Since everyone is all lathered up about the “ethics debate of the day” (fat shaming), I find myself curious.
When was the last time the public GAVE a good goddamn about “ethics”?
People speed, talk on their cell phones while driving, engage in all sorts of “unethical behavior”…pretty much on a daily basis. Most rarely stop and think about it. They are much more likely to think of OTHER people’s behavior when the topics of ethics comes up, than their own. Several years back, the chief ethicist (yes, an actual job) at Princeton University caught NINE kinds of hell for suggesting that we were finally to the point of rationing health care…and that it was more ethical to treat people who could be cured, than to use the resources on those who cannot. It was difficult to think about. But it was a reality.
That dingbat Sarah Palin called it “death panels”. That would suggest that we all had equal access to basic health care now…and she whined about people killing off the handicapped. Nice try. But if you know anyone who ever waited for a transplant organ, you know a bit more about real life. Because the demand is so great, and the donor pool so small, doctors were forced to come up with a system of elimination. “First come, first served” wasn’t cutting it. So they came up with guidelines based in ethics.
Who gets the kidney? The 90 year old, or the 30 year old?
Bear in mind, a healthy kidney has a 30 year lifespan. (Bet you never knew that…donor organs are not forever.)
People who need organs due to personal abuse (lungs for smokers, kidneys or livers for addicts or alcoholics) are exempt from most donor lists, or given the very lowest priority. The logic is that you contributed to your illness. Someone who got kidney disease as a result of genetics did not. No one is saying you DESERVE it…but they are saying that someone else should not take second fiddle to your issues.
The final qualification is the one that most people find the most difficult.
Who will benefit the most? Who will get the longest run? Once you are on the lists, the sickest people tend to move to the top…with exceptions. Multiple organ failure may disqualify you. (Yes, they could give you a kidney, but if your liver is also failing, should they?)
Ethics is about asking hard questions.
But these days, people (that would be you and I) don’t seem to do that much. A friend said something interesting the other day. He said that “Liberals want to give everyone everything…pie in the sky.” And my immediate thought was “Yes, but conservatives love to pretend that the playing field is level, everyone has a shot, and “hard work” pays off…all the while ignoring how hard the working poor actually DO work…just to stay alive.”
It occurred to me later that the reason most large problems go unsolved is because they truly have no “easy” answers. And anyone who thinks they do is a drooling idiot. Education? The entire system needs to be re-done. No one wants to. They mule and whine about expenses, and not approving of the changes that might be made…and end up wasting more money on a broken system. Brilliant. Corrections? Get tough on crime! But don’t build more prisons, and don’t spend ANY money on the ones we have. Privatization was proven to be an expensive mistake with prisons…but citizens resent spending money on “criminals”. SO they spend MORE.
So now we’re back to ethics. Thinking of solutions to DIFFICULT questions. I think the “fat shaming” ethicist should go back to school. He is ignoring way too much. And he should be focusing on something useful…not something that gives people the excuse to do what they already did. Why don’t we shame people who don’t have organ donor cards? Why don’t we make people who hurt someone else in an accident put a special tag on their cars, so people will know what they did? They used to brand people—so the public would know what you did wrong. Now? We settle for encouraging cruelty.
My…we’ve come a long way.