In today’s NYT, the article by Peter Singer, the Australian-born, pro-euthanasia, pro-infanticide resident “ethicist” at Princeton U: Why We Must Ration Health Care.
Singer can’t say in 20 words what he can say in 6,000, but I found his “human math” interesting:
We can elicit people’s values on that too. One common method is to describe medical conditions to people — let’s say being a quadriplegic — and tell them that they can choose between 10 years in that condition or some smaller number of years without it. If most would prefer, say, 10 years as a quadriplegic to 4 years of nondisabled life, but would choose 6 years of nondisabled life over 10 with quadriplegia, but have difficulty deciding between 5 years of nondisabled life or 10 years with quadriplegia, then they are, in effect, assessing life with quadriplegia as half as good as nondisabled life. (These are hypothetical figures, chosen to keep the math simple, and not based on any actual surveys.) If that judgment represents a rough average across the population, we might conclude that restoring to nondisabled life two people who would otherwise be quadriplegics is equivalent in value to saving the life of one person, provided the life expectancies of all involved are similar.
If you go by Singer’s “human math”, where the ratio is 6 non-quadraplegic years : 10 years with quadraplegia, then you get 3/5.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Think about it. Slavery was exactly about treating human life as a commodity that could be sold and bought by a third party. Singer is treating human life as a commodity that can be bought or sold by medical care decided by a third party.
Tammy Bruce: “For fascists, people are the budget.” So it was for slave owners.
Now, merely as an academic exercise – the kind Singer’s so fond of indulging – let’s compare 5 years of nondisabled life or 10 years with quadriplegia. Five years of Peter Singer’s nondisabled life with 10 years of Stephen W. Hawking’s quadraplegia. Which would you rather pay to extend?
Update, In a lighter mode,
Over at the Health Administration Bureau,
And, by the way, private insurance will NOT be an option.
Another update, another video:
Paging Dr. Anil Ram