The new health care law has ignited a debate on end of life care. As baby boomers reach retirement age their health care demands will rise. The new law, because of its cumbersome regulation will ultimately lead to the rationing of care. The implications of rationing will have devastating effects on the very young and especially the elderly. As the population ages in Pittsburgh and the rest of the nation, the outcome of this debate could be the difference between life and death.
Newsweek published an article by Evan Thomas in 2009 that extolled the necessity of rationing. Entitled “The Case for Letting Granny Die,” the piece advocated limited care for the old. The reason was cold, impersonal and void of compassion – money. Thomas also chided his readers for not being enlightened enough to want to face death. He wrongly interprets valuing life as a weakness. As with all Progressives, contribution to the collective is more important than individual existence.
For the last 40 years, Progressives have slowly chipped away at the Judeo-Christian ethic that has guided the nation. The idea that life is sacred and should be defended at all costs, has all but vanished from the national psyche. The first callous developed with the passage of Roe v. Wade. This morally reprehensible ruling paved the way for the slaughter of millions of innocent lives. Championed by Feminists and Progressives, abortion has become sacred and a litmus test for political orthodoxy.
Once the nation became immune to the casual dispatching of children, Progressives have turned their focus on the elderly. We are told that by denying them life saving intervention, they can then die with dignity. However, dignity is not important to the overall Progressive agenda. Progressives place human beings into two categories; those who are productive and can contribute to the good of the whole, and those who place an undo drain on the system. Those who leach from the system are the infirm, elderly and handicapped. The progression has moved from infants to the elderly, and the handicapped and infirm will have their time.
There is no reason to justify giving the elderly a chance at life by listing the amazing accomplishment of those in their golden years. This only shifts the emphasis to the actions and diminishes the inherent value of the living. Wanting to shorten the life of the aged is tantamount to declaring they no longer have value. Progressives define value in dollars. However, a person’s value consists in the totality of their existence.
It is a sad commentary on this generation that we no longer believe we can benefit from the lives of the elderly. Let us hope that America will reject the utilitarian morality of Evan Thomas, and again believe it is important to let Granny live.