Making N.I.C.E. [Bob]

In the third installment of his Space Trilogy series, That Hideous Strength, C. S. Lewis' main character (Mark Studdock) was seduced with the promise of joining the inner ring of a powerful English society that used questionable tactics to establish an "efficient" state bureaucracy run by controllers who saw themselves as being a cut above the rest of the world. The name of the society Mark yearned to join was the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments -- N.I.C.E.

Lewis described N.I.C.E. as:

"the first fruits of that constructive fusion between state and laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes for a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints ... which have hitherto hampered research in this country. It was also largely free from the restraints of economy ..."

This, in fictional form, was the epitome of what Lewis feared would become a socio-political reality. Some of his reviewers begged to differ. The New York Times described That Hideous Strength as "superlatively nonsensical excitement, challenging implications," while Time magazine called it a "well-written, fast-paced satirical fantasy." That was in 1946.

Fast forward to 2009.

John C. Goodman, writing in National Review (September 21, 2009), reports on the contemporary British health commission:

"which currently recommends against any treatment that costs more than $45,000 to save a year of life. Because of [the commission], British cancer patients are denied access to drugs that are routinely available in the U.S. and on the European continent, and thousands die prematurely."

The name of the commission is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, but the Brits refer to it by the more commonly recognized acronym: N.I.C.E.

I wish I could make this stuff up. In fact, when I read it I assumed that Mr. Goodman had made it up. He didn't. But the creepy stuff doesn't stop there.

The reason Mr. Goodman cited this fact was because N.I.C.E., according to former Senator Tom Daschle, is the model on which we should base American health care reform. He says so in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis. And, barring the inconvenience of paying those pesky income taxes that only those of us who are not driven to work in a limousine should have to bear, the good Senator would have been the one overseeing our American N.I.C.E. guys. Instead, we have HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who, under the plan being offered, will not only fill that role but also be the one to decide which pool of federal funding may, or may not (?), be used to fund abortions.

So, yes, Sarah Palin's hyperbolic comments about "death panels" in the health care reform bill being considered were not accurate. But that said, and given the ideology and bureaucratic impulses of our current cast of political characters, does anyone truly doubt that, as Jay and Serge pointed out in Podcast #19, there will be rationing? When resources are limited and controlling costs is the reason the reform is being pushed in the first place, this will be the inevitable result. Someone will be charged with responsibility of deciding who gets what. Someone like Mark Studdock.

And that is a hideous strength for anyone to wield.

---

A Parable for The Church of God In Christ [SK]

The Church of God in Christ (COGIC), which claims to be pro-life, has issued a statement calling on all denominations to do the right thing and support President Obama’s health care reform plan. (Note: The President doesn’t have a plan of his own. What the COGIC really means is House bill HR 3200, which the President supports.) The writers of the statement demonstrate a genuine and laudable concern for the poor who cannot afford medical coverage. However, to the surprise of many pro-life advocates, the drafters of the statement take the President at his word that abortion will not be funded in a health care bill. They call on Christians of good will to set aside their political views and support the President’s reform efforts, which they insist are Biblically mandated.

I don't question the good intentions of those drafting the statement. And unlike some, I don't question their pro-life sentiments. But are Biblically informed pro-lifers unreasonable to remain skeptical of the President's plan? Consider the following parable.

It’s 1860. The President of the United States is pushing a controversial economic recovery package that will provide government subsidies to plantation owners struggling to make ends meet. The President has a point: Statistics show that 400,000 southern farms are without an economic safety net and thus face bankruptcy or foreclosure in the near feature. Should that collapse happen, mounting personal losses would adversely impact the national economy. To press the point further, the President invokes Biblical commands to love our neighbors and recruits sympathetic clergy to convey that view to the faithful.

There’s a rub, however. Although the President denies it, multiple sources—both independent and political— confirm that his economic recovery plan would allow government funds for the purchase of slaves. Collectively, the nation’s newspapers—universally sympathetic to the President’s views—come to the same conclusion though it bears little on their eager support for the plan. Meanwhile, congressional members who support slavery have commanding majorities in both the House and Senate. They see the practice as essential to any recovery plan. The President’s political position is near impregnable: He doesn’t need a single vote from the opposing party to pass his plan. Moreover the speaker of the House insists that any plan for economic recovery must fund the purchase of slaves as a necessary part of jumpstarting the Southern economy. If need be, he’s prepared to force a straight party line vote to get the desired result. All indications are he can deliver on his promise. Indeed, the legislative committee considering the President’s recovery plan voted down every single amendment that contained specific language forbidding the use of funds for slavery.

As for the President, his views on slavery are undeniable. While a senator in the Mississippi state house, he thrice voted to deny legal protection to any slave who escaped his master and sought refuge in a neutral territory. As a Presidential candidate, he emphatically assured the nation’s leading pro-slavery group—Planned Laborhood—that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Ownership Act, which would overturn all meaningful restrictions on slavery. He repeatedly stated that slave ownership was an essential economic right. During his first week as President, he issued an executive order funding the acquisition of slaves in foreign countries. One month later, he overturned existing funding restrictions on using slaves for medical experiments.

Despite these facts, the President—without a shred of evidence—calls anti-slavery advocates opposing his plan liars. In an unprecedented move, he submits a written speech to Congress insisting that his plan does not fund the acquisition of slaves, though again he does nothing to refute the specific charge—attested to by multiple sources—that his plan does in fact do just that. Two weeks later, he gets a valuable assist when The Southern Baptist Convention signs a statement urging clergy of all faiths to follow its lead in endorsing the President’s plan. The White pastors drafting the statement insist they are anti-slavery, but take the President at his word that the practice will not be funded.

Their statement reads in part as follows:

"Based on our understanding of the Holy Scriptures it is not only our mandate to encourage men and women to come into right relationship with their Creator, but also to proclaim and advocate justice and compassion throughout all creation.

'Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.'
Prov 31:8-9 NKJV

We are here today to speak on behalf of millions of Americans who cannot afford or obtain adequate economic provisions. In this the richest country in the world 400,000Americans are without an economic safety net. Because of this, they and their children face untold hardship and unnecessary suffering. Millions more will soon face similar challenges. In the midst of this crisis, they face limited economic opportunities that leave them exposed and unable to meet the needs of their families.

The Southern Baptist Convention calls upon the other major White denominations, and our brothers and sisters of all races in their major denominations and the rest of the faith community to set a moral example which moves our country beyond the noise of racial division and partisanship by supporting the President’s courageous initiative to address this vital issue. People of faith all over this country have a responsibility to stand for the millions who suffer from a lack of adequate provision by pleading the cause of the needy, and raising their voices in support of the President’s economic reform agenda.

Question: Would any rational person today consider anti-slavery Christians unreasonable for distrusting the President and Congress on this?
-

LTI Podcast Episode 19 - Death Panels [Serge]

LTI Podcast #19 - The Death Panel Episode Rich and Jay have a roundtable discussion responding to Sarah Palin's "death panel" charge. Is she guilty of crass Republican propaganda, or does she make a valid point about a possible consequence of health care rationing? Rich also continues his series about the medical literature discussing the impact of RU-486 on abortion access in the United States. Was the introduction of RU-486 a decade ago a game changer or has it had little effect?

http://media.libsyn.com/media/serge13102/LTIPodcast19_death_panels.mp3

Fair and Balanced? [Elizabeth]

You may or may not have heard the news that a pro-lifer was gunned down in Michigan Friday by a man who said he was offended by the activist's anti-abortion material. Harlan James Drake, 33, was arrested Friday and has been criminally charged with the murder of 63-year-old Jim Pouillon.

I learned of the tragic, senseless crime from a coworker. I did not, however, find out about it through conventional media. I hadn't seen the story on the web (late in the day it appeared on CNN). I watched the nightly news and there wasn't a mention of it. In fact, no one seemed to be talking about it — and perhaps it's because recaps of the 9/11 memorials dominated headlines.

And, perhaps not.

When a deranged pro-life assassin murdered George Tiller, the world sat up and took notice. Suddenly, pro-lifers were dangerous and our entire movement was promoting similar acts of intolerance and violence.

Quite contrarily, headlines in the coming days won't be pondering whether hate crimes by pro-choicers are on the rise. Unfair generalizations won't lead talking heads to conclude that the pro-choice movement has become irrational and dangerous.

In a letter to the editor published in the Sept. 5 Washington Post, Dr. Willie J. Parker addresses the "fear of harassment" that he says is keeping some doctors from performing abortions. He promises to stand defiantly to "give women the care they need." Parker even cites the parable of the good Samaritan as his reason for seeking abortion training in 2006. He challenges others to stand firm with him.

Newsweek published a several-page spread on Dr. LeRoy Carhart — one of this country's few remaining late-term-abortion providers. In it, Carhart was called "the abortion evangelist." The article details why Carhart will never stop doing abortions, though he says he's a target for anti-abortion violence.

Numerous other media outlets have lined up to interview Carhart about his bravery in the face of adversity.

What are they rallying against? Are there untold numbers of radical pro-lifers banning together to stop these abortionists at any cost? Or are we being unfairly demonized by the media?

In Ann Coulter's "49 Million to Five" column written in the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, Coulter says that, in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life — and 80 percent opposed to late-term abortions — only five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade was passed into law in 1973.

If that's true, then why is the media coverage and the rhetoric biasing the public to our cause? From where did these irrational conclusions emanate?

One thing's for sure — there's a double standard in America.

Another thought... [Megan]

Great blog, Serge. Thanks for shedding light on that issue. I couldn’t help but notice — to draw out the “cognitive dissonance” a bit further — that in this case, the government is advocating the preservation of life based on the level of brain development, while many justify taking the lives of the unborn on the same grounds.

Cognitive Dissonance in the American Medical Association [Serge]

I've been detailing some examples of cultural cognitive dissonance during my series on the LTI podcasts. However, here's an example of significant dissonance within the largest medical association in our country. The question at hand is whether or not the adolescent brain is capable of making informed decisions that they can be responsible for.

In 2004, the AMA wrote an amicus brief in which they claimed that adolescents, even those that are 16 or 17 should not be eligible for the death penalty because their brains are not as developed as an adult's brain:

The adolescent’s mind works differently from ours.
Parents know it. This Court has said it. Legislatures have
presumed it for decades or more. And now, new scientific
evidence sheds light on the differences.

Scientists have documented the differences along several
dimensions. Adolescents as a group, even at the age of 16 or
17, are more impulsive than adults. They underestimate risks
and overvalue short-term benefits. They are more susceptible
to stress, more emotionally volatile, and less capable of
controlling their emotions than adults.

In short, the average adolescent cannot be expected to
act with the same control or foresight as a mature adult.
Behavioral scientists have observed these differences for
some time. Only recently, however, have studies yielded
evidence of concrete differences that are anatomically based.
Cutting-edge brain imaging technology reveals that regions
of the adolescent brain do not reach a fully mature state until
after the age of 18. These regions are precisely those
associated with impulse control, regulation of emotions, risk
assessment, and moral reasoning. Critical developmental
changes in these regions occur only after late adolescence. (emphasis mine)

The AMA notes that parents know that adolescents do have the decision making capacity as adults do and therefore are unable to make an informed decision. For that reason, the AMA believes that a 17 year old who decides to kidnap their neighbor and brutally torture and kill them should be immune to capital punishment.

However, there is an area in which the AMA believes a 15 year old girl not only has the capacity to make an informed decision that she can take full responsibility for, but that she also has the capacity to decide when her parents need to be informed of this decision. Of course, this is in the area of abortion. Their ethics paper on the topic is from 1993, but is still the prevailing opinion in the AMA:

Physicians should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. The patient, even an adolescent, generally must decide whether, on balance, parental involvement is advisable. Accordingly, minors should ultimately be allowed to decide whether parental involvement is appropriate. Physicians should explain under what circumstances (eg, life-threatening emergency) the minor’s confidentiality will need to be abrogated.

Physicians should try to ensure that minor patients have made an informed decision after giving careful consideration to the issues involved. They should encourage their minor patients to consult alternative sources if parents are not going to be involved in the abortion decision.

Let's see if I have this correct. Because of the fact that their brain is unable to process information like an adult, and that their brain physiology makes them prone to emotional decisions without the ability for critical thinking, teens should not be held responsible for capital punishment if they murder their neighbor. However, even younger teens, who find themselves in a highly emotional, crisis state of an unintended pregnancy, have the capacity to make a decision without parental involvement that can effect them for the rest of their lives. They are the ones that should make the sober decision of involving their parents in what may the one of most important decisions they will ever make, and one that many girls before them have grown to regret.

HT: I first read of the brief on capital punishment in Miriam Grossman's excellent book "You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child" available here.

Busting Myths About Abortion & Health Care Reform – Part 3 & 4 [Josh Brahm]

Myth: The recently introduced Capps Amendment forbids abortion.

Fact: Read it. It does nothing of the sort.

The “Capps Amendment” is a phony compromise that was offered by Rep. Capps, who has voted against pro-lifers 100% of the time during her 11 years in the House. The Capps Amendment says private health plans wouldn’t have to cover abortion, but the public option could if the Health and Human Services Department wanted it to. For those of you familiar with the Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, you can see how that’s not a compromise at all. It’s just more word games. As Doug Johnson writes, “In other words, abortionists would send bills to the federal insurance plan and receive payment checks from the federal treasury.”

Myth: Pro-lifers are overreacting because under the Capps Amendment, it won’t be taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, it would be the premiums paying for abortions.

Fact: The tax-payer money as well as the money from premiums would go in one big pot. Money from the pot would go to pay for abortions. I don’t buy the idea that the government will be earmarking in this issue based on the sources of the funds, as a brief study of federal finance history shows they have rarely done in the past.

In other words, it’s like United Way. If you donate to United Way, your money goes into a big pot, and then United Way chooses how to distribute the money in the pot.

Even if somehow the government did distinguish the money, you’d still have the issue of churches or pro-life groups that choose to use the public option, or can’t afford a more expensive option paying premiums, who would pay for abortions.

All that to say, there won’t be a simple solution available, like writing “not for abortions” in the memo of your check to the government.