April Freeman Banner 2014

ARTICLE

Saving Money by Taking Lives

Caring for Old People Is a Significant Burden on the Public Finances of the Welfare State

FEBRUARY 01, 2000 by MELVYN KRAUSS

Two weeks ago, my 91-year-old mother-in-law died in a nursing home in Amsterdam. But although she had been suffering for nine months from a paralysis that prevented her from speaking and eventually from swallowing her food, she did not die a natural death from lack of nourishment. She died because the doctors decided that her time had come.

Even though she had never given any indication of wanting to die, the medical authorities at the Amstelhof home refused to perform a simple surgical procedure to put a nourishment tube in her stomach in order to prolong her life. They even refused to give her water intravenously. Without the benefit of widely available modern medical care, my mother-in-law expired within five days. Because she was unable to speak, the doctors at the government-financed nursing home made that decision for her.

While her case was not one of euthanasia, it clearly was a product of the “culture of euthanasia” that now abounds in Holland. Once the taboo against terminating patients dissolves, it is a short step to ending patients’ lives “for their own good” with neither the patient’s nor the family’s consent. The point, we were told, was to save her from further pain and misery. But until the day when she could no longer swallow, she had shown a voracious appetite and a zest for life.

The real motive for the Amstelhof doctors’ deadly actions, of course, was economic. Caring for old people is a significant burden on the public finances of the welfare state. Moreover, to extend life in fragile old people can be very costly. The medical authorities at the nursing home never informed us about the options for prolonging my mother-in-law’s life because it was in neither their personal interest nor their country’s economic interest to do so. A well-informed patient is an expensive one.

In the U.S., my dog got better treatment than this. The week before my mother-in-law died in Holland, my 13 1/2-year-old Irish setter was stricken with kidney disease and refused to eat. The vet said the dog would die without nourishment and that the only way we might extend her life was to place a tube in her stomach or esophagus. When I winced, the vet convinced me the procedure was simple and effective. We went ahead with the operation.

Free-market opponents might say the vet pushed the tube solution only to make a handsome fee on the operation. But if this is the case, it’s a blessing. The vet’s economic incentives encouraged her to let me know what my options were. With that knowledge, I was free to decide. In Holland the potential for profit gouging has been removed from the health-care system. As a result, the Dutch medical community cannot make money extending life; they can only lose it.

Sadly, both my dog and my mother-in-law died within a week. But my dog died despite the doctors; my mother-in-law died because of them.

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

February 2000

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required
Sign me up for...

CURRENT ISSUE

April 2014

Around the world, people are struggling to throw off authoritarianism, with deeply mixed results. From Egypt to Venezuela, determined people build networks to overthrow their regimes, but as yet we have not learned to live without Leviathan. In this issue, Michael Malice and Gary Dudney discuss their glimpses inside totalitarian regimes, while Sarah Skwire and Michael Nolan look at how totalitarian regimes grind down the individual--and how individuals fight back. Plus, Jeffrey Tucker identifies a strain in libertarianism that, left unchecked, could reduce even our vibrant movement to something that is analogous to the grim aesthetic of architectural brutalism. The struggle for our lives and freedom is a struggle for beauty; it begins inside each of us.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION