• home
  • bourbon
  • links
  • blog
  • bio
  • contact form
               donstacy.com

Engelhardt and Children 2

3/13/2012

 
The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG originally commented on Stephen Hanson's 2005 Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal article titled "Engelhardt and Children: The Failure of Libertarian Bioethics in Pediatric Interactions" on June 28, 2011.  I just read the full article.  I now post my initial impressions.

In the introduction Hanson reports that he does not plan to challenge Engelhardt's "libertarian" bioethics in this paper.  Instead, he attempts to challenge Engelhardt's theory from within, claiming that the theory, on its own terms, fails as a comprehensive ethical framework for "dealing with moral questions involving children."  I prefer to challenge Engelhardt's "libertarian" premises, however.

The bulk of Hanson's paper then delivers a detailed critique of the "Engelhardtian concepts of ownership, indenture, and social personhood."  This is largely successful, though Hanson does not recognize the existence of a libertarian theory that is not inconsistent.  The correct libertarian theory is the plumbline libertarian theory explicated by Rothbard in Chapter 14 "Children and Rights" of The Ethics of Liberty.  

The fundamentals of the Rothbardian libertarian natural-rights rational ethic are as follows: parents are the "trustee-owners" of a child, a child cannot be aggressed against because the child is a "potential" self-owner, and a child assumes "full self-ownership rights" (becomes an actual self-owner) when the child leaves home and provides herself food, clothing, and shelter.

Hanson then evaluates Engelhardt's intervention principle, which describes "when and how one may intervene on behalf of a ward and against the wishes of the ward's guardian."  Hanson rightly skewers Engelhardt's theory.  However, no mention is made of the just principle, which is the libertarian principle of non-intervention.

Finally, Hanson concludes by asserting that Engelhardt's "theory cannot be applied usefully to cases involving children."  This is a reasonable statement.  The true libertarian theory (the Rothbardian rational natural-rights ethic), however, though ignored in the text, can be utilized successfully in situations involving complex pediatric interactions.

Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions

3/6/2012

 
The January 2009 The Lancet article by Persad, Wertheimer, and Emanual titled "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" is a frequent target for libertarian criticism.  These attacks are appropriate.  The complete lives system advocated by the authors ignores the appropriate way to allocate scarce medical interventions: the libertarian rational natural-rights ethic (self-ownership and original appropriation and non-aggression).

The authors initially "evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  None of the eight principles analyzed is the libertarian rational natural-rights ethic.  Thus, the authors rule out the answer to their question at the beginning of the paper.  

The authors then evaluate three multi principle allocation systems: disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, and the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems.  These systems are found wanting.  The authors correctly identify fatal flaws in these three systems, though violations of the libertarian rational natural-rights ethic are not considered.

Next, the authors "recommend an alternative system-the complete lives system-which prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles."  Yes, dear reader of the LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG, the complete lives system is as absurdly complicated as it sounds.  The key idea in the complete lives section of the article is as follows: "... income, is a "non-medical criterion" inappropriate for allocation of medical resources."  WRONG!  WRONG!  WRONG!  Income, assuming the income has been justly acquired, is property that can be exchanged for scarce medical interventions if the owner of the income so desires.  Scarce medical interventions, in a just society, can be sold by the owners of the scarce medical interventions (physicians, hospitals, medical corporations, etc.), if they so desire.  This voluntary exchange of income for scarce medical interventions is the real-world manifestation of the abstract libertarian rational natural-rights ethic. 

Finally, the authors state that "an allocation system must be legitimate.  Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair."  This is merely a restatement of Bastiat's recognition that governments only exist because people view the existence of governments as legitimate.  The authors of this ridiculous paper will be sad to learn that the LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG does not view the complete lives allocation system for the allocation of scarce medical interventions as legitimate or just or fair and will continue to advocate the libertarian rational natural-rights ethics as the only legitimate, just, and fair way to allocate scarce medical interventions.         

    LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG

    Author

    Don Stacy is a 47 yo libertarian writer and physician.  His articles have been published by multiple libertarian-themed websites.  He practices medicine as a radiation oncologist in Hazard, KY.     

