Topic: Political Philosophy

Upcoming Cato Forum on the Rights of Terminally Ill Patients

In 2006, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that terminally ill patients have a constitutionally protected right to purchase and use experimental drug treatments not yet approved by the federal government. 

On August 7 of this year, the full D.C. Circuit overturned the panel ruling, holding that terminally ill patients have no such constitutional right.

On September 25, this coming Tuesday, the Cato Institute will host a policy forum titled, “Should the Government Insert Itself between Dying Patients and Unproven Therapies?“ 

Debating the rights of terminally ill patients will be Scott Ballenger, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in that case; Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist with the National Institutes of Health and a leading critic of the panel’s ruling; and yours truly.

The forum will be from 12-1:30pm, followed by a luncheon.  Register here.

Hillary Hates Freedom

Maybe that’s a bit strong. Let’s just say, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton operates with reckless disregard for individual freedom and the limited government that protects and sustains it.

In her latest salvo, she dismisses the great promises of the Declaration of Independence, the founding principles of the United States, as rhetorical flourishes, mere garnishes on the real stuff of life. “We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can’t take a sick child to the doctor?” she asked.

In her senatorial activities and her presidential campaign, Clinton has tended to propose modest, moderate programs. Even her new health care proposal is being hailed as more modest than her 1993 plan (though it would in fact impose a new government mandate on every person in the United States). But at her core, Hillary Clinton rejects the fundamental values of liberalism, values like individual autonomy, individual rights, pluralism, choice, and yes, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She seems to see no area of life that should be free from the heavy hand of government. And to her the world of free people seems a vast nothingness. When a few Republicans proposed to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, which spends about $125 million of the $63 billion spent on arts in the United States, she declaimed that such a move “not only threatens irrevocable damage to our cultural institutions but also to our sense of ourselves and what we stand for as a people.”

After her first attempt at nationalizing and bureaucratizing American health care, she told the New York Times that her next project would be “redefining who we are as human beings in the post-modern age.” I’d say 300 million Americans can do that for themselves.

Her hostility to freedom is not just a left-wing attitude. In the Senate, she’s been adding the paternalistic agenda of the religious right to her old-fashioned liberal paternalism. Clinton has called for federal legislation to prohibit the sale of “inappropriate” video games to children and teens. She’s introduced a bill to study the impact of media on children, a likely prelude to restrictions on television content, and she touts the V-Chip regulation that President Bill Clinton signed. She supports federal legislation to outlaw flag desecration (though not a constitutional amendment).

In her book It Takes a Village, she insisted that 300 million free people could somehow come to “a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do today, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities.” She told Newsweek, “There is no such thing as other people’s children,” a claim that ought to frighten any parent. She promised to inflict on free citizens government videos running constantly in every gathering place, telling people “how to burp an infant, what to do when soap gets in his eyes, how to make a baby with an earache comfortable”—all the things that no one knew how to do until the federal government came along.

Hillary Clinton is no socialist. But when she makes her rejection of liberal values as explicit as she did on Monday – dismissing “freedom and opportunity [and] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as irrelevant to people’s real lives–she is far too reminiscent of some of the most authoritarian figures of the 20th century. Lenin, for instance, wrote, “Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality.”

And maybe it’s no surprise that Clinton cosponsored her videogame ban with Sen. Rick Santorum, who is also an articulate and determined opponent of individualism. In his book It Takes a Family and in various media appearances, he denounced “this whole idea of personal autonomy.” At least once he rejected “the pursuit of happiness” explicitly, saying, “This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do” and “We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness … and it is harming America.” Not the mantra of the Hillary Clinton left, obviously.

We know that societies that reject bourgeois freedom – the freedom of individualism, civil society, the rule of law, and yes, you guessed it, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – in favor of collectivism and economic goods end up with neither freedom nor prosperity. The United States has the most advanced medical care in the world – The rate of death from heart disease in the U.S. was cut in half between 1980 and 2000, for instance – because we have a mostly free and capitalist economy. Mandates and regulations make medical care more costly than it needs to be, and Hillary Clinton now proposes to pile on yet more mandates and regulations. But the really scary prospect of another Clinton presidency is not what she would do to our medical care but what she would do to the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that is the foundation of our free society.

