Why is there no mention in this New York Times story of Ezekiel Emanuel? Oh, wait. The reporters are carrying water for President Obama, and it would not benefit the president (indeed, it would hurt the president) if readers knew what his health-care adviser has advocated.
Addendum: Dr Emanuel's thinking has "evolved." Here is what I find interesting. Many philosophers, political scientists, and law professors have made a slippery-slope argument against torture. They say that even if torture is not intrinsically wrong, it is too dangerous to allow. If we allow it even in extreme ("ticking-bomb") cases, it's only a matter of time, given human psychology and the workings of institutions, before it becomes routine, and that would be terrible. What Sarah Palin and others are arguing is that, if we allow government bureaucrats to bring quality-of-life considerations to bear in their decisionmaking, it's only a matter of time, given human psychology and the workings of institutions, before certain forms of care or treatment are prohibited (or simply not funded) on the ground of age or disability, and that would be terrible. Why is slippery-slope argumentation appropriate in the case of torture but not in the case of health care?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 