J+M+J
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
In a nation founded upon the belief that safeguarding personal liberty is more vital to humanity than simply maintaining one's physical well-being, it is travesty indeed when many Americans are clamoring for “universal health care” at the cost of relinquishing yet more freedom to an ever-growing federal government. The reverence once bestowed on liberty, a reverence felt so deeply in the American consciousness that the blood of patriots saturates our soil, seems all but a memory, as so many Americans, in an effort to “ensure” – seemingly – health care coverage for all, dismiss the catastrophic consequences such actions would bring to our cherished, however imperfect, way of American life. Instead of championing the virtue of self-responsibility and accepting the trials which freedom naturally entails, modern Americans, generally speaking, seem all-to-willing to hand over the fruits of liberty for the “promise” of material safety – a “promise” made by historically untrustworthy politicians, at that. Our ancestors, the custodians of our sacred liberty, would, undoubtedly, shake their heads in utter regret at the compromises we have made at freedom's expense.
It would be sheer naivety to refer to our current situation as anything other than bleak. Yet, our forefathers were confronted with seemingly insurmountable odds, too, in their quest to protect those God-given rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” (notice that list does not include the right to a health care plan) for themselves and their descendants. So, rather than sinking into the abyss of social/political despair, it is essential for conscientious citizens, committed to revitalizing our nation – not revamping it in a mess of radical change – and defending the Constitution, to reject Washington's proposed health care reform – no matter the perceived benefits – and, once again, uphold the virtue of individual responsibility.
Today, the natural question arising in the minds of many Americans, especially when it appears the government is handing them health care coverage (nevermind the quality) on a silver platter, is: what recourses do we have, what avenues can we pursue to remedy the undeniable problems of our current health care system, without bowing down to the political self-proclaimed demi-gods in Washington? It seems clear that by practicing self-discipline and restraint, many of America's health care ailments could be greatly relieved, if not all-together cured, without the intrusive hand of government mandating our every move.
Health Insurance and the Doctor-Patient Relationship
One of the chief ways of improving our health care system would be to largely eliminate the health insurance companies’ involvement in the doctor-patient relationship. The obvious was once made clear to me when someone pointed out that all other insurance policies (i.e. auto, home, life, etc.) don't cover any and all problems that may arise for the insured. No one balks that car insurance does not cover the costs of refueling one's car or providing routine maintenance for said vehicle. Everyone seems to understand that auto, home, or life insurance only covers you in the event of an accident or catastrophe. Yet, for some reason, people simply expect that every wellness check-up their child receives, every visit to the dentist, should be covered, if not in its entirety, at least in part by insurance providers. Subsequently, since a third party is often footing a patient's bill, hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, etc. can, with little reserve, charge astronomical fees for their services, resting assured in the knowledge that the “limitless” pockets of insurance agencies won't fail to compensate them. Had the exchange of goods and services remained between physician and patient, the price of medicine would undoubtedly have remained in check, having been reined in by the consumer's means. Furthermore, by largely removing the responsibility of payment from the patient, the presence of insurance companies has provided little incentive for citizens to be mindful of the health care dollars they spend as individuals or as families. When some else is footing the bill, why not consent to the extra tests, medications, procedures, etc., even when prudence would recommend some fiscal restraint?
Medicine and the Law
Few people outside the medical profession realize the litigious nightmares that all too often await doctors – even the most conscientious among them – should they (heaven forbid!) make a mistake when treating a patient. For some reason, we place doctors and other health care professionals on an ivory pedestal, believing that any decent physician should be literally incapable of making a medical misjudgment or providing a less-than-perfect surgery outcome. And then, when a physician does make a mistake (after all, they are, in fact, human), well, heaven help him or her. In addition to having to pay untold amounts for “malpractice insurance,” the utter terror of being sued, which seizes upon many doctors, causes them to make many wasteful decisions – but, can you really blame them? A perfect example of this problem is seen in the field of obstetrics, which is particularly vulnerable to litigious backlash, since people have largely come to expect the “perfect baby.” In the United States, one in every three births is done through Cesarean section, and while the c-section is surely a life-saving procedure in limited circumstances, it is a surgery that is abused by the frequency in which it is employed and which poses unnecessary financial and physical risks to patients and society as a whole. But, as long as the c-section is viewed as the “safest” route in the event of a perceived obstetrical “emergency,” doctors, in an effort to safeguard themselves from the unscrupulous lawyers who breathe down their necks, will continue to utilize it, whether or not it is truly in the best interest of mother and child. What we desperately need in this country is tort reform to restrain the lawyers (and their clients) who wish to profit by abusing the law.
