RSS Feed
Health Care a Priority, not a Product
Health-care reform is an economic, political and medical issue. But On Faith panelist and evangelical leader Jim Wallis says it's also a "deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue." Do you agree? Why or why not?
"If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination." So said Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University from 1795 to 1817. He was speaking passionately against Edward Jenner's new medical invention called vaccination.
It was not then a particularly extremist view. Vaccination and inoculation, though highly successful, were denounced by many religious leaders. Fundamentalists today will not say that God changed His mind and no longer condemns medical interventions that can save lives. Most, but not all, will simply find interpretations of their holy book that oppose those of previous generations. It isn't hard to do. You just focus on one particular verse and ignore a contradictory verse.
Cut to the 21st century. The controversy is no longer about using biblical justification to condemn scientific breakthroughs that can extend the quality of life. We now have the other extreme, biblical justification to condemn those who don't use all possible scientific technology to extend the lives of people who are essentially brain dead. Witness Terri Schiavo.
But our issue now is what to do about health care from the beginning of life to its end, and especially, how to decide who gets what kind. We generally accept that people with more money can afford more things, and I don't have a problem with this, except when we treat a necessity like quality health care as if it were just a consumer product. I wish all Americans would recognize the need to make health care both a moral and financial priority.
At the same time, given our limited resources, I think we need to change from devoting so much of our resources to the last few months of life, while many of our young never have the opportunity to become old because they lack the financial means to obtain adequate health care. Regardless of age, if a very ill person has a chance to recover and live a life with quality, then by all means go for it. However, if it is clear to medical experts that only technical life can be prolonged, without hope for recovery, then I would put no more public money into it. Such re-allocation of resources can transform a few extended weeks of life into a combined hundred years for several young people. Call it, if you will, rational rationing.
I find it odd that those who expect eternal bliss in an afterlife seem so unwilling to let go of this life. It seems they want to go to heaven without dying. Atheists are more likely than religious fundamentalists to have prepared end-of life directives. For many atheists, our after life "immortality" will be organ donations (as well as a will that benefits worthwhile causes).
I stand with the progressive people of faith who want to expand health care coverage, though I don't need a biblical justification. If I did, however, I might start with the Genesis 4 myth. After Cain murders Abel (interestingly, the first murder in the Bible follows the first religious act), God asks Cain where Abel is. Cain resorts to the familiar tactic of answering a question with a question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" God never commented on Cain's response, but had I been God, I would have said to Cain," Damn right. That's an integral part of my new post-garden health care plan."
A stronger case can be made that Jesus was a Communist than Obama was a Kenyan. According to Acts 2:45, Jesus wanted all his followers to divide and share their wealth, each according to his need. I think Jesus goes way too far in Matt. 19: 21, when he says, "If you want to be perfect, sell all your possessions and give to the poor." It seems that the formerly poor would then have to sell everything, creating an infinite loop. In any case, these passages favor pooling money equitably so that all can partake of adequate health care.
As a humanist, I'm committed to reason, science, and experience to solve human problems. I don't pretend to understand how some people can believe in a deity whose need to be worshipped takes priority over the needs of human beings. But I am optimistic enough to believe that the desires of this deity in future generations will continue to change as we learn new strategies for making this world a better place. In other words, I hope those who feel the need to worship a deity will worship a humanistic one.
I don't know what the best heath care system should be. Perhaps the god is in the details. But I hope we come up with a system where the poor, even if they are always with us, will be provided with good health care.
By
Herb Silverman
|
August 18, 2009; 8:12 AM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: God is Not in the Details |
Next: Heal the Sick and the System
Posted by: pelicanwatchcb | August 23, 2009 10:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have not previously commented on any of Herb’s columns, because I always agree with his insightful analyses. This same is true this time, with one small exception. Unlike Herb, I think that Timothy Dwight’s two-centuries-old view, that vaccination frustrates god’s will, is not really inconsistent with the modern religious view, that Terry Schiavo should have been maintained in a vegetative state indefinitely. There is no need to re-interpret scripture. Both views are based on the same core belief, i.e., that all events in human life are the exclusive prerogative of god to determine. Smallpox victims should be left either to die or survive as god wills, and Terry Schiavo should have been left to languish or recover, and however it eventually turned out we would then know that god wanted it that way.
The underlying premise in both cases is that humans belong to god; they are his playthings to do with whatever he wishes; our preferences don’t matter. So the fundamentalists have not really changed their stripes. Humanists, on the other hand, believe that each human being belongs to him- or herself, and has the right to alter the course of his or her life in any way that can be achieved without infringing on the equal rights of other human beings. Like Herb, “I'm committed to reason, science, and experience to solve human problems. I don't pretend to understand how some people can believe in a deity whose need to be worshipped takes priority over the needs of human beings.”
Posted by: LAltman | August 22, 2009 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Even if conservatives oppose health care reform on the basis of morals only they understand, it's a bit stunning they aren't seeing the economic impact of our current system. Not only individuals seeking / paying for health care are deeply affected, but the American taxpayer is shouldering an enormous burden paying for outcomes that aren't worth their cost. Oh - and when Herb says, "I hope those who feel the need to worship a deity will worship a humanistic one," he is speaking for me and many other non-religious Americans. Precisely because I don't expect believers to ignore their faith when deciding moral issues, I can only hope that their faith is compatible with my own ideals of reason, compassion, and common sense.
Posted by: maryellensikes | August 21, 2009 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Excellent points. I am not religious but my belief is that healthcare is a right - not a privilege. The protests surrounding healthcare reform are disappointing to say the least. If the religious in this country truly believed what they say we wouldn't be having a healthcare debate.
Posted by: Guavafan | August 19, 2009 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Excellent article. Health care is not inherently a religious issue. Moral justifications for rational health care policy can be found with or without religion. Hence, if religious people find their way to rational public policy via their theological interpretations, I guess we shouldn't complain about it. But religion can just as easily be used to promote irrational and unjust policy, as Herb points out.
Posted by: DAN46 | August 19, 2009 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Professor Silverman. Sadly, many of the poor in this country are cleverly duped by the conservative anti-reform faction into believing that a public option is socialism and will somehow hurt them. What they don't realize is that the conservatives are supporting their rich lobbyists for the insurance companies who are keeping the poor under their thumbs.
Posted by: jonesm2 | August 19, 2009 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I, too, would like to see all people given adequate health care. My concern is how to do it in ways that do not push us further into debt and eventually the disaster that economic collapse might bring.
Frank Hay
Posted by: fhay26 | August 19, 2009 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A sad revelation from this debate is that the voices most against health care reform and thus health care for the poor, are those most vociferous about being on the side of God. Unfortunately, the Biblically illiterate pounce upon this and question, even blame, God.
The truth is, on health care for all, the "liberals" are closer to the heart of Christ than are the "conservatives," as Silverman points out.
Posted by: MGT2 | August 18, 2009 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One of Doctor Silverman's best!
Like the misguided Yalie who thought that people should be allowed to die rather than interfere with god's eternal plan, some religious groups today -- yes, in the 21st century! -- reject medical care for themselves and their children, preferring to "put it in god's hands." Many other equally irrational and superstitious believers are willing to use their faith to deny healthcare to others.