As Dennis Prager neatly illustrates, is now really the time for Joe Biden and other leftists to be advocating…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Defund Police, While Crime Spikes Upward?

As Dennis Prager neatly illustrates, is now really the time for Joe Biden and other leftists to be advocating "Defund the Police?"

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="664"] Not the Time to Defund Police[/caption]

 

 …[more]

July 31, 2020 • 02:19 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Using Lifesaving Drugs as a Means of Redistribution Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, July 29 2020
The ICU is no place for social engineering.

When lifesaving drugs run low, hospitals have to choose which patients get a scarce drug, while others go without. Some even die. Historically, medical ethicists have recommended giving the drug to the patient most likely to benefit or using a lottery to give every patient an equal chance. 

Not any more. Pennsylvania hospitals are tilting the scale in favor of patients from "disadvantaged areas." If you're middle class, you're toast. 

To "redress social injustices," Pennsylvania is applying a "weighted lottery" statewide, to hike the odds that the scarce drug remdesivir for COVID-19 will be given to patients from poor neighborhoods in preference to other patients. 

Remdesivir is a medicine that speeds recovery and, according to its maker, Gilead Sciences, increases survival by 62%. 

If you can get it. Your ZIP code could literally mean the difference between life and death.

"This is all very new," explains Douglas White, an ethicist at the University of Pittsburgh, who helped devise the weighted lottery. 

Some medical ethicists are urging that other states follow suit. South Carolina reports that if remdesivir runs short there, the state will apply preferences like UPMC's lottery, according to Dee Ford, professor at the Medical University of South Carolina who helped design the South Carolina approach. 

The public needs to speak out before this deadly scheme comes to their state.

In the past, if many patients needed a scarce drug, deciding who got it involved only their medical conditions. That's consistent with the American Medical Association guidelines  that the patient most likely to benefit medically from the drug should get it. 

It's a far cry from favoring patients from low-income ZIP codes. 

The Greenwall Foundation, a medical ethics group, advocates "mitigating health disparities" by prioritizing who gets remdesivir and future COVID-19 therapeutics. So do researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. 

This isn't just about remdesivir. Giving medical preferences to the economically disadvantaged is gaining steam. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network floated a proposal in January to require transplant candidates to provide household income on their applications, as a first step toward increasing the number of transplants offered to patients with low "socioeconomic status." It's provoked considerable controversy from other transplant advocacy groups. 

Academics are using the pandemic as a launching pad to push their redistributionist agenda. But it's not what the public believes is morally right. A majority of people say a hospital's goals should be saving the most lives and treating people equally, according to a June 2020 poll. 

Many physicians agree. Downstate Medical Center cardiologist Jeffrey Borer says, "a means test in either direction is unethical." 

New York has so few COVID-19 hospitalized patients that it recently sent remdesivir to Florida. Texas is reserving its supply for patients not yet on ventilators. Minnesota emphatically rejects socioeconomic preferences. 

Most states are not rigging the system  yet. But it's likely to spread fast if left up to university medical ethicists, who are trying to keep it quiet. Families won't know if their ZIP code had something to do with why Dad died in the ICU. 

The Pennsylvania lottery's designers say they were inspired by a weighted lottery for oversubscribed charter schools that gave preferences based on address. 

That should be a warning. Preferential admissions have roiled the nation. Preferential treatment in hospitals, where it could determine who survives, would be even more divisive.

On the other hand, it's common sense that when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, it should be distributed to disadvantaged neighborhoods first to prevent the most cases. Residents there are more likely to live in crowded conditions, unable to socially distance, and to work on jobs in mass transit and grocery stores that expose them to the disease. 

But caring for hospital patients is a different matter. Equal treatment is the only morally acceptable rule. 

Patients need to trust that their caregivers are doing all they can. The ICU is no place for social engineering. Preferential treatment there is frightening. The public needs to stop it now. 


Betsy McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. 

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first U.S. woman to fly in space?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The truth is that, except on the air and online, the presidential campaign really hasn't started yet. The coronavirus has upended traditional forms of electioneering. It's forced Trump to cancel his tentpole rallies, driven both parties to hold virtual conventions, and blotted out the daily back-and-forth between candidates and campaigns. That has left the race in a form of suspended animation, with…[more]
 
 
—Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon
— Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe there will be debates between Biden and Trump, or will Biden back out, as some Democrats are urging?