Euthanasia defies reality. Some people and sects actually believe that not only is suffering inevitable but it is necessary just as others question that without evil can there really be good or what does health mean if there be no sickness? I suspect a further argument would be thankfulness for brutes like Saddam; for what value would democracy carry without its counterpart? Yet is not a preemptive strike upon such butchery in a sense a denial of euthanasia by putting an end to the suffering of millions so that they may have a chance at life? The thrust for war, together with $ billions expended, is now justified out of the kindness of the American treasure in behalf of millions of radical Shiites and Sunnis. On the other hand, the little old lady suffering untold torture from terminal cancer must be kept alive at all costs. Perhaps this is the true reason we propped up Hussein in the bloody past.
This is to say that democracy possesses it own kind of brutishness, without which there would be no struggle for improvement — and would not politics be meaningless without its Left and Right? So, too, we must have poverty to appreciate wealth and millions uninsured to place value on the medically insured. When California pioneered group insurance in 1929, primarily to protect the assets of the wealthy, other non-profit groups such as Blue Cross were opened up to the public and mainly through employers, yet most went uninsured. It was not until workers began to negotiate fringe benefits that medical insurance came into play for common families.
Those who are now blest with insurance have forgotten that unions were the catalysts for even privileged white-collars who now enjoy such benefits. Many of these benefactors of medical insurance — through no effort of their own — nevertheless are critical of the uninsured whom they claim are shiftless and unworthy of sacrifice to acquire their own private insurance. That there are countless bankruptcies owing to medical debt or undue anxieties are of no consequence in a society that honors only the enterprising [fortunate?] individual.
In this brutalized system of values, the unlucky, which the privileged presume to be by design, should suffer. After all, Bush is now asking for medical savings and the individual with half a brain should take advantage of it. Too bad that the family of four with an income of $25,000 cannot make sacrifices to save for anything, much less health care. Besides, many of these people — as was the argument for those on welfare — probably have a new car parked in the ghetto and certainly have a 27" TV in their messy living room!
Why wasn’t the same “let them eat cake” attitude applied to the Iraqis? Why did they not get off their shiftless collective ass and take on Saddam themselves? Is it because of their authoritarian heritage of choice? Could not the same be said of idle Germans, Japanese, and Russians during pre WWII? Why were so many Jews still clinging to the faith of German enlightened subculture, in lieu of leaving before borders were closed to them? Why were the Bosnians and Kosovars unable to defend their autonomy?
Counter to this, of course, is that there will always be those in need of help whether through their own stupidity or ill-fortune — but not only of nations but individuals as well. Why, then, can we not extend the treasures of an ostensibly kind and gentle nation to its own in need? — euthanasia in reverse, that is, mercy dedicated to a healthful life.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 27, 2004.