Corruption in the Medical Industry
Under the current system, it becomes far easier for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies to raise their fees to artificially high levels, since they are well aware that the majority of patients are not paying the entirety of the cost out of their own pocket. When third party payment is involved, it gives those in the medical profession little incentive to lower fees (in an effort to satisfy the financial means of the average consumer), and conversely, creates incentive for doctors to order more tests, hospitals to offer countless medical interventions, and pharmaceutical companies to solicit drug after side-effect inducing drug. Hence, we have millions of Americans carefully – and I'll add expensively – treating myriads of symptoms with a half a dozen prescriptions – taking many of these drugs simply to counter the ill-effects of others. Additionally, the disdain commonly felt by many in conventional medicine toward alternative methods of care – everything from chiropractic care, midwifery, homeopathy, etc. - conditions the public to believe that only expensive (and often invasive) traditional medicine is able to alleviate their health ailments and that, furthermore, alternative methods of care are largely unsafe and even life-threatening.
Patients and (a Lack of) Self-Responsibility
In an age of instant gratification, America's love affair with the “pop-a-pill” mentality of the day makes perfect sense. Why submit oneself to tiresome – and sometimes distasteful – changes in diet, exercise, or lifestyle, when merely taking a pill could considerably lessen or possibly eliminate the symptoms of a disease or condition? It should come as no surprise that Americans have out-of-control health care costs, when, for example, after most women (and men) hear that I opted for natural, midwife-assisted child birth for my two children, they look at me incredulously and say, “Are you crazy not to take drugs?” or “How could you endanger your children's lives like that?” If we, as patients, rely so heavily on prescription drugs and expensive and (sometimes) unnecessary surgeries and procedures, all the while dismissing those who educate themselves to alternative (and proven) forms of care, how can we expect anything better than what we currently have: a costly and largely wasteful health care system?
The point of today's rant is this: it's true the health care system in America needs critical evaluation, but it is not the government's purview to “remedy” the situation. It is undeniable that much waste and abuse occurs in the realm of medical care, but to hand the reins over to the federal government (one of the most corrupt entities around), is merely to jump from the frying pan into the fire. It may be someone's idea of promoting quality health care to simply cry out for the federal government (which, through its absolutely stellar job in such areas as public education, retirement planning, etc., has instilled in all of us unshakable faith in their ability to manage anything) to “save” us, but it's certainly not mine – nor was it the mentality of our ancestors. If we wish to someday, years from now, inspire a sense of gratitude in our descendants, we must once again kindle a love of liberty, self-governance, and personal responsibility in ourselves and our fellows, and for once, shout out: “Yes, WE can!” without really meaning “Yes, the GOVERNMENT can!”
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
And by "Universal" Health Care, What We Really Mean is Health Care for Some...
J+M+J
As the debate over the Obama administration's proposed universal health care bill rages on, many advocates of this governmental overhaul of medical affairs are feverishly playing the morality card. “How could any decent person,” they ask, “be opposed to universal health care? Do we not have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate in their basic medical needs?” Against such rhetoric, opponents of socialized health care are suddenly thrust into a menacing light; they are cast as villains, who are forever thwarting a benevolent and responsible government from acting on behalf of the suffering masses. However, for all their talk of the importance of compassion, it is interesting to note the actual lack of tenderness, especially toward the extremely old, young, or infirm, which marks the self-proclaimed attitudes of Obama's top advisers and the key proponents of his health care agenda. As one delves deeper into the mentality which drives the bill, along with its stipulations to ration health care according to the expected usefulness of the patient, one should quickly realize the hypocrisy of this initiative, whose supporters have the audacity and deceitfulness to label as “universal.”
