When it comes to banning guns the left claims that any measure is necessary if it would save the life of just one child. Their hypocrisy is on full display as they are now attacking the right for caring about the life of Charlie Gard, the infant who has been sentenced to death by Europe's single payer health care system. Slate magazine is claiming that the right is using this issue to demonize single payer health care. They are also suggesting that the death of one infant is meaningless when compared to the alleged thousands that would die without government care. The left is so deluded in their thinking that they claim capitalist nations like America place value systems on human life based on what they have to offer society. This is despite the fact that it is a socialist country that has determined Charlie Gard should die because the Quality-Adjusted Life Care ratio isn't worth the cost because he is suffering too much. In other words, government bureaucrats have decided the fate of this child based on the cost of continued treatment and their definition of quality of life. Shouldn't the parents be involved in this decision? After all, they have raised 1.6 million dollars to put towards treatment.
We are reaching a point in America where the definition of quality living will no longer be defined by us but by government bureaucrats. The value of human life is no longer sacred, rather it is viewed by many as a burden if it is draining resources from society. This is because several generations of American students have been indoctrinated into socialist thinking within the halls of our so called higher institutions of learning. In many courses such as Social Work, Psychology and Sociology students are asked to consider the cost of keeping sick individuals alive while also discussing where the primary responsibility for these decisions should be made. They have already, through their primary education years, been taught to accept the idea that government plays a central role in societal evolution. The idea of freedom of choice and personal responsibility is all but stricken from the curriculum, they have become foreign ideas to today's indoctrinated liberal. If the notion that government is responsible as opposed to the individual for paying for health care, then the natural conclusion would be that government would also be responsible for life and death decisions. The dissimilarity between this and the ideals that America was founded must be contrasted against one another.
Freedom, from the American founders' perspective, meant taking personal responsibility for our own lives. The belief was that human beings had inherent value and inalienable rights to determine the outcome of our own destinies, among which were life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness. The exercise of freewill and the belief in God made freedom possible because people believed in making responsible choices and living moral lives. It stands to reason, from this perspective, that individuals rather than government should be responsible for issues pertaining to health and end of life choices. How does an individual retain the right to life if, for example, the power to end it because of a lack of government funding is made by a faceless bureaucrat? The answer to that question is obvious. If someone else is making that choice for you there is no right to life. You exist merely because the government hasn't decided to kill you yet.
Slate magazine argues that capitalist systems place a value on human life based on what they have to offer to society and this is simply not true. There is no one in America, for example, that is trying to raise money to take their sick family member to Europe for health care. It is the socialist system that ties the human life to a dollar amount and the cost of keeping an individual alive. It is the socialist system that seeks to define the value of human life because in socialism there is no God, only the state as the highest authority. In America, it is believed that human life is so valuable that we are able to make our own choices without the overburdening hand of government. In other words, not interfering in the free exercise of individual choice is the highest value that governments can place on human life.
In the case of Charlie Gard, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against any natural rights of the parents to exercise free choice in the care of their child. They decided, without the parent's input, what the value of Charlie's life was and what the quality of his life would be if kept alive. From their perspective, the compassionate thing to do is end the suffering and they determined that there was only one way to do that. It didn't matter that the parents had their own money and that there was potential treatment elsewhere. How does this demonstrate compassion for human life? It does the exact opposite in truth, it signals that we have taken a dark turn in how we define what it means to be alive. The responsibility for providing health care to the nation was given to the European government therefore; the rights to choose now belong to them. In other words, if you give up personal responsibility you are giving up your rights to be responsible for your life. This is what is really at stake when it comes to single payer health care. Currently, in America, we are facing trillions in debt and the left is attempting to convince us that we should give them the power to make our health care choices.Think about it America.
Article posted with permission from David RisseladaDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.