I knew there was a catch. Peter Singer opined that broadening health care coverage is an important public good. (I agree, but it is not a “right.” Nor, is Obamacare the correct approach. But those are not the subjects of this post.)
Being a utilitarian who advocates valuing the lives of some over those of others (“quality of life” ethic), Singer doesn’t really support “universal” access. First, the give with one hand part; From the Daily Princetonian story:
There are many benefits to universal health care besides saving lives, Singer said. Universal health care, in the long run, would “reduce overall expenditure on health care by covering everyone.” U.S. companies would also be able to compete in a global market better, as the burden of paying for health care would be lifted, he explained. Currently, “virtually half of the U.S. population has their health insurance through their employers,” Singer noted, and such health care would also be morally uplifting. “If you are living in a community where whether you live or die depends on how much money you have … that produces a different sort of society.” Although opportunities would never be exactly the same for the poor and rich, if a life is saved regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status, it promotes unity within the society, he added.
Unity, if you are not disabled or seriously ill, that is. Because Singer supports limiting health care for those who are not of utilitarian value:
However, there remains the problem of what kind of care the country should provide. “We should get … the health care that provides the greatest benefits for the resources available,” Singer said. This issue becomes complicated, however, with issues such as end-of-life care and saving disabled people over healthy people. For example, in prolonging life, hospitals spend high amounts of resources that could be used for saving lives. “We should only be spending on health care that actually benefits people and that benefits the patients,” Singer said.
In other words, Singer supports medical discrimination that would take away coverage from people based on health or disability–just when they needed it most. Add in his support for non voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, and you have a perfect storm for health care to be a destroyer of human exceptionalism and equal justice under law.
And what about animals to which (not whom!) we are, according to Singer, to give “equal consideration” when measuring utilitarian outcomes? Should necessary veterinarian bills for chimps, primates, and pigs, take precedence over health care coverage for people with lower quality of life measurements than these and other animals? I know. I know. Don’t over think this, but if you take Singer’s anti-speciesism philosophy seriously, why wouldn’t we?
That point aside, in a Peter Singer world, stay healthy because if you lose your utility, it could be adios muchaco.
September 22nd, 2011 | 3:23 pm
Mr. Smith,
It takes flawed reasoning to find justification for the richest country in history not providing decent health care for ALL of its citizens.
What Christian nation?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Well, Singer is an atheist.
September 22nd, 2011 | 4:27 pm
Wow. Harryhammer’s intense trollishness makes some other people around here look positively innocent and cooperative!
September 22nd, 2011 | 4:56 pm
Singer’s claims echo those of many others who advocate utilitarian medicine: we spend so much on high-tech life support near the end of life, hence the supposed need to cut off those likely to need it, etc.
Based on Wesley’s extensive documentation in his previous books and writings, I call baloney. Are hospitals really spending vast sums these days on end-of-life care in today’s bioethical environment? Yeah, right. If you buy that, I have some land in the Everglades you might be interested in.
What might have been true 20 or so years ago is greatly different now, as so many anecdotes attest about patients’ families being pressured to permit pulling the plug, patients being pressed for do-not-resuscitate orders, etc., etc. We’ve already nearly reached the point Singer advocates, it appears.
September 22nd, 2011 | 6:43 pm
It takes flawed reasoning to find justification for the richest country in history not providing decent health care for ALL of its citizens.
That sounds like a good argument against all the plans I’ve heard put out there so far.
Do wake me up when someone proposes a plan that actually addresses all the legitimate concerns. Until then, “decent health care for ALL of its citizens” does not appear to be one of the available options.
Harryhammer Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm
@Blake,
Blake,
America’s health care system ranks 37th in the world.
In other words, there are 36 plans out there that are better than what you had before Obama took some steps in the right direction.
September 22nd, 2011 | 7:19 pm
Hmm, lemme think, does this mean that the profoundly disabled Stephen Hawking is somehow less deserving of medical care than the able-bodied Peter Singer? What metric does Singer propose using to decide who among the disabled is ‘deserving’ of medical care? Statistically, Mr. Singer. like all other able-bodied individuals, stands a 1 in 4 chance of becoming disabled for some period of time during his working life–and is but one random car accident himself from joining the ranks of the “unworthy” permanently disabled. Perhaps he can hope that if that happens to him he will meet someone who thinks other than he does regarding limiting health care services to the disabled.
holyterror Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
@JAS, I have noticed that Singer has backed off of working out these metrics in detail. He just says the vague things and leaves the hard work of it to the rest of us.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 22nd, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Yes, he has become quite the politician.
September 23rd, 2011 | 12:17 am
Harryhammer: “It takes flawed reasoning to find justification for the richest country in history not providing decent health care for ALL of its citizens.”