While the Obama administration continues to rally the masses with cries of “universal health care for all,” it is crucial for Americans to carefully question how a government, which itself is ludicrously in debt, will be able to live up to such an expensive promise. One way, socialized health care advocates argue, to achieve the impossible is to ration health care. “Ration health care? Wait, how does one fairly choose whom to care for, and whom, in turn, to deny?” To many in government as a whole, and the Obama administration in particular, one of the primary criteria seems to be that of utilitarianism. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget):
“...services that promote the continuation of the polity - those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services 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 (Emphasis mine).1”
Dr. Emanuel continued along this vein in a 2009 article he co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer, entitled: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" in the journal The Lancet. Emanuel and his fellow authors proposed that: "Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness.2” And while the authors admit that, “No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multi[-]principle allocation systems,” they also stress that “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.3” Now, the question becomes: who exactly determines what constitutes as “social usefulness”? If the question is left up to the partisan bureaucrats in Washington, both democrat and republican, is it really that absurd, given the extremely ethical and sound judgment which marks political history, to assume that maybe, just maybe, considerations of an individual's political or social leanings might prove paramount in determining whether or not he is worthy of medical care? And if we are attempting to construct a system in which utilitarianism is a top priority, what has become of true compassion? If we seek to stack patients up against a list of criteria before deciding whether or not it is efficacious for us to serve them, and subsequently, we deny care to the most destitute, the most sickly individuals among us, all in the name of perceived societal preservation, to what have we reduced charity? In fact, if “indulgence or forbearance in judging others,” is a definition of the word “charity,” how can we only bestow charity upon others after they demonstrate their supposed “worthiness” of such a gift?
Additionally, the question of sincerity arises when considering socialized health care's “mandatory charity.” Supporters of Obama's plan, most notably from religious camps, cite the parable of “The Good Samaritan” as an indication that universal health care, under any and all guises, is the moral standard. Yet, it is important to note that “The Good Samaritan” was moved to compassion and assented to this inclination of his own volition. If this same Samaritan had somehow been forced, cajoled, or authorized to treat his suffering fellow with kindness, particularly at the behest of ever-watchful, ever-intrusive government, it would inherently detract from the merit of his actions. Furthermore, it begs the question: if a man is obliged to demonstrate compassion, is he really compassionate?
Government mandated health care bespeaks nothing of true compassion. As a virtue, compassion cannot be legislated or imposed upon anyone. To be sure, governments are often able to deter individuals from evil actions, namely, by the laws enacted which impose consequences for immoral or dangerous behavior. But a governing body is not able to instill virtue in its citizens – virtue must be obtained through the free act of an individual's will, inspired by the grace of God. It is utter folly to believe that men and women can be forced into a compassionate spirit, when the idea of compassion itself necessitates the freedom to love. “It is the very essence of love that the person in love offers himself, with full freedom, to the loved one; love has to be exercised with such freedom that absolutely no one can be constrained to love”4.
Though politicians may try to convince citizens otherwise, compassion is a fruit of charity – not a result of government mandates. In a society that values and respects all life, not merely the lives of individuals whose presence is either useful or desired, a genuine spirit of charity naturally evolves. In trying to artificially “instill” a spirit of compassion through the use of a complex web of vague legislative language, Americans will simply succeed in creating a health care system, which not only provides mediocre care, but is administered with hollow devotion.
M.K.
1.Emanuel, E.J. (1996). "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet". Hastings Center Report 26 (6): 12-14. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
2.Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E.J. (2009-01-31). "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions". The Lancet 373 (9661): 423-431. http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext.
3. Ibid.
4. Galvez, Rev. Alfonso, SJCP. “Theology: Love For the Truth.” Latin Mass Magazine Vol. 18, No. 3., pgs: 40-43.
As the debate over the Obama administration's proposed universal health care bill rages on, many advocates of this governmental overhaul of medical affairs are feverishly playing the morality card. “How could any decent person,” they ask, “be opposed to universal health care? Do we not have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate in their basic medical needs?” Against such rhetoric, opponents of socialized health care are suddenly thrust into a menacing light; they are cast as villains, who are forever thwarting a benevolent and responsible government from acting on behalf of the suffering masses. However, for all their talk of the importance of compassion, it is interesting to note the actual lack of tenderness, especially toward the extremely old, young, or infirm, which marks the self-proclaimed attitudes of Obama's top advisers and the key proponents of his health care agenda. As one delves deeper into the mentality which drives the bill, along with its stipulations to ration health care according to the expected usefulness of the patient, one should quickly realize the hypocrisy of this initiative, whose supporters have the audacity and deceitfulness to label as “universal.”
While the Obama administration continues to rally the masses with cries of “universal health care for all,” it is crucial for Americans to carefully question how a government, which itself is ludicrously in debt, will be able to live up to such an expensive promise. One way, socialized health care advocates argue, to achieve the impossible is to ration health care. “Ration health care? Wait, how does one fairly choose whom to care for, and whom, in turn, to deny?” To many in government as a whole, and the Obama administration in particular, one of the primary criteria seems to be that of utilitarianism. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget):
“...services that promote the continuation of the polity - those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations - are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services 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 (Emphasis mine).1”
Dr. Emanuel continued along this vein in a 2009 article he co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer, entitled: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" in the journal The Lancet. Emanuel and his fellow authors proposed that: "Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness.2” And while the authors admit that, “No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multi[-]principle allocation systems,” they also stress that “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.3” Now, the question becomes: who exactly determines what constitutes as “social usefulness”? If the question is left up to the partisan bureaucrats in Washington, both democrat and republican, is it really that absurd, given the extremely ethical and sound judgment which marks political history, to assume that maybe, just maybe, considerations of an individual's political or social leanings might prove paramount in determining whether or not he is worthy of medical care? And if we are attempting to construct a system in which utilitarianism is a top priority, what has become of true compassion? If we seek to stack patients up against a list of criteria before deciding whether or not it is efficacious for us to serve them, and subsequently, we deny care to the most destitute, the most sickly individuals among us, all in the name of perceived societal preservation, to what have we reduced charity? In fact, if “indulgence or forbearance in judging others,” is a definition of the word “charity,” how can we only bestow charity upon others after they demonstrate their supposed “worthiness” of such a gift?
Additionally, the question of sincerity arises when considering socialized health care's “mandatory charity.” Supporters of Obama's plan, most notably from religious camps, cite the parable of “The Good Samaritan” as an indication that universal health care, under any and all guises, is the moral standard. Yet, it is important to note that “The Good Samaritan” was moved to compassion and assented to this inclination of his own volition. If this same Samaritan had somehow been forced, cajoled, or authorized to treat his suffering fellow with kindness, particularly at the behest of ever-watchful, ever-intrusive government, it would inherently detract from the merit of his actions. Furthermore, it begs the question: if a man is obliged to demonstrate compassion, is he really compassionate?
Government mandated health care bespeaks nothing of true compassion. As a virtue, compassion cannot be legislated or imposed upon anyone. To be sure, governments are often able to deter individuals from evil actions, namely, by the laws enacted which impose consequences for immoral or dangerous behavior. But a governing body is not able to instill virtue in its citizens – virtue must be obtained through the free act of an individual's will, inspired by the grace of God. It is utter folly to believe that men and women can be forced into a compassionate spirit, when the idea of compassion itself necessitates the freedom to love. “It is the very essence of love that the person in love offers himself, with full freedom, to the loved one; love has to be exercised with such freedom that absolutely no one can be constrained to love”4.
Though politicians may try to convince citizens otherwise, compassion is a fruit of charity – not a result of government mandates. In a society that values and respects all life, not merely the lives of individuals whose presence is either useful or desired, a genuine spirit of charity naturally evolves. In trying to artificially “instill” a spirit of compassion through the use of a complex web of vague legislative language, Americans will simply succeed in creating a health care system, which not only provides mediocre care, but is administered with hollow devotion.
M.K.
