It beggars belief that the leader of the free world and the world’s policeman, the President of the United States, thinks that torture is not a bad thing. On the campaign trail he insisted several times that torture works and that even if it didn’t “they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing.”
Now that he is in office, however, Mr Trump seems to be having a two-way bet. While personally in favour of waterboarding, he is deferring to the opinion of his Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, a tough and experienced soldier, who says that it does not work. In this way, he keeps faith both with voters who want him to be tough on terrorism and voters who want him to rebuild the military.
So the upshot of this week’s confusing news about a draft executive order from the President permitting “enhanced interrogation” techniques is that no one really knows what he believes. But it is an ominous sign that Mr Trump’s moral compass is so weak that he resiles from repudiating torture, keeping it in reserve as a potential vote-winner. In a civilised society which respects human dignity, torture should be absolutely unthinkable.
Euthanasia could save the Canadian taxpayer C$139 million a year, health analysts believe.
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by researchers from the University of Calgary estimates that the healthcare savings of assisted dying -- approximately $139 million a year -- will dwarf the costs associated with helping patients to end their lives.
The study utilises data about euthanasia rates in Belgium and the Netherlands. It multiplies the Netherlands data by current mortality rates for the Canadian population and recent end-of-life cost data. It also considers the direct costs associated with offering medically assisted death, including physician consultations and drug costs.
According to the authors, “as death approaches, health care costs increase dramatically in the final months. Patients who choose medical assistance in dying may forgo this resource-intensive period.”
The authors go to pains to state they aren’t suggesting people be voluntarily euthanized to save money. “Neither patients nor physicians should consider costs when making the very personal decision to request, or provide, this intervention,” they write.
Peter Tanuseputro, a physician-scientist at the Bruyère Research Institute and the Ottawa Hospital, said that this effort to quantify MAID should serve as a reminder that the Canadian health-care system must offer better palliative care, especially at home.
“When we talk about MAID and end-of-life care, I think we need to quickly move on to discuss the need to improve palliative care because the two are very related,” he said. “If we provide good palliative care, I think the consensus out there is that many requests for MAID could be avoided completely.”
The article has already been criticised for proposing an ‘economic incentive’ for patients to be euthanised. Writing in the National Review, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith said that the study confirmed “the financial impetus in favor of death”.
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605