One paying attention will notice that the complaint was one of Singer’s NOT wanting to provide decent care to those who are continually ill, but rather to those who are usually healthy.
Harryhammer Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
@bmmg39,
bmmg39,
My comment wasn’t directed towards Mr. Singer, it was meant for Mr. Smith.
Fact:
The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have universal health care.
In terms of both GDP and per capita, the U.S. spends twice a much as other countries on a system that offers much less and is much worse in terms of outcomes.
Your granny has a better chance in Canada.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:06 pm
You work hard at missing points, Harry, which is what bmmg39 was pointing out. And you do have reflexive need to oppose. Hmmm, troll number 2?
Harryhammer Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 9:51 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Mr. Smith,
I’m being honest.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Harryhammer: I know you are. But please target to the points I raise, or at least stay within range. If we all just go every which way, the conversation becomes chaos. I appreciate your attendance here. Thanks.
September 23rd, 2011 | 1:13 am
Some atheists are completely comfortable with suicide for themselves and for everybody too, taking death into their own hands. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Harryhammer Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 10:05 am
@Mary De Voe,
Mary,
Here’s the passage in its entirety:
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
September 23rd, 2011 | 2:06 am
I believe that everyone, regardless of extraneous factors such as health, income level, age, should have access to health care. Singer’s approach is wrong, because he does not consider each life to have intrinsic value. Any proper moral evaluation, in my view, would have to conclude that the greatest value must be attached to conscious beings, whether human or animal.
In Singer’s world, any human or animal, could, in principle, be sacrificed for the “greater good”, or the greater happiness”, of all humans, and animals.
Wesley, you seem to support a “hybrid” moral theory, as it were, concerning humans and animals. You believe that humans have intrinsic worth, that can never be sacrificed. so far, great. But you agree with singer, that animals should be approached in a morally utilitarian way. I believe that you do this with integrity, and good will.
But, you both are wrong, with all due respect. All conscious creatures, in principle, deserve to have access to the best medical care possible. In practice, we may not be able to do this now. But it should always be our goal. Conscious creatures, whether human or animal, are priceless, and of utmost moral worth. money, and other physical entities, exist only FOR conscious creatures welfare, and can be sacrificed.
September 23rd, 2011 | 10:10 am
I suppose thre ‘solution’ is for those who want more than the basics to buy supplemental insurance- my last 2 kids (out of 4) were born c-section and after taking injections every day (from 2 week pregnant) that cost $100. I doubt that Obama care would pay to sustain another pregnancy- because who needs 5 kids?
September 23rd, 2011 | 5:29 pm
Instead of setting up straw men, can you give us a quote where Singer says that we should kill individuals against their will? He’s advocating the termination of a life only when we can show that this would be, to the best of our knowledge, in the interest of the individual himself. If an individual expresses a contrary opinion we should respect it. You even compared him to the Nazis, who were obviously acting against the desires of the people they were killing.
He is a very respected intellectual, and you are not. You probably explain this by some conspiracy of the intellectual atheist leftist liberal world that elects evil people to chair their universities, but the explanation is much simpler.
He’s direct and open, and willing to modify his positions when he recognises a better alternative (as he’s doing now after having read the latest Derek Parfit).
You are just moved by some religious agenda (“advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society”) you want to hide from your readers.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Read. I said NON voluntary, NOT INvoluntary. In other words, killing incompetent people, say with Alzheimer’s, who never asked for it themselves. He has so written often. Do your own research.
heUxVe8ut7V2bvId1z6A Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:05 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/involuntary
first definition “not voluntary”.
But I get your point and I agree with Singer. Something we are called to make difficult choices for people who cannot express their will.
Of course you would rather let people go through terrible agonies, even when you think they would choose to end their own lives, if they could make such a choice.
It’s good that you didn’t disagree on the religious agenda of this blog, as it is stated by the blog itself.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 10:29 am
“NON” voluntary (not, “NOT” voluntary) is a term with a specific meaning in the euthanasia debates. So, you owe me an apology.
Generally, there is voluntary E, in which the patient asks. Non voluntary, in which the patient doesn’t ask and/or is incapable of so asking, and involuntary, in which the patient asks not to be and is anyway. This blog doesn’t have a religious agenda. It has a human exceptionalist agenda. It has a human equality agenda. It has an anti utilitarian agenda.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:01 am
@ʚɭʡʫɼɔʆʣɓʃʖʐʌʊʕʢɠɥʣʡ, I certainly disagree with Wesley, on some issues, principally animal rights. But I have no doubt about his integrity. I believe that he forms his views honestly, and intelligently.
