Princeton Prof: Kill severely disabled infants under Obamacare

www.wnd.com

cute-baby-surprisedIn a radio interview Sunday, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.Singer contended the health-care system under Obamacare should be more overt about rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”

Throughout the interview, Singer repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it.”

Singer was speaking on the “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.

The Princeton professor is known for his controversial views on abortion and infanticide. He essentially argues the right to life is related to a being’s capacity for intelligence and to hold life preferences, which in turn is directly related to a capacity to feel and comprehend pain and pleasure.

Klein’s interview with Singer started out on the topic of the professor’s new book about charity, “The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.”

The conversation turned to the issue of terminating disabled infants when Klein asked whether the Singer believes health-care rationing under Obamacare will become more prevalent.

Peter Singer

Singer told Klein rationing is already happening, explaining doctors and hospitals routinely make decisions based on costs.

“It’s different in the U.S. system, in a way, because it doesn’t do this overtly; maybe it doesn’t do it as much. And the result is it spends about twice as much on health care as some other countries for very little extra benefit in terms of the outcome.”

Klein quoted from a section of Singer’s 1993 treatise “Practical Ethics,” titled “Taking Life: Humans.”

In the section, Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.”

Asked whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the U.S. under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.”

He continued:

If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.

I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child.

So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants.

And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.

Klein followed up by asking whether the killing of severely disabled infants should be institutionalized to reduce health-care costs.

Asked Klein: “I know that it happens and it happens certainly if the family gives consent. But do you think in the future in order to ensure a more fair rationing of health-care and health-care costs, that it should actually be instituted more? The killing of severely disabled babies?”

Singer responded such a plan would be “quite reasonable” if it saved money that can be used for better purposes. He contended that most people would say they don’t want their premiums to be higher “so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

Singer’s full response:

I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.

I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”

And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”

Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.

Advertisements

Eugenicists Rejoice: More Black Babies Aborted Than Born in NYC

originally posted 21 Feb 2014

breitbart.com

On Friday, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Office of Vital Statistics released a report titled “Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes.” As expected, the report showed an exceedingly high number of abortions and an exceedingly low number of births. 

But the report also showed something more disturbing: a vast majority of the abortions came from the black and Hispanic communities – and in the black community, births were outnumbered by abortion by 6,570. Overall, 42.4% of abortions in the city were of black children; another 31% came from the Hispanic community.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, some 30% of all abortions in the United States are performed on black women, and another 25% are performed on Hispanic women. Rev. John J. Raphael of Howard University has calculated that approximately 13 million black children have been killed before birth since Roe v. Wade, representing a population decrease in the black community of nearly one quarter. Almost 40% of all black pregnancies currently end in abortion.

This was the dream of the population control eugenicists’ whose heirs would eventually force abortion into the American mainstream. The early proponents of population control in the United States were eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who stated, “[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” 

In 1922, she expanded on this perverse idea: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” 

Sanger may not have targeted blacks alone for population control, but if targeting poverty meant targeting blacks and other racial minorities, she was certainly for it. And while Sanger was anti-abortion – she saw birth control as a preventive measure against abortion – she believed that population control in the black community was a necessity. Her heirs would broaden her concern with birth control into a program for full-scale abortion legalization.

This program was ineffective for decades, thanks to the rise of the black middle class and the stability of the black family structure. By the mid-1960s, half of black Americans had moved into the middle class, according to Kay Hymowitz; in 1965, just 24 percent of black children were born to single mothers. Those numbers still lagged behind the statistics for white Americans, which prompted the left to propose an entire system of government intervention to rectify the imbalance.

The result, however, was precisely the opposite of what was intended: thanks to the rise of the welfare state, which incentivized single motherhood, as well as a cultural shift discarding traditional family structure as a standard to be emulated, the black single motherhood rate skyrocketed. Black entry into the middle class stalled. Today, 73 percent of all children born in the black community are born out of wedlock. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 35 percent of black Americans live in poverty. In 1966, the black poverty rate was 41 percent.

There is no doubt that single motherhood has statistically crippled economic development in the black community. But instead of recognizing that single motherhood is an effect of both declining standards of morality and government benefits programs designed to excuse that decline, the left has blamed children themselves.  President Barack Obama infamously characterized the notion of one of his daughters experiencing an unplanned pregnancy as being “punished with a baby.” On the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama declared abortion a vital element in allowing “everyone… the freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.” And on the economic front, economist Steven Levitt has justified abortion as a way of fighting crime.

The result has been success far beyond the dreams of the social Darwinian eugenicists whose ideological heirs would eventually make abortion in America a booming industry. It just took an undermining of the social order by government intervention to accomplish that horrifying feat.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.