I find the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America outlet extremely entertaining in their capacity as the Obama White House’s fluffy attack chinchilla — not just because they clearly work so hard at such drudgery, but because they are so oblivious to their incredible irrelevance within the ongoing online conversation. In this case, I sadly didn’t even notice their long, drawn out response last week to my BigGovernment piece on CMS nominee Donald Berwick until just today. It’s a classically impotent MMFA attack post, in the sense that it spends an incredible amount of effort to rebut absolutely nothing I wrote.

They admit that Donald Berwick has expressed his support for a health care plan which “redistribute[s] wealth from the richer among us to the poorer”; he does talk about how he’s “romantic” about Britain’s National Heath System; he expresses his strong support for “rationing with our eyes open.” You can see video excerpts of Berwick’s remarks here. In fact, in quoting at length trying to provide some wiggle room, MMFA actually makes Berwick seem worse!

In any case, normally I’d just let MMFA continue on their merry way until the Obama White House calls them up to tell them who needs to be squeaked at tomorrow. But their naivete when it comes to health policy is so evident in their choice of sources, I have to point out one aspect of their response to me: their reliance on a rebuttal, and a support for health care rationing, from one Dr. Peter Singer.

You may recognize the name, and not know why. The MMFA author, who evidently didn’t, quotes at length from Dr. Singer’s piece in support of health care rationing in the New York Times: “The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?”

(more…)

My last article, Medicare is Already Rationing Care, focused on one small aspect of a much larger story, a story every American needs to know. The battle over the meaning of medicine began 2,500 years ago, not last spring.

In the late 1990’s I gave a lecture entitled “Post-Hippocratic Medicine in the Shadow of Nietzsche” in response to Peter Singer, the chair of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer had proposed we not consider humans “fully human” until they reached five weeks of age (after birth). During the first four weeks, he argued, we should allow the overt killing of infants with disabilities. This was “cost-effective.” It served the “greater good” by controlling the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

For a decade I studied the question ”How did America reach a place in her history where we could seriously consider resurrecting the ancient practice of infanticide?” What I discovered changed my life.

For the past 2,500 years physicians served only one of two roles in Western culture. They either followed Hippocrates and served the wellbeing of their patients, or they followed Plato and served the greater welfare of the State. The philosophy of Peter Singer is not new—it has been with us for millennia. We once again stand at these same fated crossroads of Plato and Hippocrates as we debate the future of American healthcare.

Based on my study of history, philosophy, and current events, I feared we were rapidly returning to the world of Plato; a world where physicians worked at the behest of government, not solely for the patient. To help Americans understand what was about to transpire, I launched  Physicians for Reform in 2006.

(more…)

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has been known to employ attention-getting methods with everything from nude models protesting fur to activists throwing vegan custard pies in the face of Ronald McDonald in front of children. PETA describes its mission as ending the suffering of animals on “factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry.”  To that end, the group has used everything from engaging in agitprop to aiding the terrorist tactics of animal rights groups, as investigative reporters have charged.

Of late, the group that claims to be the “largest animal rights organization in the world” focuses efforts on behind-the-scenes strategies to fill coffers.  Their more recent endeavors exploit the pressure companies feel to display their “social responsibility.” 

At the same time, the non-profit engages in clever partnerships with companies whose competitors are targeted by PETA.  And often those who “partner” with PETA treat animals in a manner similar or identical to that which PETA claims is abusive when done by targeted companies.

(more…)