This is not any "culture of life" rubbish. This is about Bill Frist and Hospital Corporation of America making a big, big pile of cash forcing people who have good health insurance onto very expensive life-maintainance machinery (like respirators) at the end of their lives until the insurance runs out. There's tens of billions of dollars out there as a potential payout for the Frist Family and health care corporations like HCA if they can get the living will laws in this country invalidated. Bills for an individual patient who winds up on life-maintanance machines can run into the hundreds of thousand of dollars. Multiply that by all the people who currently have living wills, and you can see the massive potential bonanza payout waiting for the health care industry if they do manage to get rid of living will laws.

As I've written before, the conservative braintrust (pun intended) would do well to reread John Stuart Mill.

One of the best friends a libertarian ever had, Mill sought to explain when power "can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." For him, virtually any government interference with a person's "self-regarding" acts was unjustified and morally unsupportable.

My conclusion:

Ours is -- or should be -- a culture that sees preserving individual autonomy as vital to liberty. Call it "the culture of living." It is a culture that values the privacy, personal freedom and unique path to happiness of each American. A woman's body and the decisions she and her partner make regarding their reproductive choices are no one's business but their own, and certainly not the government's. A society that values personal autonomy sees in emerging stem cell technologies the potential to free its members from the prospect of currently incurable diseases. As Oregonians have insisted, a "culture of living" does not condemn the terminally ill to the enslavement of their own bodies. And that culture certainly should respect the decision a woman freely made as to how and whether her life, no longer free, shall be continued.

Live free or die? Not anymore.

I wish it were only that cold, afs. I think, instead, it is part of the much larger, much more religious hot war in play politically since, what, the 1980s? I can never get the irony out of my head of the fundamentalism in Islamism and in Christendom at war in both their own societies and with each other. Or not with each other?

At any rate, back to the ground here, the fight may be as Mr. Sadler says between Christian social conservatives and libertarian economic conservatives. This seems an internal Republican Party war. How are Democratic-party "liberal" factions feeding the growth of both?

Personally, I don't much care who gets "married" or by what name it is called. I do very much see that an issue such as "gay marriage," which comes as a tornado over much of the country, will contribute to a lot of building of concrete entrenchments against those and other such winds, such as the right to rationally choose one's own medical care.

The RP has already determined it will sets its course by, not in contravention of, its religiously socially conservative wing.

Looks like we're in for hotter times and more fires ahead.

My comments above sound like I was channeling Mr. Perr's then-unposted "The Coming Conservative Meltdown" piece.

In looking for the piece Mr. Sadler cited, I found that Mr. Cohen has written a follow-up essay that argues his case slightly more pragmatically.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/479ypoew.asp

The key issue might be found in this rather odd abdication of any "right" to autonomy: "[W]e do not possess the right to demand that others treat us as less worthy of care than we really are." Which wholly begs the question of who decides what "we really are" and what that care should be.

Mr. Cohen is deceptively (imo) blithe that Ms. Schiavo was merely "disabled." It will be a tough debate to wrestle with how we define "humanity," and whether it entails a brain, a consciousness or a personality beyond a body. Mr. Cohen again lays out difficulties of aging, dementia, extended medical care and the rest, but then seems to want to slide his definition and his decision, as to what constitutes humanity and life, into the discussion as if it were prima facie unchallengable.

I agree with Mr. Sadler that this will be a coming front in the cultural/religious wars. Where my earlier comment fits here is in perceiving this type of fundamentalist religion, whether Christian or Islamic, to be pre-Enlightenment. It is a fundamental lack of even the right to individual autonomy upon which Mr. Cohen's entire premise rests. I can't but wonder on the purely political front if the argument would be better made that homegrown fundamentalists are more like Islamists than that they are against "gay marriage," abortion, freedom from forced medical intervention, or the like.

Two Things: The Supreme Court executed the right action by not hearing the Schiavo case. They effectively returned it to the Legislative branch. Now, the issue can go through the grinder of the Legislature for a consensus. Luckily, the Supreme Court did not overstep it's authority, like in the Roe v. Wade case. That should have gone through the legislature for a consensus, to prevent the current power struggle. Why is it OK for a Liberal Democrat(VP Gore, 2000) to stand at the pulpit in a Black Southern Church and expouse religion, but a Conservative Republican cannot. Pure double standard and hypocrisy.

TJ,

I don't think that the distinction you raise is really all that meaningful.

As an example:

Suppose Billy Bob runs a BBQ rib joint and prefers to hire white curvy female waitresses (with big hair). As it turns out, Billy Bob's customers appreciate his hiring choices as well.

If Billy Bob turns away an otherwise qualified transgendered applicant for a server position, he may be doing so because he believes it to be in the best interests of the business he has created.

You can argue that his decision is "other-directed", but from Billy Bob's point of view he is protecting his business interests by preserving the atmosphere his customers appreciate.

He would also discriminate against the morbidly obese.

Does the transgendered applicant feel slighted?

Sure. But the law should not be designed to protect us from insult.

Does allowing discrimination mean the transgendered applicant has fewer employment opportunities?

Sure and that is a sad thing, but the right of individuals to contract freely is much more important part of remaining morally autonomous than statutory schemes to prohibit discrimination.

When it comes to discrimination, my philosophy is Start Local. Discrimination endures because too many people still give it their personal sanction, not because we haven't come up the right law to stamp it out.

I can't defend the Schiavo intervention or the conservative attack on Death with Dignity. But I do recognize that the folks behind them have strongly held beliefs regarding the morality of such actions (physicians assisting or hastening death), just like those who would seek to legislate away discrimination.

panchopdx: I wouldn't attempt to apply the "Hooters" test to other situations. I'm really not certain Hooters-like hiring policies would withstand a serious legal test. In any case, it's a best a "highly unusual" situation that would never be used as a legal precedent applied to other situations.

afs,

I understood it that we were discussing circumstances when legislating morality conflicts with the libertarian/conservative philosophy that the primary purpose of government is to preserve personal autonomy.

Given this frame of reference, whether or not my "Hooters" example (as you label) would withstand legal scrutiny is wholly beside the point.

But Rob Kremer's observation was valid. The "drive to preserve the sanctity of life" is no more (or less) a moral cause than the "drive to end discrimination." The backers of each cause demonstrate a willingness to manipulate the mechanisms of government, to influence the judiciary, to embrace or abandon the principles of federalism, and to intrude upon the choices of others to achieve their desired ends.

panchopdx: No, that's not true. Any use of an example of any kind requires that the example is valid in the circumstances it is being displayed. The example of the "Hooters" test is not valid for comparison under ANY circumstances. It's not going to survive serious legal scrutiny. About 3 milliseconds after someone attempts to claim in a courtroom they can discriminate against whatever group they wish to discriminate against because "Look... Hooters is allowed to hire nothing but big-boobed women!", Hooters is going to ability to hire nothing but big-boobed women. Hooters is getting away with what they are doing only because what they are doing hasn't been seriously challenged.

You cannot base an example on something that everyone involved already pretty much agrees is an illegal practice that is only lacking enforcement, pancho. It's like you pointing to a bunch of people all over the streets outside the Rose Garden after a Blazers game and using the example to claim that there are no laws against jaywalking in Oregon. Wrong. Of course there are regulations against jaywalking in Oregon. It's just pointless to try to enforce them in that one particular circumstance in which 15,000 Blazer fans have emptied from the Rose Garden at once.

(typo)

"...is going to ability to hire..."

should be

"...is going to lose the ability to hire..."

This really is sort of a side line to the main thread... but there's such a thing as a "Bonafide Occupational Qualification" (BFOQ) which legally allows for some otherwise discriminatory hiring practices.

Hooters was challenged by the EEOC on this very issue, and they settled the case. However, the challenge was not about appearance standards but rather gender inequality (Hooters' practice of hiring only women as wait staff, not men).

The settlement involved a cash payment and the creation of some "gender-neutral" positions, but did NOT restrict Hooters' ability to continue to hire only female wait staff. This doesn't mean that at some point the issue won't come up again, but one presumes that if the EEOC had a slam-dunk case they wouldn't have given up so easily (the original claim was for $22M in back pay to men who had been discriminated against; the actual settlement was only $2M plus legal fees).

Not exactly a rigorous legal challenge to Hooters specifically, but the BFOQ concept seems well established if a bit vague in scope. The trick is that whether something can be considered a BFOQ is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and you take your chances with the courts.

Anyhow, it would appear that Billy Bob from Pancho's example probably wouldn't get away with claiming a BFOQ given that transgendered or morbidly obese people (are these even protected classes in the first place?) are still capable of serving food, which is the primary function at a BBQ rib joint. However, if the restaurant was marketed not just as a rib joint but as a restaurant that featured nothing but sexy women waitstaff, Billy Bob might get away with it. But he still wouldn't be able to discriminate against a protected class for jobs in the back of the house, such as cooks or dishwashers.

If Billy Bob was running a strip club instead, though, he'd certainly have a strong case for appearance as a BFOQ.

For what it's worth.

David Wright: First of all, from your link, the settlement was almost twice what you said it was. 3.75 million. Secondly, a Republican is actually going to argue a Clinton EEOC made a serious challenge to Hooters? Think about that for a second before you answer.

As I said, there has not been a serious legal challenge to Hooters hiring practices by a legal team determined to get a ruling on the record. A settlement is not a ruling. Nothing that comes from a settlement is established as legal precedent.

Who cares about legal precedents re: EEOC investigations of Hooters?

This thread was not about the legal minutae of EEOC rulings. It was about the hypocrisy of politicians trying to further a moral agenda that intrudes in the personal decisions of others.

David, afs is searching through threads for opportunities to post something he "knows" (regardless of context or evidence to the contrary) and he thirsts for anyone willing to dispute him. If you play the game with him, he'll never stop.

Remember the advice you gave me earlier in the "Armed teachers" thread about wasting time responding to a person who "has proven himself repeatedly to have unreliable reasoning at best."

