John F. Stott: What's Government Got To Do With It?

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by John F. Stott

A recent letter described in vivid detail about the plight of end-of-life hospital care for seniors. The letter then went on to talk about how government could help. How so? More regulations? Legislation of our choices? How could government possibly bring anything positive to the table?

Well, for starters, a doctor or a family won't feel comfortable withdrawing care in the absence of a living will, unless there's a legal precedent to do so. A doctor won't look kindly on turning off the ventilator if he or she thinks there'll be a lawsuit. For this reason, a national policy that provides a framework for what constitutes "end-of-life," is not a bad idea. Because of the serious issues involved, guidelines should be developed on a federal level. Also, a family won't feel right withdrawing care if there's even a small chance that the sick family member might recover. As it is now, definitions of "viability" vary from state to state, but perhaps that's not such a good idea. Thus, it's perfectly legitimate for "The Government" to set policy regarding protecting the rights of doctors and family members who elect to withdraw care.

This is all very well, you say, but the final decision should be with the family. Of course it should, and no one has suggested otherwise. A national health care policy can set guidelines, but obviously, what's right for a 93-year-old man who has suffered only a mild stroke will not be right for a 53-year-old kept alive only by machines. Has anyone suggested anything different? No. Certainly not the President and none of the current plans before Congress suggest a removal of family choice in such matters.

So what role can the federal government play in end-of-life senior care? The answer is "Not much, but a little." And that's what President Obama has suggested. However, if you listen to the radio, you'd think the President harbors some great desire to expand government for its own sake. The question is, where do people get this notion? Where and when has the President proposed grand, sweeping plans, an alphabet soup of new agencies, or gone off spouting federal solutions for all our problems? I've heard no suggestions from Obama that sound like he wants to get the fed into everything, or that betray some heartfelt interest in dragging the government into all our decisions.

If anything the President's response to big crisis have been rather timid. Rather than creating new rules to force his will on Wall Street, the President bribed, then begged the markets to begin loaning to us again. And what the President sees as a health care plan is amounting to giving a little something to everyone, and in the process, pleasing no one. The President's automobile plans proved to be a get-in/get-out dance around bankruptcy, certainly not a repeat of Amtrak or putting the fed squarely into the center of the car business. Regarding Afghanistan, the President appears to be in a listening mood, listening to his generals, and to the American people. For this reason, Obama is now poised to shrink the Afghan mission to something that the majority of Americans will support. In all these decisions, I see no evidence that the President has a preference for expanding the role of government for its own sake.

Still, the radio commentators hate big government, and see Obama as its chief agent. It's not a very principled fight, because the government-hater can nurse his wounded liberty while enjoying all the conveniences and safety nets that "Big Government" provides. He can carry on his tirade over a cup of coffee that was made from, well, coffee, rather than some cheap filler that a clever manufacturer thought would taste the same. That coffee was brewed in a percolator that won't explode under regular use, even if cheaper materials might have helped its maker's bottom line. The government-hater can continue his rant driving in a car equipped with a gas tank that won't ignite in a minor collision, and pick up his heart medication at a pharmacy that is not allowed to sell him sugar pills, even if the pharmacist believed in his God-given right to make a fast buck. And when our hater is back home, he can harangue his children to go study their schoolbooks, books that, by law, must meet a minimal academic standard, and he can then bark at his wife to cook him dinner made from food that, by regulation, must bear some semblance to what the label says it is. And finally, he can rest in his easy chair and enjoy sitcoms free of swear words and T&A. And should our government-hater take up his tirade at work and offend a fellow employee, there's a host of government agencies that regularly remind employers of workers' rights to unfettered political speech.

All these luxuries are his because of government, because of regulations, because of rules mandated by the much-hated "fed." But none of these realities will deter the true Government-hater/Obama-hater, who will be on-point bright and early, every day and all day, regardless of the facts.

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY

Technorati Tags: Guest Contribution