Hillary, Dubya ♥ Universal Coverage

Neither appears to have been persuaded by the principles of the Anti-Universal Coverage Club. Here’s my short take on HillaryCare II. And according to USA Today:

Clinton unveiled her plan as Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said President Bush wants to achieve universal health care before he leaves office.

Leavitt told the USA TODAY editorial board that Bush will veto a Democratic plan emerging from Congress that would add $35 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the Children’s Health Insurance Program over five years. In doing so, Leavitt said, Bush will urge Congress to join him in seeking coverage for all Americans.

“He’d like to see the larger debate begin,” Leavitt said. “The very best opportunity we have may well be in the next 15 months.”

Maybe Dubya will steal the issue from Democrats, much like he stole Medicare prescription drugs. Heck, with Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

Ramesh Ponnuru Joins the Anti-Universal Coverage Club

From his excellent article [$] on health care reform in the most recent issue of National Review:

No matter how cheap free-market reform made basic insurance policies, some people, chiefly the young, would not buy them. Republican reformers are divided about what to do about these holdouts. Some of them believe that they should be forced to buy insurance, so that they would not visit emergency rooms and send everyone else’s premiums higher. Others argue that the premium increase is small, and the risks of mandatory coverage large. The Urban Institute estimates that uncompensated care is less than 3 percent of health spending. Eliminating that cost through forced coverage would require the government to define a basic benefits package, which would be an invitation to provider groups to lobby the government to re-create the mandates that state governments have piled on insurance. My own view is that, in a fairly free system, the holdouts should be left to do as they please.

Click here for more on the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.

Still Conservatives?

For those of us who experienced the revival of Britain during the Thatcher years, the dismal plight of the British Conservative party under a series of post-Thatcher leaders has been startling and increasingly dismaying.

Short-lived Tory leaders have been intent on ditching the classical liberal principles that Thatcher and her inner coterie foisted on the party – principles that gave the Tories their finest years of the 20th century and ones that pulled Britain out of decades of economic failure. David Cameron, the current no-doubt short-lived leader, has been as determined as his recent predecessors to distance himself and the party from the Iron Lady and all that she stood for – from low, or at least lower, taxation, to expanding individual choice and on to a healthy skepticism of government.

Now at last one Tory grandee has had enough of the retreat from Thatcher principles. The former Thatcher cabinet member, Michael Ancram unveiled this week an alternative manifesto [pdf], entitled “Still a Conservative,” to the Cameron agenda, one that calls for a return to the core values that won four successive elections for the Conservatives. He warns that the British public perceives that the party lacks “an overall sense of vision and direction.” And he argues that the party should support lower taxes, leaving people with more of their own money to make their own decisions. By contrast, Cameron wants to match the Labour government’s public spending and has turned his back on lower taxes.

And there is much else in Ancram’s manifesto that would please libertarians and classical liberals, especially his call for the regulatory state to be turned back and his advocating of widening the areas of life left to individual choice rather than government diktat. There are things, though, in the manifesto that are unappealing – from his over-defined Euro-skepticism to his rejection of treating gay civil partnerships equally with marriage when it comes to benefits and taxes. He says there are other long-term relationships outside marriage which should be welcomed for their commitment, but “for Conservatives there can be no fudging the issue of marriage.”

It is a great pity that he overdoes the Euro-skepticism and is prepared to treat gays unequally – for at heart Ancram’s alternative manifesto places classical liberal principles front and center.

And how has Cameron and his supporters responded? Not much of a welcome: they have told him to hold his tongue. A party spokesman said: “This is just a blast from the past. Just as Britain has changed, the Conservative Party has to change along with it.” And a former cabinet colleague of Ancram’s, Michael Portillo, said: “I was a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher but to invoke Thatcherism now, a phenomenon which is 25 years old, just makes the Tory party look old-fashioned and, of course, divided.”

Well, apparently that isn’t the viewpoint of Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who like his predecessor, Tony Blair, realizes that Thatcher is still a name to conjure by. This week he spoke of his admiration for the Iron Lady. “I think Lady Thatcher saw the need for change,” he told a press conference. “Whatever disagreements you have with her about certain policies – there was a large amount of unemployment at the time which perhaps could have been dealt with – we have got to understand that she saw the need for change.”