post by Bill Gardner
First, listen to the crowd cheering to let the man who did not buy medical insurance die.
As Aaron Carroll commented,
What disturbs me is the glee and excitement shown by people in the crowd, apparently delighting in the idea that society would let an American die.
Next, listen to the crowd cheering for Governor Perry, in the discussion of capital punishment in Texas.
So, what do we make of these cheers? Consider Cardinal Bernardin's address on the
need for a consistent ethic, for the spectrum cuts across such issues as genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare, and the care of the terminally ill. Admittedly, these are all distinct problems, enormously complex, and deserve individual treatment. Each requires its own moral analysis. No single answer or solution applies to all. But they are linked! Given this broad range of challenging issues, we desperately need a societal attitude or climate that will sustain a consistent defense and promotion of life. When human life is considered "cheap" or easily expendable in one area, eventually nothing is held as sacred and all lives are in jeopardy. Ultimately, it is society's attitude about life—whether of respect or non-respect—that determines its policies and practices.
I am not criticizing Rep. Paul or Gov. Perry, who gave principled answers to hard questions, albeit answers I disagree with. My question concerns the crowd's exultation in these hypothetical and real deaths.
As Cardinal Bernardin acknowledged, it is extremely difficult to work out a consistent ethic of life. But a commitment to life has to start with an "attitude about life—whether of respect or non-respect." I am not hearing respect for life in the cheers of these crowds.
By the way, the last claim I would make is that the Democrats have a consistent ethic of life. See below.
Related post: Do contemporary Republicans believe in Public Health?
confused... "Democrats have a consistent ethic of life" in what way? Aren't some democrats pro-choice and simultaneously anti death penalty?
Posted by: Clay | 09/14/2011 at 12:59 PM
Hi Clay,
I was trying to say that contemporary Democrats do not have a consistent ethic of life.
Posted by: Bill Gardner | 09/14/2011 at 01:01 PM
Why interpret the cheers as being in favor of letting someone die? That is a horrible idea, and not the only interpretation.
More likely the cheering is for the idea that we are responsible for our own lives and actions and should be held accountable for them. Or, the cheers could alternatively be in support of the idea that people can not be justly coerced by government into being their brothers' keepers.
I would argue that the story of the 30 year old is a tragedy--but not one which justifies government violation of the right of an individual to his own life (liberty and property). I would also argue that this is where community, generosity and compassion begin: the mutual recognition and respect of each individual to his own life--and only to his own.
I do not expect you to agree.
Posted by: Beth Haynes, MD | 09/14/2011 at 04:36 PM
got it... sorry I just read it weird - I can see your point.
Posted by: Clay | 09/14/2011 at 05:38 PM
Beth,
Thanks for commenting. I think that if those crowds shared your view that these were necessary tragedies, they wouldn't have whooped and hollered.
Posted by: Bill Gardner | 09/14/2011 at 05:56 PM