First you have to read the piece I wrote below.
The reason other disciplines were so upset about economists who branched out into Public Choice was because they were no longer just economists. They stopped just talking about supply and demand and started acting like experts on the whole subject of life as a balance.
Let us first acknowledge that the critics’ fears were perfectly justified. Public Choice now pervades every social science.
The reason Hippocrates’s Do No Harm is so popular is because it limits doctors to making choices about how to keep a person’s heart beating for a maximum period of time.
At present, the only function Medical Ethics has is to keep a person functioning physically for as long as possible.
Here is crucial difference:
A physician’s only ethical obligation is to keep a body functioning physically, something which is measurable for the maximum period of time, something else that is measurable.
A theoretical human being would find that satisfactory. A theoretical Economic Man only wants to make as much money as he can. A theoretical Do No Harm human is only interested in keeping his physical functions measurable for as long a period as possiblw.
But there are a lot of us who are not Economic Men or Do No Harm beings.
What about US?
The argument for the Do No Harm approach is that doctors can just remain physicians. They don’t have to make any calls except those that relate to keeping you physically functioning.
Pro-lifers and other tell us that if doctors broke out of the Do No Harm bit the way economists broke out of the Economic Man bit, they would have to make some IMPORTANT decisions.
It wouldn’t just be life and death any more.
Is this life WORTH living?
Such a question was once in the hands of theologians — you know, the folks who brought us the Inquisition.
The Spaniards have a saying, “If life were worth living, we would not need so many philosophers.”
Or theologians.
So if life is horrible, you can’t end it because you will go to Hell.
The fact is that Collective Decisions/Public Choice was an inevitable developement.
Economists had to break out of suply and demand.
They wil make a mess of it, of course, butit is hard to imagine how they can make more of a mess of it than the Marxists did with the Economic Man.
Doctors in the twenty-first century will have to break out of this Do No Harm nonsense.
They will make a mess of it.
But it is hard to imagine theycould make more of a mess of it than the theologians did.
#1 by Shari on 05/25/2006 - 10:10 pm
NOT SPAM Oh come on, aren’t you puting things a bit out of context? The theologians brought us the inquisition and for no good reason? Of course the doctors can make a worse mess out of it. They have progress and technology which means increased power over others that could make the theologians look pretty helpless. I think that there have been both theologians and docters that have done some good work. It’s concentrated power that is a problem.
#2 by Antonio Fini on 05/25/2006 - 11:40 pm
NOT SPAM
You know the role of modern physics has expanded to the point where it encompasses much of chemistry, cosmology, astronomy and even certain subspecialties of biology.
There’s hardly a problem today that can’t be reduced to the spin of a proton.
Wouldn’t it be funny if one day in the future genetic engineering and nanotech made the roles of philosopher, lawyer and judge redundant because the physician could cure evil by programming it away?
#3 by PeterGene Budarick on 05/26/2006 - 12:24 pm
NOT SPAM
Dear Bob.
I don’t aggree with you when you say the race problem is primary to the Jewish problem.
I know the Jews are scared of any racially conscious society, but that is not my point.
So long as the Jews control how most of us feel and think, the Jewish problem is the only one we have and MUST RESOLVE. And also in many different domains such as economics, philosphy, the arts and how they propose to wage premptive nuclear war, which no sane Aryan would ever contempleate without a prefound awareness of the possible consequences.
If we did not have the Jewish problem then in my view our natural racial discriminatory instincts would lead us to healthy normal responses, and furthermore in my opinion, those healthy normal responses would certainly NOT lead us to commit genocide on blacks or other races [as the Jews are doing to us and to the Palestinians].
That leads me to the other point i wish to make, being that discrimination does NOT lead to the abuse of those descriminated, but rather could be seen proactively, in that it empowers the descriminator to effectively help those of other races [because we see clearly in what ways they are different and how their needs are different to ours].
How could we help another race or culture without discrimination?
And isn’t that what White Aryans have always done?
But the Jews seek to prevent that Christian approach we have always had in the past, because they want maximum conflict between races. And if we sudy it, it is quite clever what they are doing.
If it was not for the Jews [who i claim now rule the world – am i wrong or deluded?] we would not have the race problem!
We would still have many problems, as is the nature of life, but it would be as America and Australia was before the Jews took us over.
But we can’t return to the past.
Jewish world dominion is now the base reality of 2006.
We need to be able to discuss it sensibly.