse in countries with socialized medicine.) You might have to pay extra money in addition to your taxes to get care outside of the system--for people in the UK, this includes "medical vacations" to places like India to get medical care, and a LOT of Canadians cross the border into the US for treatment. Finally, the whole world will pay a price because research into new drugs and procedures will be reduced, with no free-market incentive to spur innovation.

One Issue Voter?

By Rich Bordner

There's a common thought afoot in evangelical circles when it comes to the current political climate:

"We shouldn't just focus on abortion. We need a more holistic approach to politics and social justice. Poverty, AIDS, etc. are 'life' issues too."

In fact, I just talked with two members of my church recently on this very topic. Both are voting for Obama. Both claim to be pro-life. Both will vote for Obama for economic, environmental, and global (i.e., anti-Iraq war) reasons.

As its stated, the statement is true. Poverty, et al, are things we evangelicals (actually, Christians of all stripes) need to battle. However, the upshot of this has been to put abortion on the back burner, treating it as less important than the other concerns. This has steered many evangelicals towards voting for Obama. This is a problem, for several reasons:

1) This presumes that the Democratic solution (traditionally, it has involved some form of bigger dependence on government) to poverty and such is the best solution. This is far from obvious. Liberals and conservatives alike both care about the poor and the ill. What is up for debate is which has the better solution. Far too often, it is assumed that liberals are the ones who care because they are for a government program dealing with the problem.

2) Imagine we are in Germany around 1940: "Hey, Hitler is doing wonders for this country's economic stability. Yeah, what he's doing with the Jews is sad, but hey, we gotta put food on the table! Our nation's pride and economic stability are important concerns too, not just 6 million Jews being slaughtered." That would be horrendous. Protecting innocent life should ALWAYS be front and center.

3) Similarly, around 40 million babies have died from abortions ever since Roe v. Wade. Given this, putting abortion on the backburner is the least compassionate thing we can do; it will show that we really don't care about "the least of these."

4) Obama is crazy when it comes to abortion. Not only has he pledged that he will do everything in his power to uphold and solidify Roe v. Wade, but his voting record is about as extreme as it gets. In fact, in Illinois, he led the opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which would have secured medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions. He swears that the reason why he voted against it was because it lacked "neutrality language" in regards to Roe V. Wade, but he shot down the attempt to put such language in the bill!

5) Some prefer to talk of "reducing the number of abortions" through caring for women in crisis pregnancies (mostly through some form of government funding) rather than attacking the law head on. This eases their conscience in voting for Obama. Of course, reducing the number of abortions is a laudable goal, but that shouldn't be the only thing we do. As Melinda Penner at Stand to Reason has pointed out in a recent blog, this leaves a very odious doctrine ensconced in our law: that the unborn are not fully human and are not worthy of protection under the law. That, my friends, needs to be shown for the evil it is. Therefore, if we do not relentlessly attack that plank of our law with everything we have (including our vote), we must ask ourselves just how pro-life we really are.

6) Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if McCain is likely or not to completely topple Roe v. Wade. Most likely, he will not, given that he will probably be working with a Democratic legislature. What matters is: who is likely to make progress, any progress, towards outlawing abortion. McCain: certainly yes. His voting record alone speaks to that truth. At the very least, he will keep us from moving the other way, towards entrenching Roe further in our law and societal soul. Obama: certainly not. He will move us in the other way, both through perhaps vetoing anything that remotely smells pro-life, through funding the industry of abortion, and through appointing judges that play fast and loose with the Constitution. That's how the problem started in the first place, after all.

Therefore, if this was the only issue/reason I had for not voting for Obama (in actuality, the reasons are many), I wouldn't think twice about it. Despite the public chiding one issue voters get, my conscience would be clean.

Obama/Biden: Biden on Abortion

So Obama announced his pick for VP: Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. It's not all that clear that the VP selection matters a whole lot, but informed voters should still probably do a little research on the VP's opinions. Biden might influence Obama's policies should he win the presidency, so you should know what he believes.

In that spirit, here's a few links with some information:

Biden, a Catholic, is a fairly strong supporter of abortion and stem cell research, although he did vote to ban partial-birth abortion. Here's an interesting article from a Catholic perspective about how his abortion views are in conflict with his faith.

Amanda Carpenter quotes NARAL's approval of Biden's record on Supreme Court confirmations:

"Most notably, Sen. Biden has a strong record of opposing judicial nominees with hostile anti-choice records. He voted against George W. Bush's two anti-choice nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and he opposed anti-choice Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Court as well as multiple anti-choice nominees to lower federal courts."- NARAL statement

Biden has served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was involved in the confirmation hearings of Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, among others. He voted against all four and was a big factor in the ugliness of the Bork and Thomas hearings. If he has any influence on Obama's Supreme Court nominations, it obviously won't be good for conservatives.

Obama: Lying about Abortion

I wrote here about Barack Obama's position and actions with respect to abortion. Frankly, I don't understand how any evangelical Christian could vote for him on this issue alone, but of course that is my opinion. Anyway, there is some controversy about the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and his position on that bill. Here's what Obama told CBN (video at the link):

And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.

To put it bluntly, I believe Obama is the one who's lying here, because he knows that the truth will hurt him with a lot of voters. He voted against a bill protecting infants who survive an abortion while in the Illinois Senate. I don't understand how he thinks he can pretend that didn't happen. Please, check out the facts for yourself and make sure you know what is going on here.

David Freddoso reviews the relevant bills and votes in detail and comes to this conclusion:

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

One more thought--Saturday night, Obama and McCain both appeared at Saddleback Church and answered questions from Rick Warren. I have my differences with Warren's theology, but it sounds like he asked some interesting questions (for example, does evil exist and what should we do about it?). You should definitely read some coverage of the event and the candidates' answers to faith & values questions (including this from Victor Davis Hanson, highlighting Obama's postmodern worldview: "There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty."). The question that is relevant to this post is this:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

Transcripts for both candidates at Saddleback church are available here.

Nancy Pelosi on Teen Pregnancy

Teen pregnancy and sex are obviously important issues in our culture. I don't have kids or know a lot of teens, so in that respect I'm not an expert. But, I think all Christians need to be aware of this issue and how it is handled in our culture. And I tend to think that we probably need to have a little more information for teens than "just say no."

Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall is someone who has done a lot of thinking and research on this issue and is a great resource if you are interested. She had some great comments about a recent appearance by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Here is YouTube footage of Nancy Pelosi speaking to the Netroots Nation, impugning the idea of teaching children to abstain from sex as a "radical right wing view."

I've written before about the harmful and false dichotomy that people like Nancy Pelosi try to create between "abstinence education" and "comprehensive sex education." It's perfectly possible to inform young people about how their bodies work, where babies come from, and the existence of contraceptives while still teaching them that sex is something for adults -- for people who are mature enough to cope with the (often unexpected) emotional, psychological and physical ramifications (including the possibility of an STD or unwanted pregnancy) that can accompany sexual activity.

Too often, "comprehensive sex education" becomes a code term for adopting a studiously value-neutral about teen sexual activity. The approach validates, normalizes -- and occasionally even celebrates -- teen sex, which is the last message young people need to be getting. It increases the social pressures on those who want to be responsible, and implicitly ignores the emotional, psychological -- and, for people of faith -- spiritual fallout of giving too much, too soon (especially for girls).

Good News about Stem Cell Research

I'm far from a scientific expert, but everything I read about stem cell research convinces me that the crowd pushing embryonic stem cells is way off base. It seems like research with adult stem cells--you know, the ones that don't involve killing a baby--is way more promising:

Stem cells drawn from the blood system of adult humans or the umbilical cord blood of newborns, injected into mice, formed viable vessels that may one day deliver oxygen-rich blood to damaged organs, researchers said.

This is just one recent example, but I've read a lot of similar stories in the past couple of years. If you're at all concerned about this issue, you really ought to read up on it so you have facts at hand to explain why it's not necessary to use embryonic stem cells.

The Sanctity of Life

By Amanda McClain
I recently read a moving and persuasive defense of the sanctity of life and the evil of euthanasia. Here's just a small bit of this very personal reflection:

Through four months of shared caring, first at home and then in an excellent hospice, our family has been saying a long good-bye to a middle brother who is now lingering somewhere between heaven and earth…

Life is so very sad and so very beautiful. Some will scoff: "Beauty? What beauty? What kind of sick mind can find beauty in this pietà? It would be more beautiful to help your brother to end his suffering. Real love has nothing in common with pain. What is to be gained from all of this beside some medieval Catholic satisfaction in suffering?"

I can only answer that question with a question: Do you think that giving my lionhearted brother a "compassionate" needle would truly lessen our suffering, or his? By cutting short the process, do we step off the Via Dolorosa and avoid it all, or do we merely thwart a plan for our own lives? Should we steal from our brother the opportunity for him to reach out a hand and have it immediately grasped, to have everything about his existence affirmed, over and over?

Should we steal from ourselves the opportunity to love?

Read the whole piece and learn "that life brings love, and love is God; that life interrupted is love interrupted, and love interrupted is God interrupted."