Speaking of intelligence, Wesley is highly respected, in the intellectual world. He has written several books, concerning euthanasia, and his most recent one, concerning animal rights. And even if he wasn’t, who cares? It’s irrelevant. What matters is the soundness of his arguments.
He also, although he’s a Christian, does not base his views on religion. One can agree or disagree with his premises, but his arguments are well thought and respectable. He’s frequently pointed out that his views do not rely on religion.
As I stated, I disagre with Wesley on animal rights. But his position on this, and other issues, are intellectually respectable.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Thanks Cousin Bret!
heUxVe8ut7V2bvId1z6A Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 11:28 am
@Wesley J. Smith, actually my post was probably attacking Wesley too personally. I’m sorry for that. I understand that he is raising philosophic and pragmatic questions. In the philosophic arena I do not think that Wesley has any particular weight, or is a known/influential/respected figure. Singer, on the other hand, is very influential and respected. His books (e.g. “practical ethics”) are studied in universities all over the world.
Now, attacks like “in a Peter Singer world, stay healthy because if you lose your utility, it could be adios muchaco” are really poor, and show, I think, W’s bad faith (as the Nazi card he played many times).
If you want to attack Singer, attack him directly on his ethics and meta-ethics. Wesley does not have the intellectual weight to bring such attacks honestly and directly, IMHO, and so he sets up silly straw men to knock down for the pleasure of this religious blog.
I don’t know if W is Christian because he believes in human exceptionalism, the other way around, or those are simply (in his mind) independent beliefs that happen to confirm each other by chance. I’d like to see him clearing this things up instead of setting up silly scenarios.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, :-)
ʚɭʡʫɼɔʆʣɓʃʖʐʌʊʕʢɠɥʣʡ Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 10:45 am
@Bret Lythgoe, I was not looking for an ad-hominem attack, so there’s no need for ad-hominem responses.
Wesley is continuing attacking Mr Singer in ways that show, in my opinion, his bad faith (since I suppose he has the intelligence to form better opinions). I particularly liked when he linked Singer to what the Nazis did.
“First things” has a religious agenda, as stated here
http://www.firstthings.com/masthead
and I would argue that Wesley’s human exceptionalism also has a religious basis. We’ve already discussed about that before and he’s never given any half-decent argument to base exceptionalism on anything solid. He’s written a lot about it, and I’m convinced of his good faith on that issue. It’s just bad philosophy.
We’re all free to disagree of course.
BTW, Wesley, what’s your bibliography in the defense of human exceptionalism? What’s the strongest author you might suggest, with the strongest argument? You are not a philosopher of course, so I’d like see somebody who’s done real work there.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 11:30 am
FT is a journal of religion AND culture.
I like Adler and Jonas.
You haven’t paid close attention if you think I compared S to Nazis. In fact , I have specifically said he is not a N. I compared the killing of Baby Knauer and it’s justifications in Germany 1939, to Singer’s arguments and the juxtaposition is quite apt. You are awfully knee jerk it seems to me.
And I also notice you don’t apologize or retract when you are factually wrong.
heUxVe8ut7V2bvId1z6A Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, I did make a mistake when reading your post. I am still convinced that you are in bad faith when discussing Singer, that your exceptionalism has religious roots, and that you conform your posts to the religious guidelines of “firstthings”. There’s nothing bad about that, you should just say it.
Singer derived his policies from his philosophy. So your attacks on the policies are empty if you don’t attack
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
FT has no “guidelines,” at least none they communicated to me. This is a no strings attached deal. Since you want to make things up, why not presume I have a secret agenda to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire? I mean, give me some ambition!
September 24th, 2011 | 9:11 am
America’s health care system ranks 37th in the world.
In other words, there are 36 plans out there that are better than what you had before Obama took some steps in the right direction.
Yeah, but when the people doing the rankings have ideological judgments built into their assumptions (thereby guaranteeing what the results will be before the study even begins), one may safely ignore that as a metric.
By the way I measure good care – that is, by the simple question of whether people can get adequate care in a timely fashion – socialized medicine sounds like a nightmare.
For one thing, socialized medicine doesn’t deliver adequate care. Americans do not fly to Canada for stuff they can’t get taken care of here in the states.
And for another, socialized medicine can’t deliver adequate care in a timely fashion.
So we’re right back to where we started: you think socialized medicine is better because…why exactly?
September 25th, 2011 | 11:40 am
Again, Peter Singer’s philosophy is NOT that everyone should have health care. It is, rather, that “we”/society/the state should decide what people are chronically sick and/or “aren’t going to get any better” so we can stop using our precious funding on these people. More money for us!!! This is the crux of Wesley’s complaint, and I agree with him on this issue.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact