Bolting On The Chains
First, the latest grab for power by the “bioethic professionals” – a.k.a. Christ-hating utilitarian government-licensed priesthood-guild.
I’ll be quoting the entire article, as I don’t care for it to disappear.
I have been following — and criticizing — the bioethics movement for more than twenty years. As I see it, the mainstream view seeks to impose a utilitarian philosophy on both the ethics of medicine and the public policies of health care, including where “common morality” — as the views of the great unwashed are sometimes denigrated in the field — disagrees. Legalized euthanasia, free and unfettered abortion at all stages of gestation, infanticide, eugenic embryo engineering, invidious forms of health-care rationing based on “quality of life,” etc., are all part of the mainstream bioethics agenda, or at the very least are seen as respectable advocacy memes.
The Great Impediment
Catholic medical practice is the great impediment to pulling off this culture-subverting mission. Indeed, Catholic hospitals were established — at great private expense — with the explicit purpose of providing medical care consistent with the sanctity of life ethic of the Catholic Church. For example, Catholic hospitals will not sterilize patients, participate in abortion, or assist suicides. Similarly, some Catholic doctors refuse to practice outside their faith precepts. (Of course, these doctors should always make their faith-based approach clear to prospective patients.)
Most bioethicists, it is fair to say, seek to destroy Catholic institutions’ and professionals’ medical conscience rights and force them (and other religious or conscience dissenters) to adhere to the advancing utilitarian bioethical imperative. Thus, in the last few years repeated articles have been published in the world’s most influential medical and bioethics journals arguing that doctors are ethically bound to provide all establishment-approved medical interventions a patient wants — even when it violates their own faith beliefs — or find a doctor who will (sometimes called an “effective referral”). Meanwhile, to the applause of many bioethicists, the ACLU has mounted repeated lawsuits against Catholic hospitals, charging them with discrimination for practicing Catholic medicine.
No Place Whatsoever
Now, the well known Canadian bioethicist Udo Schuklenk, writing in the very influential Journal of Medical Ethics, openly declares that religion has no place whatsover in medicine or a doctor’s approach to providing patient care. From, “Professionalism Eliminates Religion as a Proper Tool for Doctors Rendering Advice to Patients”:
Doctors are sought out by patients as professionals in their professional role, and not as private individuals with particular other political, moral, religious or other commitments.
Schuklenk knows that isn’t true. Some patients seek out particular doctors precisely because they want a physician who agrees with their religious views and whom they can trust to treat them consistently therewith. But he doesn’t care:
Doctors, in their role as doctors, have no professional competencies when it comes to religion, even if there was such a thing as professional competencies in the context of faith to begin with. Accordingly, when doctors are seeing a patient in their professional role, the healthcare professionals’ private life, and that includes their ideological, non-professional commitments, should be kept out of their professional life and conduct…That is so, even in case of particular doctors who happen to share the religious or other ideological preferences of (some of) their patients. That shared preference does not render them experts on that subject matter. Accordingly, it does not belong in the healthcare professional–patient relationship.
Make No Mistake About It
Schucklenk is clearly advocating that Catholic (or other faithful) patients shouldn’t have the right to choose doctors they know practice medicine consistently with their own faith beliefs — because he believes that doctors should be prevented from so doing. Moreover, removing all personal religion from medical practice would force religious doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and others to serve as functionaries of medicine’s increasingly dominant utilitarian paradigm — even in circumstances in which the professionals believes that participation in the requested intervention would be a grievous sin. Wow.
If Schucklenk’s approach were ever fully incorporated into our health-care system — which, make no mistake, is the plan — it would obliterate the very point of Catholic hospitals. That would drive many Catholics and other religious believers out of the medical professions (and inhibit talented young people who believe in the sanctity of human life from entering), while advancing a rigid utilitarian bioethics that would victimize the most weak and vulnerable patients — not coincidentally, the very people whom “Catholic” medicine most assiduously protects.Bioethics Intends to Destroy Catholic Healthcare, by Wesley J. Smith
As I wrote elsewhere:
The goal is basically anti-Christian, to eliminate all Christian considerations in medicine, and to ban Christians (including Catholics) from seeing Christian medical advice and behaviour. This hatred will continue so long as medicine is government-funded, and government-licensed.
And keep an eye on that “I am a PROFESSIONAL _- that is, a government-certified member of a priesthood-guild – an that’s why I have every right to defy and ignore what YOU want.” attitude.
