Friday, July 17, 2009
At the end of his discussion of Peter Singers call for rationed health care, Fr. Araujo says: "If the treatment is available and will do good for that person, it should be made available." Is this always true? Two further questions: at what cost and who bears the cost? Two more: who decides what is good and by what criteria?
Even if we get medical and pharmaceutical costs under control, is it the case that a parent ought to be able to take a child to the doctor every time she gets the sniffles (easy to do back in the HMO days with a $5 co-pay)? Should an otherwise healthy 85 year old be eligible for a heart transplant?
My intuition is that we have (and will continue to have) health care rationing at multiple levels - government, insurance company, and individual. Am I wrong about this? I'm more concerned about the criteria for rationing. Singers criteria, based upon his anthropology, would lead to a furher entrenchment of the culture of death. A Catholic anthropology, taking into account all that Fr. Araujo discusses, would lead to the building of a culture of life. Thoughts?