1.Emanuel, E.J. (1996). "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet". Hastings Center Report 26 (6): 12-14. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
2.Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E.J. (2009-01-31). "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions". The Lancet 373 (9661): 423-431. http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext.
3. Ibid.
4. Galvez, Rev. Alfonso, SJCP. “Theology: Love For the Truth.” Latin Mass Magazine Vol. 18, No. 3., pgs: 40-43.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Not the Death of a Hero, but the Death of Heroism: Part I
J+M+J
What a world of contradictions we find ourselves in today. As basic human rights, once considered fundamental, become increasingly threatened, abused, or discounted by our modern society, the common rhetoric enveloping the abortion issue has become evermore warped and manipulated to promote the prevalent thinking of the day. Last month’s attack upon the life Dr. George Tiller, an emblem of the pro-abortion movement and a provider of the still highly controversial (at least, for the moment) late-term abortion procedure, has once again brought this issue to the forefront, leaving the American public to navigate the murky and muddled waters of the popular lexicon.
In the days following his death, Dr. Tiller has swiftly been catapulted into the stratosphere of secular “sainthood,” acquiring titles such as “Tireless Supporter of Women’s Dignity,” “A Man Who Honored Women,” an individual of “Extraordinary Courage.” While no reasonable and just individuals are condoning the violence which claimed Dr. Tiller’s life, his ascension to the status of hero betrays our modern culture’s lamentable loss of the concept of true nobility and valor. Our society is witnessing the death of gallantry, as supporters of abortion, including the brutal and grotesque partial-birth abortion, have successfully equated abortion with compassion, and convinced many that self-interest supersedes self-sacrifice.
When one conjures up the concept of heroism – or, I should say, traditionally, when ones conjures up the concept of heroism – images of complete self-denial are evoked: the fire-fighter who bravely darts into a burning building, without thought for his own safety, or the individual who courageously confronts his fellow’s attacker, despite the personal danger which threatens him. It seems safe to say that, even in our largely self-centered world, had a person, such as our aforementioned fire-fighter, shrunk from his impulse to rescue another in order to safeguard his own well-being, he would have simultaneously forfeited his right to be called a “hero.” Moreover, it is likely that this individual, after refusing to offer his aid to another, would be labeled cowardly: after all, how could a compassionate individual deny a man in his greatest hour of need? Yet, we live in a culture that supports a woman’s “right” to terminate her own child’s life should she deem it necessary for her physical, spiritual, financial, or emotional well-being. In the greatest of ironies, we expect strangers to make greater personal sacrifices for others than we expect parents to make for their own children.
In this topsy-turvy world of ours, self-preservation is paramount. No longer is self-sacrifice heralded; in fact, it is now something to be avoided – no matter what the cost. Not even parenthood, which should be the near pinnacle of selflessness, is exempt from this distorted mentality. For a mother or father to be complicit in the murder of their child seems utterly nightmarish. Nature itself revolts against such a notion. Yet, when abortion advocates assert, as Dr. Tiller himself did, that “…abortion is about women's hopes, dreams, potential, the rest of their lives. Abortion is a matter of survival for women,” people unhesitatingly rally behind such “noble” words, all the while forgetting the innocent children left in the destructive wake of abortion.
True parenthood is the embodiment of self-sacrifice. If, say, a truck was racing toward a child, undoubtedly, in an effort to rescue him, his parent would race headlong into the street, regardless of whether death appeared imminent for parent, child, or both. The possibility, no matter how remote, of saving a life - particularly that of one’s own child - should always trump considerations of personal interest or well-being. Though the physical, emotional, or financial challenges confronting a pregnant woman may seem insurmountable, her willingness to confront those difficulties, should they even threaten her very life, attests to true heroic virtue.
This is not to belittle the heart-wrenching tragedies faced by some pregnant women. Dr. Tiller’s supporters often point to extremely uncommon, though none-the-less devastating, stories of women whose unborn children are diagnosed with a host of incurable diseases or abnormalities, which make their survival outside the womb almost certainly impossible. But, I ask, is true heroism found in turning away from challenging, if not outright terrifying, circumstances? Or is it recognized in the gallant determination to do what is morally sound, regardless of personal cost? Can we really elevate a man to the status of hero, when his life’s work consisted in regularly taking a child’s life (however grim its chances of survival were) to “safeguard” the life of its mother?