It isn’t about healing, as defined by Christ.
It’s about power, as defined by those who hate Christ.
Naturally, the anti-Christian freedom-hating ideologue is based in Canada, land of Free Health Care – and where private health care is banned for the unwashed public.
Yes, the health care is increasingly substandard: government-funded means bloated with expenses and regulations, all to protect the Professional (Atheist-priestly) Class, assorted Corporate Backers, and insure their support for the State.
Yes, the “health care” is morphing along nicely to “killing care“, as euthanasia is first freed of all limitations… and soon enough, will become a requirement (initially optional, and later mandatory) for all the Useless Eaters, Wasting State Money.
Cutting the Chains
“Before those programs [Medicare, Medicaid] came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility toward the less fortunate, and free medical care for the poor was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by-the-script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.”
“… thousands of privately funded charities provided health services for the poor. I worked in an emergency room where nobody was turned away for lack of funds.”Ron Paul
Christians who don’t care to be enslaved by their
Kindly Hateful Masters, will have to learn once again to stand on their own two feet. This includes the personal, face-to-face and accountable (as opposed to the impersonal and unaccountable by state-protected guilds) care of the poor and those who are unable to easily afford health care.
In the early 20th century, medical care was private, and many Canadians contracted with doctors to provide annual medical care at a cost of one day’s wages.
In 2018, Canada’s socialized health care cost approximately $4,389 per capita.The False Promise of Canada’s Health Care System, by Lee Friday
This means remembering what was lost. The various government
ghouls guilds — academic, corporate, legal and medical — have no interest in reminding you how free your ancestors were, so you will have to do the work yourself.
To Hate the Chains, Feel Their Weight
Some help (using Canada as a model, for a process that occurred around the Western World):
Most people (including rank and file doctors in the 19th century) are content to pursue their goals through voluntary interactions with others, and do not claim the right to tell others what they can and cannot do. However, there is always a minority who detest voluntary exchange on the free market, preferring to outlaw this activity by using government legislation to enrich themselves by dictating the terms of trade. This describes the medical establishment in the 19th century (and today). In Canadian Medicine, A Study In Restricted Entry (pp 195, 197), Ronald Hamowy wrote:
By the 1890s, lodge practice had reached sufficient proportions to become a common subject of condemnation in the medical journals. Of particular concern was the “cut-rate” fees for services charged by lodge practitioners, with a concomitant reduction in demand for full-priced medical services.
. . . the Canada Lancet, in commenting on the subject in 1905, noted: Just think for a moment how absurd it appears that a doctor should agree to attend a lodge of 200 men for $1.25 per year and supply the medicine! We do not hesitate to say that he would be better off by declining the $250 and take what he can get in the ordinary way.
What the Canada Lancet was really saying was “How absurd it is that a doctor should have the freedom to voluntarily negotiate fees with the riff raff. We do not hesitate to say that his selfish actions are preventing the superior medical establishment from raising their own incomes by dictating fees to the general public.”
The medical establishment wanted to raise their incomes by restricting the number of doctors (in part, by imposing irrelevant licensing criteria), but the public was not easily fooled.The Myth They Used to Pass Canada’s Universal Healthcare, by Lee Friday
Estimated government expenditures for universal health care in Canada in 2016 were about $4,000 per capita. (This does not include private costs for dentists, alternative practitioners (e.g., naturopaths), prescription drugs, private health insurance for non-hospital/physician services, etc.) Additionally, there are unseen costs which fall disproportionately on the backs of the poor.
If we consider the hours of a normal working week, it has been estimated that the cost of ‘waiting’ per patient in Canada was approximately $1,759 in 2016. Even half that amount, say $900, would be felt most severely by the poor when they are unable to work because they are stuck on the government’s waiting list for health care. And remember (Part 1) that the government’s justification for imposing medicare in the first place was that (according to them) “many poorer people just did not get care when it was needed.” Thus, the government has not only reneged on its health care commitment to poor people, but in so doing, it is making poor sick people even poorer.
Many Canadian consumers of so-called universal health care are left wanting, as they have universal access to waiting lists, but not to actual health care. This is a result of the perverse economic incentives embedded within the coercive institution of government versus the positive economic incentives embedded in the free enterprise system, a system from which the provision of health care is outlawed by the monopolistic government. This will be further explored in Part 3.Universal Health Care in Canada: A Colossal Government Failure, by Lee Friday
The government has interposed itself as a third party between consumers of health care (patients) and producers of health care (e.g. doctors, nurses). This prevents consumers from effectively expressing their preferences and negates the incentives of producers to satisfy those preferences. It is the arbitrary commands of bureaucrats, not the voluntary interactions between consumers and producers, that determines the quantity and quality of health care to be produced. And because health care is ‘free’ at the point of service, millions of ‘consumers’ rush to the doctor with every little ache and sniffle. At zero cost, consumers are no longer incentivized to be judicious, demand explodes, health care is rationed by unaccountable bureaucrats, and thousands die as a result of the government’s inefficiency.
The government’s response to inefficiency is always a political grab for more tax dollars, accompanied by speeches from politicians and bureaucrats promising better service. That is to say, speeches from politicians incentivized to win your vote, and speeches from bureaucrats incentivized to increase their own power through larger budgets and bureaucracies which they control. And, as we have seen in Part 2, the actual provision of health care declines as the government’s health care budget rises. Such are the perverse incentives embedded within the coercive institution of government.
No One Has a “Right” to Health Care
Economist/historian Murray Rothbard wrote,
… the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights.
Everyone naturally owns their own body, which means they have a right to keep the fruits of their own labour (wages i.e. property), and the right to voluntarily exchange their property for the property of another person on terms mutually agreeable to the two parties.
It follows then that I do not have a right to food, clothing, health care, or any other material good because such a ‘right’ forces someone else to provide these things for me, which is a clear violation of the property rights of another person. However — and this is the important distinction — I do have a right to acquire any of these things through my own efforts, including mutually agreeable voluntary exchanges with others, so long as I do no harm to other persons or their property. In this way, I am not interfering with the efforts of others to acquire the things they desire.
There is no other definition of rights consistent with morality. However, we are constantly reminded of a so-called “right” to health care by smooth-talking politicians and bureaucrats who have a vested interest in monopolizing its provision. The duplicity of these charlatans is painfully clear. For decades, their bureaucracies have feasted on billions of tax dollars while thousands of dead Canadians are still waiting to exercise their ‘right’ to health care. They are dead because the government denied them the right to use their own money to save their own lives by purchasing private health care in the Canadian marketplace.The Solution to Canada’s Failed Universal Health Care System: Consumer and Physician Freedom by Lee Friday
Money, Justice, and Property
Note that, all through Lee Friday’s writing, he focuses on freedom and stolen money. This is quite right and good… but he overlooks the core goal of the State’s hunger to monopolize health care and ban all private providers: control.
The State sees itself as the Lord and God of Society. And any real God must be able to heal the masses, no?
And ban the existence of any false gods that restrict its authority and power.
Like Jesus Christ, for example.
And by driving out the people who – by obeying His word – show His face in the world. Drive the Christians out of health care (and law, and science, and everywhere outside of their church ghettos
to be cleared out later), and no name but the name of the State will be publicly exalted and praised.
“There is only one Source of the Law, and One Source of Healing (a.k.a. Salvation, “salve”) in the Real World: the Secular, pointedly anti-Christian State.”
Right now, the public cares nothing about any of this.
After all, the public — following the Christian example — has sent their children to public school, where they have been taught to despise Christ, so why should they care about Justice and the Protection of the Poor and Liberty?
What the public cares about is Free Stuff, Paid for by The Rich.
And they LOVE Free Health Care! Just as they love Gods they can see, and laws that justify socialist theft.
So the slavery will continue, and the chains will be tightened, until the money is gone.
Christians and their children must prepare now, to lead the way after the money is gone.
Of course, bearing children and homeschooling them is a must. Christian societies (not only churches) are needed as well: the Body of Christ must care for each other, in a way that Christ approves.
(As opposed to God-haters.)
And keep on eye on the Professional, State-Certified Educational Priesthood, eager to eliminate all Christian education of their own children. Just as the Professional, State-Certified Medical Priesthood hate all Christian care of Christian people… and any of the poor who wish to partake.
In various places, Christians by their slackness and unconcern to extend the Kingdom of God in this world have allowed their universities, their medical institutions, their law societies to be stolen.
Work must be done, not so much to take the stolen goods back (by now, they are hopelessly corrupt, and unredeemable), but to create new institutions, new networks, that will stand when the government money runs out.