Rationing Health Care

Every once in a while, a Philosopher pops up to say something sensible. Of course, lots of people say sensible things, so that trait alone fails to set them apart. What sets Philosophers apart is that they usually say whatever sensible thing the say as the conclusion of a clear and convincing argument. Sometimes the argument is so clear and so easy to grasp that even the most ardent philosophical foe is forced to change his mind.

In today's New York Times, Peter Singer makes just such an argument. He demonstrates, with unmistakable clairty, that everyone is in favor of rationing health care.

Don't believe me? Just read his initial argument.

Now that you've come to agree that we should ration health care, perhaps we can all tune out the conservative propaganda on this issue, and get on with figuring out how to ration health care. Singer offers a very interesting utilitarian analysis in the remainder of the article.

By the way, those of you who read Singer's entire piece should see the value of reading and/or studying philosophy. It provides the mind with powerful analytic tools by demonstrating those tools in use. If you're interested in ethical reasoning, the best writer/thinker I've ever encountered is the late James Rachels. Here's an example of his writing in which he convincingly demonstrates that there is no morally relevant distinction between passive and active euthanasia. It is short, fascinating, and accessible. And it also demonstrates how to use some of those analytical tools I was just talking about.

Joe H.