Unfortunately, life is often rife with disappointments, sorrows, heartache, and, occasionally, even disaster. These are inescapable components of the human condition. True heroism is found in meeting these adversities with courageous dignity, marked by sacrificial love and devotion to principle. As supporters of Dr. Tiller point out, many women and their families face truly heart-wrenching tragedies surrounding their pregnancies. Yet, no matter how tragic the circumstances they face, it can never justify the outright killing of an innocent human being. Everyday, men and women across the world encounter extraordinary challenges, but by meeting and overcoming these obstacles with moral character and fortitude, they show themselves to be heroic champions over the evil or misfortune that oppresses them. Furthermore, in this heroic triumph over tragedy, men and women often discover a dimension of strength and tenderness within themselves that few people are ever able to comprehend. It is this self-sacrifice that truly exemplifies love and raises the individual above the evil and selfish tendencies often pervading our culture, and, moreover, demonstrates the best there is in humanity. Throughout history, heroes - often themselves ordinary people -have done this: individuals, who, in order to maintain their personal safety or comfort, could have merely stood by and watched their fellow neighbors die, have instead rushed into burning buildings, defended the helpless, or opposed tyrants. As truly valiant and compassionate defenders of those in need, we should champion the cause of all human life (particularly the lives of the most vulnerable among us) and commit ourselves to charitably aiding the women who face these challenging situations, so they may make decisions, which, although difficult, are praiseworthy and truly heroic.
M.K.
What a world of contradictions we find ourselves in today. As basic human rights, once considered fundamental, become increasingly threatened, abused, or discounted by our modern society, the common rhetoric enveloping the abortion issue has become evermore warped and manipulated to promote the prevalent thinking of the day. Last month’s attack upon the life Dr. George Tiller, an emblem of the pro-abortion movement and a provider of the still highly controversial (at least, for the moment) late-term abortion procedure, has once again brought this issue to the forefront, leaving the American public to navigate the murky and muddled waters of the popular lexicon.
In the days following his death, Dr. Tiller has swiftly been catapulted into the stratosphere of secular “sainthood,” acquiring titles such as “Tireless Supporter of Women’s Dignity,” “A Man Who Honored Women,” an individual of “Extraordinary Courage.” While no reasonable and just individuals are condoning the violence which claimed Dr. Tiller’s life, his ascension to the status of hero betrays our modern culture’s lamentable loss of the concept of true nobility and valor. Our society is witnessing the death of gallantry, as supporters of abortion, including the brutal and grotesque partial-birth abortion, have successfully equated abortion with compassion, and convinced many that self-interest supersedes self-sacrifice.
When one conjures up the concept of heroism – or, I should say, traditionally, when ones conjures up the concept of heroism – images of complete self-denial are evoked: the fire-fighter who bravely darts into a burning building, without thought for his own safety, or the individual who courageously confronts his fellow’s attacker, despite the personal danger which threatens him. It seems safe to say that, even in our largely self-centered world, had a person, such as our aforementioned fire-fighter, shrunk from his impulse to rescue another in order to safeguard his own well-being, he would have simultaneously forfeited his right to be called a “hero.” Moreover, it is likely that this individual, after refusing to offer his aid to another, would be labeled cowardly: after all, how could a compassionate individual deny a man in his greatest hour of need? Yet, we live in a culture that supports a woman’s “right” to terminate her own child’s life should she deem it necessary for her physical, spiritual, financial, or emotional well-being. In the greatest of ironies, we expect strangers to make greater personal sacrifices for others than we expect parents to make for their own children.
In this topsy-turvy world of ours, self-preservation is paramount. No longer is self-sacrifice heralded; in fact, it is now something to be avoided – no matter what the cost. Not even parenthood, which should be the near pinnacle of selflessness, is exempt from this distorted mentality. For a mother or father to be complicit in the murder of their child seems utterly nightmarish. Nature itself revolts against such a notion. Yet, when abortion advocates assert, as Dr. Tiller himself did, that “…abortion is about women's hopes, dreams, potential, the rest of their lives. Abortion is a matter of survival for women,” people unhesitatingly rally behind such “noble” words, all the while forgetting the innocent children left in the destructive wake of abortion.
