Universal Healthcare....9/01

In case you haven't noticed, when the government owns a program, they really own it.

Healthcare. Something that we've taken for granted that we have some choice in. But, would that be true in a single payor environment? I ran across a blog post that casts some doubt towards that assumption.

It was mentioned in the Coyote Blog, which pulled it from Qando, which sourced the Jewish World Review. I went to the source. What it boils down to is the wishes of the patient, and his family were ignored.

"Golubchuk is an Orthodox Jew, as are his children. The latter have adamantly opposed his removal from the ventilator and feeding tube, on the grounds that Jewish law expressly forbids any action designed to shorten life, and that if their father could express his wishes, he would oppose the doctors acting to deliberately terminate his life."

One would think that a patient's religious beliefs would hold some weight, but not so:

In response, the director of the ICU informed Golubchuk's children that neither their father's wishes nor their own are relevant, and he would do whatever he decided was appropriate. Bill Olson, counsel for the ICU director, told the Canadian Broadcasting Company that physicians have the sole right to make decisions about treatment — even if it goes against a patient's religious beliefs — and that "there is no right to a continuation of treatment."

Notice, this was in Canada...not Russia, not a dictatatorship. But, in some ways it is. The moral of the story is, in bumper sticker logic: "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -- Benjamin Franklin

But, you say, I'm not Jewish. True, but does your faith have tenants that impact your healthcare? Say, against transfusions? Autopsies? Surgery, or other treatments? I can think of many that do. Separation of Church and State can have an interesting consequence in that situation.

When it happens to my neighbor, it's a shame. When it happens to me, it's a tragedy.