Medical Ethics in a Post Modern World

Dr. C. L. Gray, founder of Physicians for Reform and author of the recently published The Battle for America's Soul - Healthcare, The Culture War, and the Future of Freedom spoke at length Tuesday night in Newark. It was an eye-opening and disturbing overview of the current debate on health care in America and the historical trends that brought us to this point. He opened by defining post modern reasoning as the loss of "fixed truth" and the belief that truth exists only as the individual (or state) defines it. He then related this to government policy by reminding us of the Barbara Wagner case in Oregon, which many pro-lifers in the audience remembered all too well. Ms Wagner had cancer, and the state of Oregon refused to pay for her treatment under the state insurance plan but instead offered to pay for her physician assisted suicide. According to the state of Oregon, her life was not valuable enough to warrant medical care and therefore she should benefit the state by dying sooner than later.

Remember Ms. Wagner the next time someone tells you how noble it is for the government to provide medical care out of compassion. Whoever pays for that care has the power to choose what care is given, and in times of increasing financial insecurity, the state's goal is to maintain itself, not individual citizens.

The attitude that the welfare of the state takes priority is not new. As far back as Ancient Greece there were those who promoted the idea that the seriously ill should be allowed, or even encouraged, to die. Judeo-Christian ethics completely contradict this relative truth by asserting the unique value of each individual human life. These two world views stand in direct conflict, and no where is this more apparent than in modern medical practice. Which physician would you rather go to, one who has accepted the post-modern view that all truth is relative and the state has the right to define which citizens are worthy of protection, or one who values every human life and treats his patients accordingly?

Peter Singer is a leader in the modern movement to quantify the value of human life. His views include the idea that babies should not automatically have the right to life until they are 28 days old. He believes that infanticide is not only justifiable but preferable if the parents don't think their child will have a 'good enough' quality of life. As horrific and evil as this sounds, his ideas have been well received and he has been awarded many honors and influential positions in the academic world.

Mr. Singer is not some fringe character. In 2009, the NIH Director of Bioethics actually published a paper on something he called the "Complete Lives System." According to this system, when the government is facing financial problems, there needs to be a way to decide who gets the limited medical funding. His solution was a priority curve that only treats 15-40 year because they are of most value to the state. According to this view, younger people are not as valuable because not as much has been invested in their education and welfare, while older people have fewer useful years left and so do not warrant the investment of resources. This director, Ezekiel Emmanuel, was appointed to the White House Health Care Advisory Panel, and helped write the current health care bill now being considered by the US Supreme Court.

Francis Schaeffer once wrote that over time, ideas that were once unthinkable become thinkable, and ideas that have become thinkable eventually become acceptable. If you believe human life has value, that it is a gift from our Creator and not simply meant to serve the state, the ideas described above should be unthinkable. If we don't take a stand now, it will soon be too late, and we will leave as our legacy a world where relative truth is acceptable.