True parenthood is the embodiment of self-sacrifice. If, say, a truck was racing toward a child, undoubtedly, in an effort to rescue him, his parent would race headlong into the street, regardless of whether death appeared imminent for parent, child, or both. The possibility, no matter how remote, of saving a life - particularly that of one’s own child - should always trump considerations of personal interest or well-being. Though the physical, emotional, or financial challenges confronting a pregnant woman may seem insurmountable, her willingness to confront those difficulties, should they even threaten her very life, attests to true heroic virtue.
This is not to belittle the heart-wrenching tragedies faced by some pregnant women. Dr. Tiller’s supporters often point to extremely uncommon, though none-the-less devastating, stories of women whose unborn children are diagnosed with a host of incurable diseases or abnormalities, which make their survival outside the womb almost certainly impossible. But, I ask, is true heroism found in turning away from challenging, if not outright terrifying, circumstances? Or is it recognized in the gallant determination to do what is morally sound, regardless of personal cost? Can we really elevate a man to the status of hero, when his life’s work consisted in regularly taking a child’s life (however grim its chances of survival were) to “safeguard” the life of its mother?
Unfortunately, life is often rife with disappointments, sorrows, heartache, and, occasionally, even disaster. These are inescapable components of the human condition. True heroism is found in meeting these adversities with courageous dignity, marked by sacrificial love and devotion to principle. As supporters of Dr. Tiller point out, many women and their families face truly heart-wrenching tragedies surrounding their pregnancies. Yet, no matter how tragic the circumstances they face, it can never justify the outright killing of an innocent human being. Everyday, men and women across the world encounter extraordinary challenges, but by meeting and overcoming these obstacles with moral character and fortitude, they show themselves to be heroic champions over the evil or misfortune that oppresses them. Furthermore, in this heroic triumph over tragedy, men and women often discover a dimension of strength and tenderness within themselves that few people are ever able to comprehend. It is this self-sacrifice that truly exemplifies love and raises the individual above the evil and selfish tendencies often pervading our culture, and, moreover, demonstrates the best there is in humanity. Throughout history, heroes - often themselves ordinary people -have done this: individuals, who, in order to maintain their personal safety or comfort, could have merely stood by and watched their fellow neighbors die, have instead rushed into burning buildings, defended the helpless, or opposed tyrants. As truly valiant and compassionate defenders of those in need, we should champion the cause of all human life (particularly the lives of the most vulnerable among us) and commit ourselves to charitably aiding the women who face these challenging situations, so they may make decisions, which, although difficult, are praiseworthy and truly heroic.
M.K.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Stranger Than Fiction...
J+M+J
Does anyone still read Frankenstein? It appears that few other fictional works resonate so clearly in our modern society, yet one need only scan news headlines to realize this book has either simply been gathering dust, or, as is more likely, has been degraded to the status of a mere fanciful tale, offering no truthful insights to the modern reality. Undoubtedly, Dr. Frankenstein himself would recoil in horror at the atrocities, masquerading as scientific breakthroughs, to which modern man, in all his “wisdom,” has become desensitized. For while Dr. Frankenstein grossly desecrated the bodies of fellow men to satiate his hubris, at least the subjects of his frightful experimentations were already deceased – in our modern scientific culture, we prefer to use living human beings as our guinea pigs.
For decades, men and women have done everything in their power, through a barrage of “birth control” practices ranging from “the pill” to abortion and everything in between, to thwart nature and God's creative plan, all while satisfying their seemingly uncontrollable sexual desires. Years down the road, when such people finally have all their proverbial ducks in a row - that is, when the partying has subsided, the corporate careers are established (or, sometimes, completed), and the house is bought and paid for (often complete with any little luxury considered “necessary” today) -, then, and only then, do they “welcome” children into their lives. And if these men and women have reached a physical point where nature denies them what they themselves had fought for years to avoid, well, you better bet they'll find a way to have their progeny, come Hell or high water.
