Do you value every person's life equally?

Question

If the child of an undocumented worker had a life threatening condition, would you recommend treatment be denied in a hospital because the parents cannot pay, even though the child would certainly die? If the person is here, and cannot get the same treatment in his/her host country, would you make the same call? Is that child's life worth less than an American child's life?

How is this better or worse than the thousands of Americans who seek medical treatment in 2nd world nations because the treatment there is cheaper? How is this better or worse than the millions of women who have or want abortions knowing they cannot financially support a child they conceived, regardless of the means? Is it sustainable to mandate every child conceived be born when more children forces a poverty stricken family to often sacrifice the well-being of other children or seek employment outside of the host country?

Does compassion really take a back seat to money in the US? Are you ok with this?

Would it change your view of my question to know I spent years devoted to improving the lives of Central Americans? Adoption is not always an option.

I am asking these questions in response to blanket statements I hear uttered all the time about how "undocumented workers want access to OUR medical programs and we should keep them out" Isn't that the same kind of judgment I am asking? The ramifications of that kind of thinking are that doctors could turn away a child because the parents cannot pay.

I agree that responsibility for well-being rests on the individual. However, not everyone is fortunate enough to have access to even basic services.

If the premise is that every life is equal, then every person should have access to basic medical care, and that needs to be a priority. Reality forces people to make tough decisions, including abortion.

I see profound inequality, and am asking YOU to be willing to accept the effects of the policies you support.

Answer 1

"Do you value every person's life equally?"

Of course not, and I doubt that very many people can truthfully say that they do.

I value my husband's life more than that of a stranger.

I value my mother's life more than that of a stranger.

I value my sister's life more than that of a stranger.

And so on.

That said, the ethnicity of a person, or their religion, or their sexual orientation, or their country, is not a factor in how highly I value them.

As to the rest of your question, humans are essentially pack animals. If we cannot see that our lives are substantially improved by others, they don't really matter to us.

It's simply shortsightedness to think that our "pack" consists only of those who we *see* as contributing to our lives, or who align with us in our views.

As far as I'm concerned, the only legitimate goal of any religion is to help each of us to enlarge our "pack" to include all people, everywhere. Generally this has limited success, because so many religions require that you adopt their ways in order to be part of the pack, rather than expanding the idea of "pack" to include those who are different from us in substantial ways.

Both competition and cooperation are necessary for survival. But we are so removed from a direct experience of cooperation that we don't understand how vast the network is of those who contribute to our lives.

In the United States, we are in love with the myth of the self-made man. It IS a myth, because there isn't a successful American alive today who didn't have the advantage of the collective efforts and contributions of others (schools, bank loans, the IMF, the Internet, research done by others, infrastructure, and so on) in their drive for success. This myth allows us to feel that we did things on our own, it reinforces the idea that the people who collectively contributed to our well-being didn't really make any difference to our success - *and so we owe others nothing*. We have no need to invest in others. We might even believe, wrongly, that it is BETTER to NOT contribute to others - that it's a kind of economic "tough love" to allow others to suffer.

This myth permeates our culture in myriad ways. We continue to come back to it and reinforce it in movies and novels and TV shows and so on.

And that myth shapes our attitudes towards others.

It provides a justification for a dismissive view of others, and a justification for not making a contribution to the welfare of others.

It's not an easy thing to view the whole world as a community to which we owe a debt. In my view, though, any other attitude is morally repugnant, and dangerously shortsighted just in terms of survival of our species, not to even mention the other species whose welfare we need to protect, if from purely selfish motivations.

That's why I'm a liberal. That's why I'm a Pagan.

Answer 2

I don't agree with many of the statements in your question. I'm sure that there are some private hospitals that would deny treatment to someone, but there are also many more hospitals that treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay. I also believe that it is sustainable to mandate every child conceived be born if those women give the child up for adoption. If you don't want a child that you have conceived, or cannot afford to keep that child, then think adoption and next time think birth control! There are waiting lists of people that want to adopt infants, but cannot because there are not enough. I think the compassion of Americans would more than cover the additional children born.

Answer 3

Every life is valuable to God, and as his representative I am under the obligation to hold the same values as does he. The unequal treatment of human beings is a sin. To say that one child is preferred over another because of economic status or residency is placing a monetary value on human life. People talk about this as being a sin, but when it comes down to brass tacks of making an actual choice rarely will they support the poor and the refugee. Abortion is never an option, and to claim that it is justified for financial reasons is to again place a value on a child and to prefer one child over another. The solution to this dilemma is Jesus Christ; however, the majority of people would rather live in the lust of the world than in the safety and comfort of the blood of our Lord. With Christ all things are possible; with humans almost nothing is possible. This world will never learn the lessons of God because it is not will to embrace the Son of God as Lord and Savior. The world, as we know it will therefore have to come to an end and there will have to come a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus loves you.

Answer 4

Do you really believe that each person should have the unlimited ability to hand a "medical" bill to someone else? If I have Heart problems (for example) I can change my lifestyle by myself, or go to one of those $15,000 "lifestyle reconditioning centers" or I can sign up for a $150,000 bypass surgery. Do you think I should have an unlimited account to spend? I believe a person should be able to get whatever "medical" care they can pay for. If the government were not stealing such a large share of our productivity, we could give more to charity to help people in need! You seem to think that someone with a gun should take over the "payments" part of medicine, and everyone can get whatever they want. If that happens we will be bankrupt much sooner. Freedom to win includes the freedom to loose. It does not make me real happy to see people loose, but it makes me less happy to loose my freedom!

Answer 5

No one who ever walks into any ER in any U.S city is denied no matter who they are.
So that whole "Denied medical care.." is unaware posh.
No one in the U.S, is denied and just because someone dosen't want to pay their bill dosen't mean they were or will be denied either. Hosptials treat those who won't pay also.
People say they are "denied" medical care just because they are expected to pay for it and it isn't free. Denied is different from, "won't pay my bills."
If someone wants to pay their bills, I mean REALLY wants to, they can. Hosptials have finicial services that always work with patients to get them on payment plans that are affordable and reasonable, and usually will void out many of the charges to make it easier to pay.
In most cases when people whine , " I can't pay my bills.." that actually mean " I WON'T pay my bills and don't think I should have to even though I created the bills."
My friend has no health insurance and just had a 12,000 dollar surgary she needed to live, she wasn't denied the surgery because of lack of health insurance. She just is expected, rightfully so, to pay for it out of pocket.
Healthcare is a business just like anything else, and that is WHY healthcare is SO high in the U.S. The cost has to be jacked up because SOOOO many people won't pay their bills, so hosptials have to eat the costs of that in many cases, and then patients who do pay have to pay out more to make up for that. Sorry , it dosen't grow on trees...it has to be paid for like anything else. It beguiles me why people just think everything , and I mean EVERYTHING, involved in healthcare has no cost?
People need to research this and understand a little more about economics, supply and demand, what is entailed in their healthcare and have a better business understanding of things. It isn't just about seeing a doctor and taking some pills.It sounds good to say, "Everything should be free" sure...but no one stops to use crticial thinking and realize how that mentality affects things. Someone has to pay for things...otherwise if you think it should be free, you must believe that healthcare workers should be pushed into forced labor(* slavery?)I guess OR forced to work for the government against their will; you want to talk about healthcare going to crap? Try having a healthcare system where medical professionals are forced to work for the government of for free. Look at Canada, why do you think so many healthcare workers come to the U.S to work?
Anyway, that was a rant I know but I work in a hosptial and I know how healthcare systems functions. That is why it is called a "system" , there is a method to the seemingly array of madness. There has to be for it to run smoothly and for the best possible treatment for patients. It isn't as simple as "being denied" based on inability or refusal to pay. It goes much deeper than that and touches on many other levels.
But the whole point being, anyone in the world can come to a hosptial ER and will be treated no matter what their finicial situation or where they are from.
When a patient presents to the ER, we don't even request finicial or insurance information until they leave. So their treatment isn't based on ability or inability/refusal to pay. That is a myth also.

Answer 6

Yes. if you value every life equally you do not value the mother's wallowing or hardship above the child's life.

No mother can say for definite that they will not be able to support their child. it is within every human, that strange capacity, to survive and let your children thrive. no woman can say they are stuck in such a rut, if they loved all life equally, or loved life at all, they would work so hard, so so hard, to keep their child from pain and hunger.

Most of the time it is women who would not like a change in life style to have an abortion. therefore for these women life or lifestyle comes above the life of existence of the child's

Answer 7

"own Freedom" and "Smaller government" are purely speaking factors to inspire those areas of their vote casting base that are habitually incurious. In practice, they help a central authority that's important adequate to subsidize the products made by way of their friends contained in the oil industry, award no-bid contracts to protection rigidity provider businesses like Blackwater and Halliburton, and cover up the gross, criminal negligence shown by way of their friends in chemical production businesses like Monsanto. with the intention to drag off the criminal activities they have already got, it demands government impact. yet, admitting to that could make it a procedures too obtrusive. And, so, they declare to propose precisely the different of what they do. contained in the propose time, the paper government might actually be "smaller." yet, the useful oligarchy of huge company hobbies is rather working the practice. you are able to yell "freedom" all you like. yet, it won't replace the undeniable fact that your freedoms have been bought to the utmost bidder (and oftentimes brokered by way of the GOP).

Answer 8

Imagination includes bad choices, faith includes only the good ones.