A leading ethicist at Princeton, best known for his promotion of infanticide, now says that gov't health care shouldn't pay for treatment of people with disabilities.
the link is from a disabilities rights group, who has a link for you to protest, but excuse my cynicism:
You see, this type of medical rationing was proposed 20 years ago by an ethicist who later ran the "hastings center for ethics".
And the infanticide arguments were first proposed by Fletcher in the 1970's.
actually there is a big movement to push the idea of "personhood" as the basis for rights, and guess who decides the criteria? Yup. Medical ethicists.
Which is the backstory about all those animal rights folks pushing personhood for animals. Yup. Singer is at the head of that too. You see, saying an animal qualifies for personhood reinforces the idea that you are a person because you meet the criteria, not because you are endowed with rights by the creator
and voila, you can then go on to kill all those whose lives don't meet the criteria.
And don't say it will never happen: it is already happening in Europe, where the enlightened think it's fine.
It's just that the press just noticed.
or actually they haven't noticed, but wait until the cheerleading for gay marriage is over, and this will be the new crusade of the MSM.
Yet once the taboos against killing are lifted, it will be the black and other minorities who will be the victims (which is why minorities often refuse to sign living wills).
and if you don't think racism is not alive and well in medicine, you should talk to those of us who worked on "the res".