Hence, we witness the birth of an era. An era in which such “medical miracles” as a 66 year old new mother or “Octo-mom” are becoming increasingly less shocking. An era epitomized by unchecked scientific “advancement” and personal self-indulgence. In a modern day tragedy, children, who should be blissfully unaware of the darker side of human nature and envied for their purity, are all-too-often left to grapple with questions many adults themselves cannot comprehend. More and more innocent children must wonder as to the mysterious absence of their fathers, asking themselves questions, such as, “Which anonymous sperm donor fathered me?” Instead of proudly being able to point to a loving marriage as the source of their existence, many boys and girls must now accept the grim and highly unromantic reality that they are “test tube babies,” created in the cold, unfeeling world of scientific laboratories, rather than the warmth of the marriage bed.
Surely, many must share my horror when they hear bizarre tales of doctors implanting six fertilized eggs in a woman (a single woman and mother of six other children, no less!), or of a senior citizen being impregnated through the so-called marvels of modern science, but I venture to guess that few question the ethics of in vitro fertilization in general. Many must wonder how I could unfeelingly wish to deprive an infertile couple, desperate for children of their own, of the offspring science can help offer them. But “Octo-mom” and company aside, in vitro fertilization poses an inherently evil threat to proper human relationships and the relationship between man and his Creator.
When children can be created in test tubes, fashioned by the random reproductive cells of any two strangers, and crafted by the hands of scientists, what happens to romance, passion, commitment, or devotion? What place do such laudable attributes, so elemental and essential to man, have in such a world? Already, these virtually antiquated words conjure up images of bygone eras and seem grossly out-of-place in our superficial, lack-luster society. It seems certain that, whether we admit it or not, what little importance and sanctity sexuality still holds is placed in unspeakable jeopardy when science becomes the chief arbiter of life. When children are conceived in sterile laboratory rooms, the need for human beings to engage in fruitful, committed, and devoted relationships with one another lessens, and, subsequently, the sanctity of the marriage act diminishes. By engaging in the martial act and viewing it, not merely as a source of immense pleasure, but also as a demonstration of sacrificial love, and by exhibiting a Faith-filled openness to the possibility of children, human beings are permitted to share in - not usurp - the creative power of God. Furthermore, it is this attitude of self-denial for love of spouse, potential children, and God that proves the true readiness of a man or woman to assume one of the most selfless vocations known to man: that of parenthood.
It's funny, when you are in the midst of changing dirty diapers, tackling the seemingly never-ending laundry, chasing rebellious toddlers, or any other of the litany of duties parenting involves, it's difficult to imagine anyone believing parenthood is a self-gratifying job. As a parent of two young children, I myself have had to come to grips with the overwhelming realization that, while you don't surrender your own identity upon becoming a parent, true parenthood requires the complete giving of oneself in service of a greater good: namely, raising the children entrusted to you by God. Today, however, instead of welcoming this distinctive and challenging privilege as a gift, our society has come to view children as commodities, expected to magically vanish at inauspicious times and, likewise, appear on demand when the “time is right.” Ironically, we now have a role reversal where children are subject to the capricious nature of their parents, who, like small children, seem to feel the world revolves around them and their desires.
I assume many will feel a sense of outrage at my criticism of these aforementioned practices. What gives me the right to stand in the way of scientific advancement and personal happiness? Blinded by their own desire for scientific glory or personal fulfillment, proponents of in vitro fertilization impose Machiavellian “ethics” upon procreation, paying little heed to the victims left in the wake of “progress.” For undoubtedly, it will be the “creatures” of these mad scientific experiments, not the “creators,” who will suffer most acutely.
Dr. Frankenstein's creature largely lamented his existence and ultimately despised the man who bestowed life on him in such a cruelly unnatural fashion. One can only hope and pray that the human legacies of such atrocities as in vitro fertilization, sperm banks, and all the other trappings of science-run-amok, may forgive their creators for the cavalier attitude they demonstrate toward the sanctity of human life.
M.K.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)