Evolution says you're the grandchild of a monkey
This story sickened me.
According to the news report, an influential group of physicians in the United States of America, who were gathered as a task force, have drawn up a specific list denoting which patients would not be treated in the event of a pandemic. There’s little doubt in my mind that this is just another application of Darwinism, where it’s all about the survival of the fittest with no concern for the sanctity of human life.
Dr. Asha Devereaux, herself a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report, maintained that the list is a blueprint for hospitals “so that everybody will be thinking in the same way” when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits.
Members of the task force added that the “idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources — including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses — are used in a uniform, objective way.”
Yes, that’s right — a uniform, objective way to play God and decide who lives and who doesn’t!
Here are some of the recommendations from the task force on who would not be treated:
- People older than 85.
- Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
- Severely burned patients older than 60.
- Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer’s disease.
- Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Dr. Devereaux claimed that compiling the list “was emotionally difficult for everyone”, partly because members believe it’s just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits.
Say, you know what? I don’t think it was an emotional thing. I’m willing to put forward the notion that it wasn’t anything to do with emotions at all, but that their consciences were nipping at them!
I am no medical care professional and don’t know much about operations at the ER, but I am certain about the sanctity of life and that where possible, every life is precious and every possible attempt should be made to save a person’s life regardless of age, gender, religious convictions, and ethnicity.
It’s no big surprise that such blueprints can only come about when people take as truth (that has yet to be proven, mind you) that we come from some prehistoric goo.
Source: “Who Should Doctors Let Die in a Pandemic?” CBS News. 5 May 2008. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/05/health/main4070019.shtml>.
Tags: Darwinism, Healthcare, Pandemic
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright ©2001 by 
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://wordnverse.com/2008/05/08/healthcare-meets-darwinism/trackback/
May 8, 2008 at 5:04
Casey
Hmmm. I don’t know. If you’ve got a patient who’s 85 years old and another who’s 4 years old and both are likely to die without treatment but the 85 year old is likely to die even with treatment, do you choose to treat the 85 year old because he came in first? I don’t think it’s that simple. I don’t think it’s Darwinism, either.
When you have limited resources, I think it is only practical to use them on people with a higher likelihood of survival. Is it really wrong to place priority on treating the person with the longest projected longevity? This is done with organ donations all the time.
May 8, 2008 at 6:03
Isaiah
I did consider that point, Casey, but at the same time I can’t but feel that it’s unfair to not treat those with severe mental impairments or severe chronic diseases. That sounds to me like weeding out the weak. And if life expectancy is at an all-time high as some scientists claim, there’s some possibility of a small number of those 85-year-olds making 100 if treated.
May 8, 2008 at 6:16
Casey
They’re not talking about normal everyday circumstances, though. I’d be all with you if they were, but they’re talking about emergency epidemic situations where they really will have to choose who they’re going to spend their limited resources on. They simply cannot treat everyone.
I think most people agree that it is a greater tragedy when a child dies than when an elderly person dies. Not because the child’s life is any more valuable than the elderly person’s but because the elderly person has lived longer and had more opportunities to experience things in life.
May 8, 2008 at 6:22
Isaiah
Here’s just a supposition: if it’s a pandemic, I won’t be too far off the mark to say that many who will succumb are young children because their immune systems aren’t as developed to fight off the infections?
If they set up a max threshold on age, won’t they set a minimum as well, bearing in mind that the listed criteria is but a fraction of the list which has yet to be published as far as I know?
May 8, 2008 at 6:40
Casey
I don’t know, but they have to set some kind of rules. In the end, no matter what the rules say the doctors are going to be making decisions based on projected longevity. It’s always been done that way. The only thing the doctors quoted have done is to put it bluntly in writing.
May 8, 2008 at 7:35
Isaiah
I agree with you to a point that some guidelines need to be set in a pandemic, but I’m still uncomfortable with an actual blueprint set based on age, mental state and the other conditions mentioned.
Maybe I am an idealist in this sense, but I’d rather have doctors call it on a case-by-case basis instead of setting it down in writing as guidelines for them to follow.
May 8, 2008 at 9:04
Travis Vocino
Isaiah, I don’t really understand your logic.
You’re sort of blaming a darwinistic viewpoint for the rational of the doctors’ approach. However, that IS “God’s world,” is it not?
I mean, let’s look at it from a different point of view. Let’s say we had no science or medicine and it was completely up to nature or God or Allah or whatever one chooses to call it. Who would have the highest probability of surviving?
You forget that this isn’t something that science and medicine has created, this is how nature works. Ultimately, we follow it’s rules, not the other way around.
May 8, 2008 at 17:07
Casey
If the doctors called it on a case-by-case basis, I think you’d end up with basically the same thing. The principle behind the rules is to focus the limited resources on those with a higher chance of survival, and I just can’t find fault with that. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but reality is what it is.
May 8, 2008 at 22:57
-aaronljx-
Yes, it is so. This world is very realistic that is why even more so that the Gospel have to be preached throughout the nations. The doctor has no choice, it is a fact of life that survival the fittest.
May 9, 2008 at 0:34
Isaiah
Thanks for dropping by, Aaron. Appreciate the visit.
May 9, 2008 at 0:35
Isaiah
Casey:
Probably so, I guess. I reckon I over-reacted a little, lol! At least for today I can blame it (just a little) on old age.
May 9, 2008 at 7:48
Casey
Old age. Ha, ha. We have to be vigilant. The world tries to push things off on us that are immoral all the time by painting it in pretty words. “Termination of a pregnancy,” “mercy killing,” the list goes on and on. You may even be correct in your assessment. Perhaps I’m just too desensitized. I just personally couldn’t find anything wrong with their logic.
May 9, 2008 at 9:45
Isaiah
Indeed, Casey. To be frank, my main beef is that I noticed that it is not a “and” statement, e.g. 85 AND severe trauma AND severe mental impairment, so it can be taken to mean if someone is just, say, 24 years of age, but contracted the disease in the pandemic. These “healthcare” workers would condemn that person to death according to this list, whereas I would say save that person no matter the mental impairment.
This point especially appeared Darwinian to me, i.e. weeding out the weak, the infirmed, a la Hitler.
May 9, 2008 at 17:13
Travis Vocino
Isaiah, I still think you’re missing the point.
To call something “Darwinian” as if it’s a different ruleset than nature is misguided and misinformed. If your position is that God created the universe, the physics of the universe and each and every particle in the universe (which I’m assuming is your position), that doesn’t change how nature actually works.
Calling something “Darwinian” only refers to a specific scientist who was at the forefront of the discoveries. Evolution, natural selection, biology, etc. are not just discoveries, they simple are. That goes for whether a God or Gods set it up that way, or if there was no supernatural elements involved.
Therefore, to use the term “Darwinian” as a negative associated with evil is rather counterproductive to your tagline of “Boldly Proclaiming God’s Word.” Darwin didn’t create anything.
May 9, 2008 at 18:22
Casey
Even without the “and,” though, I think the point is simply to concentrate on those with the highest likelihood of survival. So I still can’t find anything wrong with it.
Travis, when “Darwinian” is used in a negative sense it refers to “Social Darwinism.” This does not refer to anything the great and noble Darwin proposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
In the most common sense, it refers not to “allowing nature to take its course” but to “actively attempting to eliminate the weak members of society.” The best example of this is the attempted Nazi extermination of Jews and the disabled.
I don’t think that this particular case represents Social Darwinism, but Isaiah’s fears are not unfounded.
May 9, 2008 at 18:24
Casey
…oh, and that would include refusing to treat the elderly or disabled for no other reason than that they are “weak” or “unproductive” members of society.
May 9, 2008 at 22:37
Travis Vocino
Casey, yes that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Your own citation points out that the concept pre-dates Darwin himself. I believe a lot of the anti-evolution/Darwin nonsense is because of a misunderstanding of the terms and a belief by religious groups that it is something invented by the secular world.
That was my point.
At any rate, I think this thread has gone on too long already
May 9, 2008 at 22:56
Isaiah
Thank you for the clarification, Casey.
Travis: I was indeed referring to social Darwinism; my apologies for not being too clear about it.
As for the tagline, I don’t think using the term “darwinism” counters the former. I’m boldly proclaiming God’s Word in all aspects of life and a Christian worldview on issues.