Friday, July 15, 2011
Anderson on Brooks and the "Good, Short Life"
Ryan Anderson has a nice response, at NRO, to David Brooks's column on "The Good, Short Life." Among other things, Anderson observes:
One can recognize that rising health-care costs, particularly at the end of life, are bankrupting our nation and thus failing to serve the common good without concluding that this entails that the lives of those with terminal diseases are no longer worth living. Between the two extremes of intentionally killing and prolonging life at all costs lies a virtuous mean of accepting death when the alternatives prove disproportionate.
In fact, this is just what Pope John Paul the Great, in his last act of public teaching, taught the world as he humbly accepted his death — neither deeming life with Parkinson’s disease unworthy of living (and thus killing himself) nor demanding every life-sustaining treatment (irrespective of cost, likelihood of success, and alternative uses for scarce resources).
As we continue our national discussion about the cost of care at the end of life, we should keep these distinctions in mind.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/07/anderson-on-brooks-and-the-good-short-life.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Hi Professor Garnett,
This is a nice piece and I don't doubt Mr. Anderson's sincerity on this subject. However, it would be easier to read this if it were not for the fact that his side of the discussion usually fights any attempt to legislate on this issue (death panels,etc.). Also, remember the Sciavo case where we all knew (and the autopsy later bore out) that Ms. Schiavo was not going to recover from her healthe problems. It's one thing to say that she should not have been allowed to die but quite another to maintain (as many on the pro-life side did) that her life had to be maintained at all costs and that any discussion otherwise was unthinkable.
I identify myself as neither pro-life or pro-choice and that's because both sides say and take positions that irritate me. And the pro-life side of this issue is probably my biggest irritant with them.