https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/July-August-2020-Ezine-web.pdf
“If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” So said Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University from 1795 to 1817. He was speaking passionately against Edward Jenner’s new medical invention called vaccination. It was not then a particularly extremist view. Vaccination and inoculation, though highly successful, were denounced by many religious leaders. Today, during the pandemic, religious fundamentalists will not say that God changed His mind and no longer condemns medical interventions that can save lives. Most, but not all, will simply find interpretations of their holy book that oppose those of previous generations. It isn’t hard to do. You just focus on one particular passage and ignore a contradictory passage.
There are religious reasons to decline a vaccine, there are valid reasons to decline a vaccine, but there are no valid religious reasons to decline a vaccine. I think an adult should have maximum decision-making freedom on issues that involve him or her, alone. However, since all viruses are contagious, ethical considerations demand taking into account how declining a vaccine may affect others. This includes COVID-19, should a legitimate vaccine be found.
“If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” So said Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University from 1795 to 1817. He was speaking passionately against Edward Jenner’s new medical invention called vaccination. It was not then a particularly extremist view. Vaccination and inoculation, though highly successful, were denounced by many religious leaders. Today, during the pandemic, religious fundamentalists will not say that God changed His mind and no longer condemns medical interventions that can save lives. Most, but not all, will simply find interpretations of their holy book that oppose those of previous generations. It isn’t hard to do. You just focus on one particular passage and ignore a contradictory passage.
There are religious reasons to decline a vaccine, there are valid reasons to decline a vaccine, but there are no valid religious reasons to decline a vaccine. I think an adult should have maximum decision-making freedom on issues that involve him or her, alone. However, since all viruses are contagious, ethical considerations demand taking into account how declining a vaccine may affect others. This includes COVID-19, should a legitimate vaccine be found.
During this pandemic, it makes sense to discuss how to decide who gets what kind of healthcare. We generally accept that people with more money can afford more things, and I don’t have a problem with this, except when we treat a necessity like quality healthcare as if it were just a consumer product. I wish all Americans would recognize the need to make healthcare both a moral and financial priority.
I stand with progressive people of faith who want to expand healthcare coverage, though I don’t need biblical justification. If I did, I could quote from the Genesis 4 myth. After Cain murders Abel (interestingly, the first murder in the Bible follows the first religious act), God asks Cain where Abel is. Cain resorts to the familiar tactic of answering a question with a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God did not respond to Cain, but had I been God, I would have said, “Damn right you are your brother’s keeper. That’s an integral part of my post-garden healthcare plan.”
I feel the same about separation of church and healthcare as I do about separation of church and state. People have the right to follow the god of their choice, and denominations have the right to make rules for their flocks. A religion need not accept government funds, but any money a religion receives from our secular government should only be used for secular purposes.
Under current law, people may have some “spiritual care” covered by Medicare and Medicaid, including for Christian Scientists who are prayed for each other when they are sick. Numerous children have died while receiving this “spiritual care,” when modern science could easily have saved their lives. Placing the government stamp of approval on non-scientific practices such as “spiritual care” places lives at risk.
Society has a special duty to protect children from abuse and physical harm, without regard to religious motivation. If a child dies from a burst appendix because parents neglected to seek effective medical care, it makes no difference to me whether the parents preferred instead to pray or watch television. I don’t doubt the sincerity and concerns of most religious parents, but abuse by any other name is still abuse, and that includes incurring illness that could have been avoided by a vaccine.
For financial reasons, some secular hospitals have merged with church-affiliated hospitals. If they don’t publicize what they offer (or, more likely, what they don’t offer), patients probably won’t know. I’d like to see truth in advertising, where all hospitals are required to prominently display what religious restrictions they place on healthcare. Perhaps we would see signs like: “We are more likely to pray over you than give you a blood transfusion.” or “Exorcism is among our psychiatric services.” or “Our sexual advice to couples comes from celibate priests.”
Given the limited amount our government is willing to spend on healthcare, I think we need to stop devoting so much of our resources to the last few months of life. Regardless of age, if a very ill person has a chance to recover and live a life with quality, then by all means go for it. Yet many people never have the opportunity to become old because they lacked the financial means to obtain adequate healthcare. If a re-allocation of resources can transform a few expensive brain dead weeks into a combined hundred years for others, I would call it rational rationing. If it is clear that only technical life can be prolonged, without hope for recovery, we should put no more public money into it.
A few years ago, there was a license plate war in my home state of South Carolina. The legislature wanted to authorize our Department of Motor Vehicles to distribute, at no additional cost, license plates with the anti-abortion motto “Choose Life.” When Planned Parenthood objected, a state representative from my county suggested that Planned Parenthood sponsor a “Choose Death” plate. Though not what the legislator intended, choosing death can sometimes be a good idea when it comes to end-of-life decisions.
Some religious fundamentalists use biblical justification to condemn those who don’t use all possible scientific technology to extend the lives of sick people who don’t, and never will, regain any quality of life. Such controversy didn’t exist 1000 years ago, when most believed that the terminally ill were in “God’s hands.” With scientific breakthroughs, the terminally ill are often in technology’s hands, and it’s up to humans to decide the extent to which that technology should be used. For me, regardless of age, the bottom line is about quality of life, not just length of life.
Patients and their families who seek information about death should certainly be provided with available options so they can make informed decisions. But I would also like doctors to make this information routinely available, whether requested or not. Some patients are ignorant or afraid to bring up these kinds of unpleasant matters. Contrary to the cliché, ignorance is not bliss in this case.
The time to start planning for end-of-life care is now. Advance planning involves making thoughtful choices, putting them into a written advance directive and discussing those choices with others. Such choices are not just for the elderly, because we don’t know when our time might be up. Actions taken now can preserve autonomy and dignity later.
Medical aid-in-dying empowers terminally ill patients with the choice to die on their own terms, at the time and place of their choosing, and in accordance with their conscience and beliefs. Seven states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have authorized medical-aid-in-dying: the ability for a terminally ill, medically competent adult to request and receive prescription medication to bring about a peaceful death.
An excellent resource for information and documents to help in end-of-life planning is available at the organization Compassion & Choices. Here is the website: https://www.compassionandchoices.org/end-of-life-planning
I certainly wish more states had such provisions, but I have a problem with one feature. I think I would like to stay alive as long as I am able to communicate effectively, but if I develop some form of dementia like Alzheimer’s, at that time I may not be medically competent to request a peaceful death. I told my wife Sharon that if she won’t then kill me, she should hire a hit-man or a hit-woman who would. One sign to pull the plug on me would be if I said I believed in God.
I know that the current COVID-19 pandemic is particularly hard on old people. I’m 78 and Sharon is 82. Fortunately, we are both in good health. I also take comfort from this Mark Twain quote:
“Do not complain about growing old. It is a privilege denied to many.”
I stand with progressive people of faith who want to expand healthcare coverage, though I don’t need biblical justification. If I did, I could quote from the Genesis 4 myth. After Cain murders Abel (interestingly, the first murder in the Bible follows the first religious act), God asks Cain where Abel is. Cain resorts to the familiar tactic of answering a question with a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God did not respond to Cain, but had I been God, I would have said, “Damn right you are your brother’s keeper. That’s an integral part of my post-garden healthcare plan.”
I feel the same about separation of church and healthcare as I do about separation of church and state. People have the right to follow the god of their choice, and denominations have the right to make rules for their flocks. A religion need not accept government funds, but any money a religion receives from our secular government should only be used for secular purposes.
Under current law, people may have some “spiritual care” covered by Medicare and Medicaid, including for Christian Scientists who are prayed for each other when they are sick. Numerous children have died while receiving this “spiritual care,” when modern science could easily have saved their lives. Placing the government stamp of approval on non-scientific practices such as “spiritual care” places lives at risk.
Society has a special duty to protect children from abuse and physical harm, without regard to religious motivation. If a child dies from a burst appendix because parents neglected to seek effective medical care, it makes no difference to me whether the parents preferred instead to pray or watch television. I don’t doubt the sincerity and concerns of most religious parents, but abuse by any other name is still abuse, and that includes incurring illness that could have been avoided by a vaccine.
For financial reasons, some secular hospitals have merged with church-affiliated hospitals. If they don’t publicize what they offer (or, more likely, what they don’t offer), patients probably won’t know. I’d like to see truth in advertising, where all hospitals are required to prominently display what religious restrictions they place on healthcare. Perhaps we would see signs like: “We are more likely to pray over you than give you a blood transfusion.” or “Exorcism is among our psychiatric services.” or “Our sexual advice to couples comes from celibate priests.”
Given the limited amount our government is willing to spend on healthcare, I think we need to stop devoting so much of our resources to the last few months of life. Regardless of age, if a very ill person has a chance to recover and live a life with quality, then by all means go for it. Yet many people never have the opportunity to become old because they lacked the financial means to obtain adequate healthcare. If a re-allocation of resources can transform a few expensive brain dead weeks into a combined hundred years for others, I would call it rational rationing. If it is clear that only technical life can be prolonged, without hope for recovery, we should put no more public money into it.
A few years ago, there was a license plate war in my home state of South Carolina. The legislature wanted to authorize our Department of Motor Vehicles to distribute, at no additional cost, license plates with the anti-abortion motto “Choose Life.” When Planned Parenthood objected, a state representative from my county suggested that Planned Parenthood sponsor a “Choose Death” plate. Though not what the legislator intended, choosing death can sometimes be a good idea when it comes to end-of-life decisions.
Some religious fundamentalists use biblical justification to condemn those who don’t use all possible scientific technology to extend the lives of sick people who don’t, and never will, regain any quality of life. Such controversy didn’t exist 1000 years ago, when most believed that the terminally ill were in “God’s hands.” With scientific breakthroughs, the terminally ill are often in technology’s hands, and it’s up to humans to decide the extent to which that technology should be used. For me, regardless of age, the bottom line is about quality of life, not just length of life.
Patients and their families who seek information about death should certainly be provided with available options so they can make informed decisions. But I would also like doctors to make this information routinely available, whether requested or not. Some patients are ignorant or afraid to bring up these kinds of unpleasant matters. Contrary to the cliché, ignorance is not bliss in this case.
The time to start planning for end-of-life care is now. Advance planning involves making thoughtful choices, putting them into a written advance directive and discussing those choices with others. Such choices are not just for the elderly, because we don’t know when our time might be up. Actions taken now can preserve autonomy and dignity later.
Medical aid-in-dying empowers terminally ill patients with the choice to die on their own terms, at the time and place of their choosing, and in accordance with their conscience and beliefs. Seven states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have authorized medical-aid-in-dying: the ability for a terminally ill, medically competent adult to request and receive prescription medication to bring about a peaceful death.
An excellent resource for information and documents to help in end-of-life planning is available at the organization Compassion & Choices. Here is the website: https://www.compassionandchoices.org/end-of-life-planning
I certainly wish more states had such provisions, but I have a problem with one feature. I think I would like to stay alive as long as I am able to communicate effectively, but if I develop some form of dementia like Alzheimer’s, at that time I may not be medically competent to request a peaceful death. I told my wife Sharon that if she won’t then kill me, she should hire a hit-man or a hit-woman who would. One sign to pull the plug on me would be if I said I believed in God.
I know that the current COVID-19 pandemic is particularly hard on old people. I’m 78 and Sharon is 82. Fortunately, we are both in good health. I also take comfort from this Mark Twain quote:
“Do not complain about growing old. It is a privilege denied to many.”