    Archives

    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010

    Categories

    All
    4 Fundamental Principles
    4 Step Heathcare Solution
    Abigail Alliance
    Abraham Lincoln
    Afterbirth Abortion
    Afterbirth Abortion 2
    Ama Bioethics Principles
    Amnesty International
    Animal Rights
    Animal Rights 2
    Banning A Risky Product
    Beneficence
    Bioethics Consults
    Blog Name
    Blog Plan
    Brain-Dead Bioethics
    Brain Dead Bioethics 2
    British Health Care
    Cancer Drugs
    C.I.A. Doctors
    Circumcision
    Classical-Liberal Bioethics
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 2
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 3
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 4
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 5
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 6
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 7
    Clinical Trials Reporting
    Clinical Trials Reporting 2
    Code Of Federal Regs
    Contractarianism
    Cooperative Groups
    Economics Of Healthcare
    Economics Of Healthcare 2
    Engelhardt And Children
    Engelhardt And Children 2
    Euthanasia
    Evidence-Based Medicine
    Facebook Ethics
    Genetic Results Return
    Genetic Results Return 2
    Guatemala S.T.D. Study
    Influenza Vaccination
    Inst. Review Boards
    Inst. Review Boards 2
    Inst. Review Boards 3
    Inst. Review Boards 4
    Inst. Review Boards 5
    Justice
    Just Price
    Kidney Sellers
    Kidney Sellers 10
    Kidney Sellers 11
    Kidney Sellers 12
    Kidney Sellers 13
    Kidney Sellers 14
    Kidney Sellers 15
    Kidney Sellers 2
    Kidney Sellers 3
    Kidney Sellers 4
    Kidney Sellers 5
    Kidney Sellers 6
    Kidney Sellers 7
    Kidney Sellers 8
    Kidney Sellers 9
    Liberation Biology
    Liberation Biology 2
    Liberation Biology 3
    Liberation Biology 4
    Liberation Biology 5
    Liberation Biology 6
    Liberation Biology 7
    Liberation Biology 8
    Liberation Biology 9
    Libertarian Bioethics
    Libertarian Premises
    Libertarian Premises 2
    Liberty Bioeth And Relig
    Liberty Bioeth And Relig 2
    Liberty Encyclopedia
    Liberty Encyclopedia 2
    Liberty Engelhardt Crit.
    Liberty Engelhardt Crit. 2
    Lives At Risk
    Lives At Risk 2
    Lives At Risk 3
    Lives At Risk 4
    Lives At Risk 5
    Lives At Risk 6
    Lives At Risk 7
    Lives At Risk 8
    Lives At Risk 9
    Mandatory Research Biopsies
    Money May Matter
    National Cancer Institute
    National Cancer Institute 2
    Neuroethics
    Nonmaleficence
    Organ Donation
    P.G.D.
    Phys. For Human Rights 1
    Phys. For Human Rights 2
    Political Triage
    Principles For Allocation
    Principles Of Bioethics
    Principles Of Bioethics 10
    Principles Of Bioethics 2
    Principles Of Bioethics 3
    Principles Of Bioethics 4
    Principles Of Bioethics 5
    Principles Of Bioethics 6
    Principles Of Bioethics 7
    Principles Of Bioethics 8
    Principles Of Bioethics 9
    Rationing Cancer Care
    Respect For Autonomy
    RTOG & NSABP
    Secrecy And Radiation
    Showing That You Care
    Sigrid Fry-Revere
    Skid Row
    Soviet Medicine
    Soviet Medicine 2
    Test
    The Carriage-Trade Trend
    The Chemist's War
    The Expanding Circle
    The Expanding Circle 2
    The Expanding Circle 3
    The Expanding Circle 4
    The Expanding Circle 5
    The Expanding Circle 6
    The Expanding Circle 7
    The Expanding Circle 8
    The Expanding Circle 9
    The Nathaniel Centre
    Tuskegee Syphilis Study
    U.N.E.S.C.O.
    U.S. Human Experiments
    U.S. Medical Experiments
    Warning Labels
    What It Feels Like
    What It Feels Like 2
    What It Feels Like 3
    Why Health Is Not Special

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    ANARCHO-CAPITALIST FLAG
Web Hosting by IPOWER