Monday, August 10, 2009

'Social Justice' in ObamaCare

From Ralph Reiland, "'Social Justice' in Health Care," writing on White House ObamaCare advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel:

The writings of Obama health adviser Emanuel provide some insight into how our current crop of central planners might well be intending to accomplish these seemingly conflicting goals.

Last year in Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, Emanuel wrote that "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost controls, more for show and public relations than for true change."

In other words, the billions in the House and Senate health reform bills for "infrastructure" pork -- i.e., "wellness" by way of jungle gyms and walking paths -- are just so much "lipstick."

In her recent article "Deadly Doctors: O Advisers Want to Ration Care," former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, reports on where Emanuel sees the real savings, citing an article he wrote last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.'"

The "effects on others" is the key. He's saying we've got to think more collectively and less about ourselves. "Emanuel," explains McCaughey, "wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else."

If "social justice" demands more spending on the young and less on the old, Emanuel explains why this isn't a case of discrimination: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

Granny, in short, should move on because she's had her chance.

An essay co-authored by Emanuel on the "just allocation of health care resources" in the Hasting Center Report (November-December 1996) provides some detail regarding who should be rationed out of the system: "(S)ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

We should die, in short, if we're deemed by the authorities to be insufficiently participating.
See also, "ObamaCare and the Elderly: Don't Entrust 'Sandmen' Technocrats With Deathly Medical Directorate Authority."

0 comments: