Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Don't Ban Trans Fats

Posted by ARI Media at 3:09 PM

Irvine, CA—California recently became the first state to ban trans fats. Praising the ban, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, "California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats. Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California."

But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "This ban is really just an instance of nanny state paternalism. Keeping healthy should be the individual's responsibility.

"To the extent trans fats pose a real threat, these bans are unnecessary. No one is forced to consume trans fats and, indeed, under pressure from consumers, many food makers have voluntarily stopped using them.  

"The fact that some people will choose an unhealthy lifestyle is no justification for dictating what the rest of us can and can't eat. Individuals have a right to decide for themselves whether and how much trans fats are safe to eat—and they, in consultation with their doctors, are perfectly able to do so. But under the ban, those who occasionally enjoy the cheaper, tastier, longer-lasting foods trans fats make possible are being unjustly punished—along with the food industry—to protect the irrational from themselves.

"Instead of trying to 'lead the nation in fostering health' at the point of a gun, California should lead the nation in advancing individual responsibility and individual freedom. A good place to start would be rescinding the trans fats ban." 

### ### ###

Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, August 04, 2008

End the Fast Food Ban

Posted by ARI Media at 3:45 PM

Irvine, CA—The Los Angeles City Council approved a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles. The first ban of its kind, its aim is to address America's alleged obesity epidemic.

"This moratorium will do nothing to make people lose weight," said Don Watkins, a writer at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But it will expand the government's control over our lives.

"Despite the demonization of the fast-food industry, places like McDonald's and Wendy's provide Americans with a convenient source of tasty, affordable food. Millions of Americans enjoy these restaurants without ever becoming obese. To punish them--as well as potential fast-food restaurant owners and employees--in order to control what they eat is a shameful violation of their rights.

"The government has no business dictating where and what people eat, or what their waistlines should be. Those are decisions that properly belong to individuals. The L.A. City Council should rescind this disgraceful ban."

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, July 18, 2008

Medicare's 'Free Market' Facade

Posted by ARI Media at 10:21 PM

Irvine, CA—Some Republicans are bemoaning the passage of a new law they say undermines allegedly free-market elements of Medicare—in particular, Medicare Advantage, a program which gives seniors the option of receiving their government-financed care through private health plans. They claim that such "free market" elements are crucial to controlling the spiraling costs that are plaguing Medicare.

"The view that programs like Medicare Advantage have anything to do with free markets is a delusion," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "On a free market, each individual is responsible for his own—and only his own—health care. But Medicare Advantage is essentially no different from traditional Medicare: it forces some Americans to bankroll the health-care needs of other Americans. The inevitable result is our current health-care crisis.

"If the government guarantees health care to people, costs have to skyrocket. When someone else is footing the bill for health-care costs, consumers demand medical services without having to consider their real price. The artificially inflated demand this creates sends expenditures soaring out of control. It is irrelevant whether the government finances this spending spree directly, as it does with traditional Medicare, or indirectly, as with Medicare Advantage. In the end, the results are the same.

"The only way to fix the problems caused by government interference in medicine is to eliminate government interference in medicine—not to have some mishmash of government controls and market elements. By returning to a truly free system where each individual is responsible for his own health-care costs, we would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry, leading ultimately to high quality, affordable medical care for Americans. Let's start looking at ways to phase out government interference in medicine."

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Remarkable Activism—Addendum

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:23 PM

It occurs to me that in my last post I should have acknowledged not only Lin Zinser—the founder and director of FIRM—but also all the writers and activists who have embraced the organization’s mission and contributed to its success: Ari Armstrong, Linn Armstrong, Martin Buchanan, Betty Evans, Linda Gorman, Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Hanah Krening, Gina Liggett, James Schroeder, Brian Schwartz, Ralph Shnelvar, Russell Shurts, Richard Watts, and anyone else who has had a hand in the effort. Thank you, one and all, for your work in defense of individual rights!

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, March 07, 2008

Remarkable Activism

Posted by Craig Biddle at 9:11 PM

Lin Zinser, founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and contributor to TOS, has set an outstanding example of how to engage in principled activism. I’ll let her accomplishments speak for themselves—and add only this: Thank you, Lin, for defending man’s right to life.

FIRM: Year End Results
by Lin Zinser

Today we celebrate the achievements of the FIRM coalition over the past year.

FIRM started at the end of January 2007, and comprises a group of Colorado citizens with diverse careers, interests and ideas about what medicine and health insurance should (and could) look like in Colorado (and in America, for that matter). For some, this is the first time they have ventured into an ethical/political issue in public. Some want to stay out of politics, but are interested in what used to be called "moral suasion," persuading people through moral argument to change their beliefs about a particular issue.

What these people do agree with is that the government should stop regulating, controlling and intervening in decisions that individuals make about what medical procedures they should have, whether to buy health insurance, and if so, what type of health insurance is appropriate for them and their families, and who should be their provider of services, among the thousand other decisions that people make regarding their health every year.

I am very appreciative for all of you who have supported the efforts of FIRM, and want to provide you the tangible record of your efforts. Briefly, in a summary form, they are as follows. From January 30, 2007, to January 31, 2008, FIRM coalition supporters had the following public results:

Letters to the editor—48 (including one in "USA Today")
OpEds/Columns—26
Citations in Media—t least 10, perhaps more
Articles/Essays—2
Talks/Panel Discussions—9
Media appearances—6
Formal Proposal Submissions to 208 Commission—1
Public statements to 208 Commission—17
Letters to 208 Commission during their request for public comments—at least 5, undoubtedly more
Letter to Colorado Medical Society—1
Public Statements to Medical Organizations—Total 1
Public Statement to Colorado Joint Legislative Committee on Health and Human Services—1
Distribution of "Health Care is Not A Right", by Leonard Peikoff—over 1,000 copies

These are fabulous results. The war is not yet won, and it will be difficult. Last year, at this time, one of the popular ideas in the public was the individual mandate to purchase insurance. This year, at least, it looks like there will not be a push for the individual mandate to purchase insurance in the State of Colorado, and that is due in no small part to the efforts of FIRM supporters -- of their own, individual efforts. Individual mandates are not dead, but they are no longer thriving.

This year, it appears that the effort will be to expand government health insurance to all of the uninsured children in the state, increasing the number of people on government programs that don't work, giving families the illusion of coverage, at an expensive price tag for all, including taxpayers. We expect to see additional restrictions on insurance policies, including benefit mandates and rating issues as well. So there is work yet to do.

Below are the details that support the summary above. I applaud every name on the list, and I also applaud all of you who have written, sent comments and forwarded any of these efforts to friends, family, co-workers, doctors or other health-care providers. Please remember as you read the list, that not everyone on the list may absolutely be in 100% agreement with all aims of FIRM. FIRM is a coalition, and its ideas are expressed in its Statement of Principles and Goals. These individuals have expressed their adherence to some of these goals in these particular writings or public statements.

A special thanks to Paul Hsieh for blogging so diligently and for co-writing with me an excellent article on the state of medicine and health insurance in America.

I have used smaller type so that the blog is not so long.

Letters to the editor—Total 48 (including one in "USA Today")

Diana Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 2/5/2007, "Paul Campos: Health Care"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 3/3/2007, "Universal Health Care"
Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 4/16/2007, "End government health-care meddling"
Richard Watts, Craig Daily Press, 4/19/2007, "Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 4/24/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right"
Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 4/25/2007, "Health Care in Colorado"
Richard Watts, Rio Blanco Herald Times, 4/26/2007, "Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 4/30/2007, "Two Arguments Why Health Care is Not a Right"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 4/30/2007, "Fair Health Care"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 5/3/2007, "Medical insurance restrictions are costly"
Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 5/3/2007, "Health Care: The government would worsen it"
Ralph Shnelvar, Denver Post, 5/6/2007, "Debating health care systems in U.S., Canada"
Hanah Krening, Denver Post, 5/23/2007, "Proposals to reform health care in Colorado"
Paul Hsieh, Pueblo Chieftain, 5/27/2007, "Socialized Medicine"
Richard Watts, Steamboat Pilot, 5/30/2007, "Too Much Control"
Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 5/31/2007, "Health Care"
Richard Watts, Glenwood Springs Post-Independent, 5/31/2007, "Don't Allow the Government to Dictate Your Health Care"
Gina Liggett, Denver Post, 6/6/2007, "Free Market Health Care Reform"
Gina Liggett, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/9/2007, "There is No 'Right' to Any Health Care"
Gina Liggett, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 6/13/2007, "Need vs. Right"
Gina Liggett, Carbondale Valley Sentinel, 6/14/2007, "Need vs. Right"
Gina Liggett, Pueblo Chieftain, 6/17/2007, "Health Panel Stacked Deck"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 6/19/2007, "'Universal' Health Care"
Richard Watts, Grand Junction Free Press, 6/21/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right"
Richard Watts, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/22/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right"
Martin Buchanan, Denver Post, 6/27/2007, "Health Care For All: Whose Responsibility Is It?"
Gina Liggett, Rocky Mountain News, 6/28/2007, "Health Care is Not a 'Right', It's a Need"
Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 6/29/2007, "Social Responsibility"
Gina Liggett, USA Today, 6/29/2007, "Moore In Denial"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 7/2/2007, "Health Insurance"
Diana Hsieh, Colorado Springs Gazette, 7/3/2007, "People, not government, responsible for health"
Gina Liggett, Denver Post, 7/6/2007, "Health Care in the US"
Gina Liggett, Northern Colorado Business Report, 7/6/2007, "Free Health Care?!"
Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 7/7/2007, Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 7/12/2007, "In-Store Health Clinics"
Diana Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 7/17/2007, "Free Market Medicine is the Answer"
Gina Liggett, Colorado Confidential, 7/21/2007, "Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 7/31/2007, "Rising Health Care Costs"
Richard Watts, Denver Post, 7/31/2007, "SCHIP Program"
Lin Zinser, Rocky Mountain News, 8/7/2007, "Health Care in Colorado"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 8/13/2007, "Free Markets Key to Affordable Health Care"
James Schroeder, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 8/28/2007, "Single Payer Health Plan Would Be Costly and Unfair"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 8/31/2007, "Health Savings Accounts"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 9/7/2007, "Funding Health Care"
Russell Shurts, Grand Junction Free Press, 9/13/2007, "We Shouldn't Be Forced"
Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 9/24/2007, "We Do Not Have Free Market Care"
Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 1/4/2008, "Free Market Health Insurance Needed"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 1/17/2008, "Politically Controlled Insurance Is a Disease"

OpEds/Columns—Total 26

Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 2/11/2007, "Government-run auto repair? Yes!"
Ari Armstrong, Boulder Weekly, 2/15/2007, "Colorado Medical Socialism"
Ari Armstrong, "What's Right With Colorado Health Care", 4/8/2007, Independence Institute
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 4/28/2007, "Government controls violate rights, raise costs, cut access"
Paul Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 6/2/2007, "Free market holds key to ensuring quality for Coloradans"
Paul Hsieh, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/10/2007, "Socialized Medicine is Wrong for State"
Paul Hsieh, Pueblo Chieftain, 6/10/2007, ""Blue ribbon panel prescribes wrong approach on health care"
Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 6/11/2007, "Health socializers ignore benefits of liberty, harms of controls"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 8/5/2007, "Don't Model State Reforms on Medicaid: How Should Colorado Lawmakers Fix A Broken
System"
Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 8/7/2007, "Socialized Medicine Just Another Gang Operation"
Ralph Shnelvar, Boulder Daily Camera, 8/14/2007, "Your Government Doesn't Care"
Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 8/26/2007, "Warning: Medicaid is Hazardous to Your Health"
James Schroeder, Grand Junction Free Press, 8/23/2007, "Beware of unintended consequences of health care proposals"
Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 9/3/2007, "Reformers demand more labor for politically-run medicine"
Paul Hsieh, Ayn Rand Institute, 9/18/2007, "'Single-Payer' Health Care Is Anything but Free"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 9/26/2007, "Government Control Is Bad For Your Health"
Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 10/15/2007, "Insurance Mandates Threaten Your Health"
Linda Gorman, Independence Institute, 10/24/2007, "It's Official: Medicaid Managed Care Does Not Save Money"
James Schroeder, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 11/18/2007, "Expanding Medicaid Eligibility Will Mean Fewer Doctors Accept It"
Brian Schwartz, 11/21/2007, Independence Institute, "Ritter's health care cure would prove more crippling to Coloradans"
Linda Gorman, Independence Institute, 12/3/2007, "Health care "reform" in Colorado: Go home and die; it's cheaper"
James Schroeder, Grand Junction Free Press, 12/26/2007, "Here's Your Prescription"
Brian Schwartz, TCS Daily, 1/14/2008, "Compulsory Medical Insurance as Collective Punishment"
Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 1/21/2008, "More Political Control of Medicine Comes With Higher Costs"
Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong, Rocky Mountain News, 1/30/2008, "A Very Costly Health Care Solution"
Brian Schwartz, Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/31/2008, "Compulsory Insurance as Collective Punishment"

Citations in Media—At least 10, perhaps more

Lin Zinser quoted in Colorado Springs Gazette, 5/22/2007, "State health care commission narrows focus"
Paul Hsieh quoted on Mike Rosen Radio show, 6/7/2007
Brian Schwartz cited in Face the State, 8/27/2007, "Does the Effort to Provide Government Health Care For All Kids Leave Too Many
Behind?"
Brian Schwartz quoted in Denver Post, 8/31/2007, "Experts pan health savings accounts"
James Schroeder quoted in Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 10/12/2007, "Community Discusses Health Care Reform"
Brian Schwartz quoted in Rocky Mountain News, 10/5/2007, "Audience at health care forum backs single-payer proposal"
Ari Armstrong and Brian Schwartz cited in Rocky Mountain News, 10/13/2007, Jason Salzman Column
Brian Schwartz and Paul Hsieh quoted in Colorado Springs Gazette editorial, 1/3/2008, "Health Care, Ho! State Should Avoid Repeat of
Massachusetts"
Linda Gorman cited in Rocky Mountain News, 1/10/2008, "Mandatory Health Plan Participation Opposed"
Linda Gorman and Brian Schwartz cited in Face the State, 1/31/2008, "Minority Report Critical of Health Commission Findings"

Articles/Essays—Total 2

Paul Hsieh, Colorado Medicine (March-April 2007 issue), "An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians"
Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, The Objective Standard (Winter 2007-2008 issue), "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'"

Guest Speaker/Panel Discussions—Total 9

Lin Zinser, "The Crisis in Colorado Health Care", 4/17/2007, Colorado Springs Republican Women
Lin Zinser, Aurora Rotary Club, 6/11/2007
Lin Zinser, Grand Junction, 7/19/2007
Lin Zinser, Castle Rock Republicans, 7/20/2007
Lin Zinser, Jefferson County Town Hall Meeting, 8/18/2007
Lin Zinser, Greeley Centennial Rotary Club, 9/6/2007
Lin Zinser, El Paso County Republican Women, 9/17/2007
Lin Zinser, Mesa County Republicans, 9/21/2007
Lin Zinser, Gateway Rotary Club, 9/26/2007

Media appearances—Total 6

Lin Zinser, 5/10/2007, Amy Oliver Radio Show
Lin Zinser, 5/18/2007, John Caldera TV Show "Independent Thinking"
Brian Schwartz, 6/17/2007, John Andrews Radio Show
Lin Zinser, 7/26/2007, KNZZ Report Radio Show
Lin Zinser, 7/26/2007, Grand Junction TV 5:00 news
Lin Zinser, 9/6/2007, Amy Oliver Radio Show

Formal Proposal Submissions to 208 Commission—Total 1

Brian Schwartz, "Free Markets, Affordability & Individual Rights"

Public statements to 208 Commission Meetings—Total 17

Paul Hsieh (read by Lin Zinser), 1/30/2007
Brian Schwartz, 10/4/2007
James Schroeder, 10/11/2007
Lin Zinser, 1/30/2007, 1/31/2007, 2/21/2007, 3/28/2007, 4/27/2007, 5/17/2007, 5/18/2007, 6/19/2007, 7/18/2007, 8/23/07, 9/24/2007,
11/02/2007, 12/13/2007, 1/10/2008

Letters to 208 Commission during their request for public comments—Total at least 5, undoubtedly more

Lin Zinser, Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Betty Evans, Richard Watts, and others

Letter to Colorado Medical Society—Total 1

James Schroeder, November 2007

Public Statements to Medical Organizations—Total 1

Paul Hsieh, Arapahoe-Douglas-Elbert Medical Society, 6/21/2007

Public Statement to Colorado Joint Legislative Committee on Health and Human Services—Total 1

Lin Zinser, January 31, 2008

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Health Care, Moral Rights, and Selfish Action

Posted by Craig Biddle at 10:29 PM

Yaron Brook has an excellent article in Forbes titled “The Right Vision of Health Care.” Here’s an excerpt:

Prior to the government's entrance into the medical field, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market—no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans' rising productivity would have allowed them to buy better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn't for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product—for which each individual must assume responsibility—had given way to a view of health care as a "right," an unearned "entitlement," to be provided at others' expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

Today, what we have is not a system grounded in American individualism, but a collectivist system that aims to relieve the individual of the "burden" of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%.

The result of shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them was an explosion in spending.

In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a "right," demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the "right" to health care. And Republican politicians—not daring to challenge the notion of such a "right"—have, like Romney, Schwarzenegger and Bush, outdone even the Democrats in expanding government health care.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a "right" to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a "right" to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our founding fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services—no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a "right" to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

So long as Republicans fail to challenge the concept of a "right" to health care, their appeals to "market-based" solutions are worse than empty words. They will continue to abet the Democrats' expansion of government interference in medicine, right up to the dead end of a completely socialized system.

By contrast, the rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights would provide the moral basis for real and lasting solutions to our health care problems—for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the government incentives that created our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Read it all.

Brook here focuses primarily on the impracticality of socialized medicine and on the fact that no one has a right to the commodity that is health care, and he addresses these points soundly. I’d like to add that the producers of medicine and the providers of health care and health insurance have an absolute moral right to trade their products according to their own judgment. The reason why no one has a right to health care or health insurance is that these things morally belong to those who produced them—those who did the thinking and exerted the effort to get through medical school, to start a medical practice, to develop an insurance business, to create products that enhance and often save human lives. Their efforts do not render them slaves of the needy; rather, their efforts render them the rightful owners of the products of their efforts. So says the law of causality—and so says a proper morality.

The moral is the practical; respecting the rights of producers makes possible their productivity and thus our ability to trade the products of our efforts for the products of theirs. Violating the rights of the producers of health care and health insurance is not a way to acquire these goods and services; it is a way to diminish and eliminate them.

For more on this pressing issue, read “Moral Health Care vs. ‘Universal Health Care’” in the Winter issue of TOS—and pass the URL along to every active-minded person you know. With the exclusively statist field of candidates running for office in the coming elections, the only way to stop health care and health insurance from becoming fully socialized—and the only way to begin moving in the direction of a rights-respecting, flourishing, free market in these industries—is to generate sufficient principled advocacy of capitalism and opposition to socialism among the active-minded public.

These two articles—“The Right Vision of Health Care” and “Moral Health Care vs. ‘Universal Health Care’” are excellent tools for introducing people to the moral and practical nature of genuinely free markets. It takes only a few minutes to email a URL or two to all your thinking friends. Take action now. You may need a good doctor some day.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

After Ten Years, States Still Resist Assisted Suicide by Thomas Bowden

Posted by ARI Media at 1:17 PM

This month marks the tenth anniversary of Oregon’s pathbreaking assisted suicide law. But despite legislative proposals in California and elsewhere, Oregon remains the only state to have provided clear procedures by which doctors can help end their dying patients' pain and suffering while protecting themselves from criminal prosecution.

For a decade now, Oregon doctors have been permitted to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who makes written and oral requests, consults two physicians, and endures a mandatory waiting period. The patient's free choice is paramount throughout this process. Neither relatives nor doctors can apply on the patient's behalf, and the patient himself administers the lethal dose.

Elsewhere in America, however, the political influence of religious conservatism has thwarted passage of similar legislation, leaving terminal patients with nothing but a macabre menu of frightening, painful, and often violent end-of-life techniques universally regarded as too inhumane for use on sick dogs or mass murderers.

Consider Percy Bridgman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who, at 79, was entering the final stages of terminal cancer. Wracked with pain and bereft of hope, he got a gun and somehow found courage to pull the trigger, knowing he was condemning others to the agony of discovering his bloody remains. His final note said simply: "It is not decent for society to make a man do this to himself. Probably this is the last day I will be able to do it myself."

What lawmakers must grasp is that there is no rational basis upon which the government can properly prevent any individual from choosing to end his own life. When religious conservatives enact laws to enforce the idea that their God abhors suicide, they threaten the central principle on which America was founded.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed, for the first time in the history of nations, that each person exists as an end in himself. This basic truth--which finds political expression in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—means, in practical terms, that you need no one's permission to live, and that no one may forcibly obstruct your efforts to achieve your own personal happiness.

But what if happiness becomes impossible to attain? What if a dread disease, or some other calamity, drains all joy from life, leaving only misery and suffering? The right to life includes and implies the right to commit suicide. To hold otherwise--to declare that society must give you permission to kill yourself--is to contradict the right to life at its root. If you have a duty to go on living, despite your better judgment, then your life does not belong to you, and you exist by permission, not by right.

For these reasons, each individual has the right to decide the hour of his death and to implement that solemn decision as best he can. The choice is his because the life is his. And if a doctor is willing (not forced) to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient's mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way.

Religious conservatives' opposition to the Oregon approach stems from the belief that human life is a gift from the Lord, who puts us here on earth to carry out His will. Thus, the very idea of suicide is anathema, because one who "plays God" by causing his own death, or assisting in the death of another, insults his Maker and invites eternal damnation, not to mention divine retribution against the decadent society that permits such sinful behavior.

If a religious conservative contracts a terminal disease, he has a legal right to regard his own God's will as paramount, and to instruct his doctor to stand by and let him suffer, just as long as his body and mind can endure the agony, until the last bitter paroxysm carries him to the grave. But conservatives have no right to force such mindless, medieval misery upon doctors and patients who refuse to regard their precious lives as playthings of a cruel God.

Rational state legislators should regard the Oregon law’s anniversary as a stinging reminder that 49 of the 50 states have failed to take meaningful steps toward recognizing and protecting an individual's unconditional right to commit suicide.

Mr. Bowden is an analyst focusing on legal issues at the Ayn Rand Institute and is the author of The Enemies of Christopher Columbus.  A former attorney and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his Op-Eds have appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los AngelesDaily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Atlas Shrugged and Today's Healthcare Controversy

Posted by ARI Media at 5:07 PM

Irvine, CA—This month is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's novel about a group of high achievers who rebel against a society that shackles and condemns them. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, heralded the book's relevance to today's cultural-political debate. "While Atlas is 50 years old, it contains many timeless truths that are just as relevant today as they were when it was first published.

"Take the realm of health care. Most Republicans and Democrats are proposing forms of socialized medicine—under euphemisms like 'universal health care,' 'national health insurance,' etc. Everyone talks about how to protect patient's 'right' to health care—but no one talks about the rights of the doctors that create this value. This is a deadly evasion that one of the characters in Ayn Rand's novel, Dr. Thomas Hendricks, an eminent surgeon who quits the field, eloquently explains in describing his decision:

'Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only "to serve." . . . I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?'

"Countless outstanding doctors have already fled the field because of the sort of government coercion Dr. Hendricks describes," said Dr. Brook. "Anyone who truly cares about the state of American medicine should learn from Ayn Rand's character: we must liberate the providers of medical services and protect their right to practice medicine on their own terms and as they judge best."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, October 06, 2007

It's Time to Jump SCHIP

Posted by ARI Media at 10:41 AM

Irvine, CA—President Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was established to insure children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid but who could not afford private health insurance. The expanded program would have covered an additional four million children from households that have yearly incomes as high as $83,000. Bush declared that while he "strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP," he regards its expansion as a dangerous step toward socialized medicine.

"But by declaring his support for SCHIP," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Bush has already endorsed the perverse moral principle that is leading us toward socialized medicine.

"In trying to justify any government welfare program—whether social security, food stamps, or socialized medicine—advocates appeal to the fact that the intended recipients need the service but are unable to pay for it. Thus, the fact that some families 'need' health care but can't afford it entitles them to it—and so the government must institute programs like Medicaid and SCHIP to ensure that they get it. Such appeals count on the unstated principle that 'need' is the criterion of moral value and standard of just desserts.

"In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand exposes the viciousness of this moral principle, showing how it sacrifices the productive and successful to the incompetent and indolent. 'A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness—non-existence—as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defeat: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw—the zero. Who provides the account to pay these claims? Those who are cursed for being non-zeros, each to the extent of his distance from that ideal. Since all values are the product of virtues, the degree of your virtue is used as the measure of your penalty; the degree of your faults is used as the measure of your gain' (Atlas Shrugged).

"This moral inversion underlies the demand for socialized medicine, which says that some people's need of health care gives them the right to make slaves of doctors, insurance companies, and hospitals. If we are to avoid the destruction of our health care system promised by socialized medicine, we must reject the perverse moral principle at its root and restore freedom to America's health care system."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Anti-Smoking Paternalism: A Cancer on American Liberty by Don Watkins

Posted by ARI Media at 5:24 PM

Across the country, state and local governments are banning smoking on private property, including bars, restaurants, and office buildings. This is just the latest step in the government's war on smoking—a coercive campaign that includes massive taxes on cigarettes, advertising bans, and endless multi-billion dollar lawsuits against tobacco companies. This war is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

According to the anti-smoking movement, restricting people's freedom to smoke is justified by the necessity of combating the "epidemic" of smoking-related disease and death. Cigarettes, we are told, kill hundreds of thousands of helplessly addicted victims a year, and expose countless millions to unwanted and unhealthy secondhand smoke. Smoking, the anti-smoking movement says, in effect, is a plague, whose ravages can only be combated through drastic government action.

But smoking is not some infectious disease that must be quarantined and destroyed by the government. Smoking is a voluntary activity that every individual is free to choose to abstain from (including by avoiding restaurants and other private establishments that permit smoking). And, contrary to those who regard any smoking as irrational on its face, cigarettes are a potential value that each individual must assess for himself. Of course, smoking can be harmful—in certain quantities, over a certain period of time, it can be habit forming and lead to disease or death. But many individuals understandably regard the risks of smoking as minimal if one smokes relatively infrequently, and they see smoking as offering definite value, such as physical pleasure.

Are they right? Can it be a value to smoke cigarettes—and if so, in what quantity? This is the sort of judgment that properly belongs to every individual, based on his assessment of the evidence concerning smoking's benefits and risks, and taking into account his particular circumstances (age, family history, profession, tastes, etc.). If others believe the smoker is making a mistake, they are free to try to persuade him of their viewpoint. But they should not be free to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to smoke, any more than they should be able to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to drink alcohol or play poker. The fact that some individuals will smoke themselves into an early grave is no more justification for banning smoking than that the existence of alcoholics is grounds for prohibiting you from enjoying a drink at dinner.

Implicit in the war on smoking, however, is the view that the government must dictate the individual's decisions with regard to smoking, because he is incapable of making them rationally. To the extent the anti-smoking movement succeeds in wielding the power of government coercion to impose on Americans its blanket opposition to smoking, it is entrenching paternalism: the view that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to control every aspect of those lives.

This state is well on its way: from trans-fat bans to bicycle helmet laws to prohibitions on gambling, the government is increasingly abridging our freedom on the grounds that we are not competent to make rational decisions in these areas—just as it has long done by paternalistically dictating how we plan for retirement (Social Security) or what medicines we may take (the FDA).

Indeed, one of the main arguments used to bolster the anti-smoking agenda is the claim that smokers impose "social costs" on non-smokers, such as smoking-related medical expenses—an argument that perversely uses an injustice created by paternalism to support its expansion. The only reason non-smokers today are forced to foot the medical bills of smokers is that our government has virtually taken over the field of medicine, in order to relieve us inept Americans of the freedom to manage our own health care, and bear the costs of our own choices.

But contrary to paternalism, we are not congenitally irrational misfits. We are thinking beings for whom it is both possible and necessary to rationally judge which courses of action will serve our interests. The consequences of ignoring this fact range from denying us legitimate pleasures to literally killing us: from the healthy 26-year-old unable to enjoy a trans-fatty food, to the 75-year-old man unable to take an unapproved, experimental drug without which he will certainly die.

By employing government coercion to deprive us of the freedom to judge for ourselves what we inhale or consume, the anti-smoking movement has become an enemy, not an ally, in the quest for health and happiness.

Don Watkins is a writer and research coordinator at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, October 01, 2007

U.N. Role Reversal for Bush, Sarkozy by David Holcberg

Posted by ARI Media at 10:26 PM

President Bush's speech at the United Nations on Tuesday betrayed a deep misunderstanding of the nature of rights and the proper role of the U.S. government [Foreign, "U.N. Role Reversal for Bush, Sarkozy," September 26,2007].

According to Mr. Bush, everyone "has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food and clothing and housing and medical care." Also, according to Mr. Bush, the American government has a duty to provide for those needs, whether in America or anywhere else on the planet.

But Mr. Bush's vision of an American paternalistic state with duties towards the world's needy is in direct opposition to the vision and ideals of America's founders.

Contrary to the president and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no such thing as a "right" to a given standard of living, to food, clothing, housing, medical care, or any other value. In other words, there is no such thing as a right to the values created by others. What individuals do have is a right to work to produce those values free of coercion by their neighbors or by the state.

Contrary to Mr. Bush, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not "a landmark achievement in the history of human liberty"—it is a perversion of the true meaning and purpose of individual rights.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Don't Ban Fast Food by Don Watkins

Posted by ARI Media at 10:23 PM

The proposed two-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles will do nothing to make people lose weight. But it will make their lives less free and fulfilling.

Despite the demonization of the fast-food industry, places such as McDonald's and Wendy's provide Americans with a convenient source of tasty, affordable food. Millions of Americans enjoy these restaurants without ever becoming obese. To punish them—as well as potential fast-food restaurant owners and employees—in order to control what they eat is a shameful violation of their rights.

The government has no business dictating where and what people eat, or what their waist-lines should be. Those are decisions that properly belong to individuals. The Los Angeles City Council should reject this disgraceful ban.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Congress Should Not Dictate Mental Health Benefits

Posted by ARI Media at 8:26 PM

Irvine, CA—By a unanimous vote, the Senate has approved the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, which would forbid employers to offer less favorable insurance coverage for mental illness than for physical illness. Support for a similar measure is widespread in the House, so passage of a new federal law this year seems likely.

“This bill violates an employer’s right to set the terms of the benefits he offers," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. “The bill’s supporters point to the obvious fact that mental illness is as real and as destructive as physical illness. But employers have no duty to offer coverage for all ills, or any ills; they have an absolute right to limit or deny coverage on any basis. For example, many employers are reluctant to foot the bill for what they see as open-ended therapies whose great expense is not justified by any certain cure.”

Back in 1996, Congress enacted the first federal Mental Health Parity Act, which prohibited employers from imposing lower annual or lifetime limits for mental treatment, as compared to physical treatment. The new bill, which would apply to employers of more than 50 people, mandates equal coinsurance, co-pays, deductibles, and equal limits on frequency and duration of treatments.

“This legislation shows the insidious process by which creeping government regulation transforms independent employers and insurance companies into servants of politicians,” Bowden said. “Health care is not a right. It is a value offered by physicians, insurance companies, and employers who have a right to set their own terms of trade. The government should be phasing out, not expanding its coercive regulatory control over medical care."

Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. His Op-Eds have appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

HillaryCare 2.0: More of the Poison that Is Killing Our Healthcare System

Posted by ARI Media at 10:24 AM

Irvine, CA—Hillary Clinton has announced her new “universal healthcare” plan, which she claims will solve the problem of high insurance premiums. “You’ll never again have to worry about finding affordable coverage,” says Mrs. Clinton. “Your coverage will be guaranteed—if you pay your premiums and follow the rules, your insurance company will be required to renew at a price you can afford.”

Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, denounced the proposal. “Like all other ‘universal healthcare’—that is, socialized medicine—schemes, Mrs. Clinton’s is guaranteed to lead to disaster if implemented, because it ignores the basic requirement of medical progress and falling prices: freedom for doctors, patients, and insurance companies.

“Health care is a mess because it is one of America’s most controlled and socialized industries—beginning with the fact that we are all forced to pay for one another’s health care through Medicare and the government-induced third-party-payer system. In the name of the individual’s ‘right’ to health care and the government’s ’responsibility’ to provide it, the government has reached its tentacles into every facet of medicine, from how many doctors are allowed to be licensed to which medical professionals may perform what procedures, to what procedures insurance companies must provide on their plans.

“Mrs. Clinton and other advocates of socialized medicine all seek to ‘solve’ this problem by adding more government coercion to the system. For example, her ‘guarantee’ that ‘your insurance company will be required to renew at a price you can afford’ is a veiled call for price-controls—and a prescription for insurance companies to be exposed to a bankrupting combination of huge liabilities with comparatively low premiums.

“If anyone is interested in fixing American health care, there is only one solution: remove coercion from the system. If medicine were left free, with individuals responsible for paying for their own care and insurance, and America’s businessmen, doctors, and educators liberated to offer it at all different price points, we would see quality and price improvements like those for flat-panel television sets. Indeed, we already see this in the few realms of medicine that are left free; laser eye surgery, for example, has improved dramatically over the years while prices have fallen. We could see such developments with medical care as a whole—as soon as we agree to take responsibility for our own health, and get the government out of it.”

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post