Comments: House Health Care Bill Contains End-Of-Life Counseling
Philip, I've disagreed with your libertarian take in the past on such issues, respectfully. This time, just as respectful.
Do you need to use a loaded term like "Nanny State" to describe any attempt by government to ensure all citizens have access to key services and information?
You imply that businesses and citizens can and should take care of themselves on many of these issues. Clearly, that approach doesn't seem to be having the desired results, if US obesity and death-by-no-health-insurance rates are any measure. Isn't it time to try alternatives to Adam Smith's broken invisible hand in solving some of these social problems?
I can appreciate the pragmatic reasons for your not wanting any kind of euthanasia idea as part of a health bill, but how exactly is a death-counselling provision a "Nanny State" notion? Wouldn't allowing citizens this kind of right speak directly to the intent of the American libertarian spirit? If I choose to control my destiny as a terminally ill patient in a way that suits my sense of justice, I would want my doc to be absolved of any responsibility, under law, in helping me to exercise that right. Wouldn't you?
Posted by The Skeptic at October 30, 2009 04:42 PM
Skeptic: I don't really see this particular measure in the bill as being nanny state--even though i said it strikes me as being weird as the bill's other nanny statist bits. i just see it as being odd. anyway i've supported death with dignity legislation in both oregon and washington (i voted for the one in washington last year), but as far as i know those are the only state with such laws.
and yes i'd want your doc absolved. but i'm not sure this portion of the bill relates to that.
Posted by Philip Dawdy at October 30, 2009 04:57 PM
Cool. Thanks for clarifying your position. I will take a closer look at the bill before offering more opinion.
Posted by The Skeptic at October 30, 2009 05:04 PM