Hi Pancho,

My comments were really more for you and others who were discussing anti-discrimination laws as compared to the supposed "conservative" efforts to impose their moral code on others. I no longer respond to AFS or his inane ramblings about what I write (or rather, what he thought I wrote, since he still doesn't pay too close attention there). Any tweaking of AFS along the way is merely a happy side effect.   ;-)

Anyhow, I guess my point was that even though worker anti-discrimination laws generally violate complete freedom of association, there is some "wiggle room" for exceptions to those laws (with a BFOQ). Though, I suspect, the strongest proponents of anti-discrimination find even those minor exceptions to be unacceptable... which fits the larger theme in some of these comments about both sides trying to limit personal autonomy based on their own conception of "morality".

I agree with you, by the way, that the law should not be designed to protect individuals from mere insults. But the law should protect individuals from real injury caused by others, and I think that's the theory behind most anti-discrimination laws -- that restricting economic opportunities causes real economic injury. The question is, does the remedy itself cause injury to others (the business owner's freedom of association). Both sides can make a case, and it's really a matter of one's personal priorities as to which side you favor. Is economic freedom more or less important than freedom of association? Obviously not everyone agrees on that question.

The Schiavo case specifically was complicated by the fact that there was no clear undisputed expression of an autonomous decision by the patient. And the "conservative" furor over the case was primarily about the idea that absent a clear directive from the patient, and absent a consensus among the family, a preference for continued life should be presumed.

Now, there are all sorts of problems with the argument, but I think that was the core of the dispute. It wasn't about overriding Terri Schiavo's wishes or telling people they can't withhold medical care. Had Terri Schiavo had a living will, this likely wouldn't have been an issue. Absent the living will, had the family agreed on her fate, this would certainly not have been an issue (family-approved termination of care happens all the time without legal fuss).

The broader question raised by the extremists (such as Eric Cohen as cited in the original post for this thread) is an important one, though. There are some who believe that people shouldn't be allowed to decide when they die, the (religion-based) theory being that their life isn't really "theirs" to give up.

It conveniently ignores the clear implication of that philosophy, however, which is that if your life isn't your own to give up, it's certainly not your doctor's to prolong either. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to claim that only God can decide whether a person lives or dies, therefore doctors should always make people continue to live. But clear reasoning is not always the strong suit of the religious fanatic...

"It conveniently ignores the clear implication of that philosophy, however, which is that if your life isn't your own to give up, it's certainly not your doctor's to prolong either. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to claim that only God can decide whether a person lives or dies, therefore doctors should always make people continue to live. But clear reasoning is not always the strong suit of the religious fanatic..."

David, good point. Christian Scientists would hold the consistency here. Elsewise, the argument against autonomy merely substitutes one human's call for another's. Which is, of course, what Mr. Cohen et al want to do (allegedly in the name of God?). These philosophic spirals can circle ever more narrowly but still they just cannot reach a satisfactory end point.

"The discussion of moral autonomy centered around the question of whether the government can interfere with your right to live or die as you please--a situation where the individual is not seeking anything from anyone except the right to be left to their own devices."

Heathen! :=)

But rereading through this entire thread, and watching it morph from questions of quintessential moral autonomy of life to hiring practices at sports bars leaves me to think that so-called "liberals" give away the farm when they insist on obligations to others and disregard that they have, well, opened the barn door and let their own autonomy be spirited away.

TJ,

Uggh. I don't want to defend Congressional R's in the least re: Schiavo, but let's keep it real here.

The disturbing part of the Schiavo debacle was the attempted federal intrustion into a settled matter of state law. The fed's wanted to revisit the question of "what did TS really want?" because they didn't like the answer the state courts had come up with.

In that instance, the federal government was not overtly trying to overcome TS's wish to die, just keep her alive long enough to resubmit the question of identifying her wishes to a more favorable tribunal.

So the fed's tried to manipulate a legal process to influence the outcome, but they did not go so far as to try to prohibit TS (or anyohe else) from refusing care (once her true wishes were determined).

Contrast with anti-discrimination laws that intentionally limit the rights of free association and freedom of contract between individuals.

Those sorts of intrusion into personal autonomy are much more direct than what occured in the Schiavo matter.

Pointing it out, however, is politically incorrect.

TJ,

The attempts to overturn DwD via the CSA is a much better example than Schiavo of government intrusion upon the right to die.

However, like many anti-discrimination laws it operates as a limitation upon the right to contract.

The CSA doesn't prohibit suicide. Rather, it threatens the licenses of doctors who prescribe life-ending drugs. In so doing, they are interfering with the ability of doctors and patients to otherwise contract for services (e.g., the service of prescribing life-ending medicines to the terminally ill).

Sally was right. Liberals long ago opened the barndoor to legislating morality through the regulation of contractual relationships.

Like the newly vogue liberal defense of the "sanctity of the filibuster", this cry to rally around the cause of "personal autonomy" in this cirumstance reeks of political opportunism.

But hell, libertarians will take whatever we can get.

Torrid Joe,

Isn't Pancho saying that government interference in contracts are the means each side employs to achieve a specific moral end?

Conservatives are highly offending by people assuming they can just off themselves.

Liberals work themselves into lather over business owners discriminating in their hiring decisions.

<h2>Each believes its cause to be morally imperative and is willing to intrude upon personal autonomy to further it.</h2>