One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have "a duty to die," rather than become a burden to others.
This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.
Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.
There was a time— fortunately, now long past— when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their family and community to face their fate alone.
But is that where we are today?
Talk about "a duty to die" made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady— a relative of ours— was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.
She was called "Aunt Nance Ann," but I don't know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.
At that time, we didn't have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table— and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.
Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had "a duty to die."
I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air-conditioning.
It is today, in an age when homes have flat-panelled TVs, and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites— rather than the masses— have begun talking about "a duty to die."
Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about "a duty to die."
Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.
But my son didn't have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?
The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from the Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.
Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values, and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which "a duty to die" is just one.
These efforts at changing values used to be called "values clarification," though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed "clarification" had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this "clarification."
Nor are we better people because of it.
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
19 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
The straw man rides again. Mr. Sowell, it is easy to attack the outrageous comments of some nameless "intelligentsia" to rile up your tea bagger fans. I notice that you don't name names. Could it be that if you did your reader's might just ask "Who the hell is that"?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Mon May 10, 2010 9:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Mark. Mark. Mark. Your elitist ignorance is showing. Calling concerned citizens by a perverted activity name is, clearly, childish. When it is your turn to stand before a "Death Panel", I hope you will finally see the truth.
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Henricks
Tue May 11, 2010 1:03 AM
|
|
|
|
What an easy way to write a column. Make up a fake group of people, make up something horrible that they said, and then riff on how horrible it is. Obviously there's nobody talking about "a duty to die" or he'd name somebody. What's amazing, though, is that some people are so stupid that they fall for such a childish ploy, as evidenced by the comment ahead of this. By the way, if it's elitist to be able to spot a phony problem and know BS when you read it, then the world needs more of the "elite". Death panels. What a crock.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Geoffrey James
Tue May 11, 2010 3:52 AM
|
|
|
|
David, David, David, I understand your problem in addressing my comment. I also couldn't think of any "intelligentsia", by name, whose words might be twisted to support Mr. Sowell's claim. Perhaps you have some detailed wisdom to share here? Your belief in "death panels" makes me suspect that you haven't researched this topic thoroughly as you should.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mark
Tue May 11, 2010 5:43 AM
|
|
|
|
You doubters of Mr. Sowell, have you no understanding of supply and demand? Do you not believe healthcare for the elderly is being limited in England? When push comes to shove in this country, if we are not able to repeal Obumble's abortion of a healthcare bill, there will be financial shortfalls that will affect bucks for health services. Just look at us now: we're broke, California is broke, Social Security is broke, Medicare is broke, and I could go on and on. You think there's going to be a limitless supply of dollars for government healthcare? If you do, you need to stop smoking the stuff you're smoking. If you don't, well what do you think will be the criteria for rationing? A dartboard? Nope......it'll be "return on investment", and obviously spending $50K on a valve replacement on an 80-year-old ain't gonna' get the nod.
Wake up, you liberal dreamers.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Robert Neville
Tue May 11, 2010 6:29 AM
|
|
|
|
I think the news media stories about how hard it is to care for parents with Alzheimer's and dementia is behind this "duty to die" idea, although I've never heard it put so baldly. Aunt Nance Ann wasn't a burden, but some other types of caregiving can be, and one way or the other we as a society have to assist our caregivers in both maintaining their own livelihoods, and in caring for their aged or otherwise incapacitated family members. Or even neighbors… some people need care and don't have anyone capable of giving them even basic care.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Red Ree
Tue May 11, 2010 12:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Sewell; - I believe you are intelligent enough to realize that even if your assertions were true, we didn't GET the single-payer option (all-government insurance in the vein of Medicare), the way I personally desired. As a nurse, I have seen countless for-profit insurance companies do much worse to sick people at their worst times - facing death without treatment - all because the insurance companies find some way NOT to pay. Believe me, other than putting a few VERY REASONABLE sanctions upon insurance companies so that they can no longer enact some of these cruelest practices, we really got very little change with the reform.
BUT you are also intelligent enough to know there are many out there who are angry, and just need some reason (or lie) to scare them into further action. You are an abysmal person playing on the fears of those who do not know the above information, and will believe you. You are scary.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Betty Rousey
Tue May 11, 2010 3:47 PM
|
|
|
|
I am a nurse. Medicare is already rationing care for patients. I can only imagine that it will get worse as the baby boomers age. I work in bone marrow transplant and can tell you that Medicare patients with certain diagnoses DO NOT get a transplant;but others with the same diagnosis and private insurance do. I have a patient from Canada (a physician) who tells me that in Canada he: 1. Can not get Rituxan which is a very common monoclonal antibody that we give frequently....Canada says it's too expensive. 2. People over the age of 55 can't get a transplant. This is a form of rationing. This is where we're headed. We do need some kind of reform, but not what's been passed. Please tell me what govt program, other than the military, is run efficiently. I pray this can be repealed.
Comment: #8
Posted by: JPHRN
Tue May 11, 2010 5:10 PM
|
|
|
|
I seriously believe that Thomas Sowell should run for President. Mr. Sowell, you have said it well. I was very active in the pro-life movement since before the Supreme Court Decision was handed down--organizations were promptly formed to try to counter it. I was very involved in education and politics and fought "values clarifications" and its many titles in my children's education and on the state and federal level. All this was predicted from the beginning of the pro-life movement and has steadily come to pass even without legislation--through the changing of our children's and grandchildren's values in education and through government-run health care and through insurance companies, not to mention of course the infiltration of the media by the proponents of death. There was a curriculum in schools about Eskimos who put their elderly out in the cold to die or the elderly believed they had a "duty to die" and went voluntarily. Lifeboat ethics was taught in our schools, and I am sure it is still being taught. In one corrupt election and now a dictatorship, everything is coming to paas with lightning speed! Almost forty years of effort by pro-life people is for naught. I have read your opinions through the years. Keep up te good work and consider running for President!
Comment: #9
Posted by: Naomi
Tue May 11, 2010 7:27 PM
|
|
|
|
David, Nine comments and the "intelligentsia" yet remain nameless. I am not arguing that the changes to our health care are all good. The corporations will never let either party do something that really cuts into their bottom line. My point is simply that Sowell used a cheap straw man to make his point. I don't know if he was lazy or simply assumed his fans would not know the difference. It was not an accident. He has pointed out the dishonesty of this cheap method when deployed by others. I have read many of his books. I found his positions in the books are frequently well argued and presented, even when I disagreed with them. Sowell the columnist shows little of this intellectual skill. If you want a good idea of what the civilized world is doing about health care, read T.R. Reid's book The Healing of America. Lots of options out there that cost far less than we pay and deliver better results. My best friend is a family doc. She says that we already have "death panels"; there is one at every insurance company. Got great insurance through your work? Better not get a long term debilitating problem. That great insurance will go with the job.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Mark
Tue May 11, 2010 8:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Those clamoring for names of real people who use the term "duty to die" must not really want to know the answer to their own question. A simple Google search on the term brought up scores of references, one commenting on the former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm who used those exact words. Now, let's see some REASONED response to Sowell's main point which can no longer be conveniently dismissed as "straw man."
Comment: #11
Posted by: Arthur Werry
Wed May 12, 2010 5:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Who? A 1980's state governor, in a disputed reference to a 1984 speech. If that's as good as it gets, the straw man accusation looks pretty valid. No wonder he didn't try to go there. Is George Bush part of the "intelligentsia", or is that term only used for college educated people with whom Mr. Sowell disagrees? The problem to which Mr. Sowell refers is that we can't pay for every possible treatment and procedure for every person in the country. Should an alcoholic who still drinks and has a diseased liver be denied a liver transplant? The transplant system currently says yes. I suspect that most people would agree with rationing in that case. There aren't too many bright lines in this problem, however. Mr. Sowell knows that, but writing about gray zones doesn't sell newspapers, thus the outrageous straw man.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Mark
Wed May 12, 2010 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
instead of eliminating old people need to remove able body parasites who prey on Social services for a living instead of being productive, include all races.
Comment: #13
Posted by: W.J. Coker
Wed May 12, 2010 4:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Sowell....Thanks for your column today (13 th) las Vegas' review journal. We thought it strange a number of years ago when Gov. Dick lamm first uttered these words. Llittle did we know there was a seriousness to it and that many have embraced the idea. Thankfully, I have been repulsed by the idea long before I approached "OCTOGENARIANISM". I, too had an 'aunt nance'... my grandmothers sister.....sweet old lady and deserving of the caring rendered by all of us. Thanks for your insight.
Comment: #14
Posted by: roger pettiford
Fri May 14, 2010 7:19 AM
|
|
|
|
You. Sarah Palin, and John Bohner nee boner, Ohio Senator should give a performance at the next tea party gathering. You would enter to the strains of "Send in the Clowns".
Your article "do old folks have a duty to die?" is the personifation of Aristotle's definition of Studied Ignorance.
You make the strongest case yet against the giving of tenure, and why term limits should not only apply to politicians but also to those that "teach" because they cannot do. The thought that you have been and continue to spew this garbage to young and unsophisticated students is revolting. It is another insentive to improve our terrible educational system to a point that you can be challenged by your students.
Being the charitable person that I am, I will pray that some day you will not find yourself in a hospital bed suffering the pain and agonies of a terminal desease without having made a living will, surrounded by loved ones and medical technicians that know you can and want to cling to every possible moment of life supported by all the bells and whistles of medical gadgetry of the time and they continue to keep your heart beating because it's your right. This is the point that you have in your studied fashion desguised and falsified and that should be a part of a rational health plan.
Once I remember a column you wrote that I agreed with and a huge chill was felt all around the world, for a moment, hell froze over.
An avid reader,
John Slone
Las Vegas, NV
Comment: #15
Posted by: JOHN SLONE
Fri May 14, 2010 3:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Years ago, while my adopted children were young, I determined that death was a part of life, the final journey. The gift that I could give to my children, as I aged, was my choice to die, when the time came that death was inevitable.
I don't have a duty to die but I do have the choice not to linger. Extending the days, weeks, and months an elderly person has on this earth is not necessarily kind and loving but is often cruel and painful. I have always thought that we treat our animals with more compassion than we treat our elderly.
Like everything else, our society has changed from the time Aunt Nance Ann was passed from home to home. Perhaps Aunt Nance Ann enjoyed the disruption of her last days. Maybe she was not confused and relished the constant transitions and new faces. Maybe she was not spoon fed medicines that would keep her heart pumping and lungs breathing while she spent her last days slowly slipping away. Maybe there was always a woman, yes gender biased, that was home to care for her...Maybe there was no other choice but to pass this poor soul from place to place.
I have made the arrangements to limit all medicines, to hopefully remain comfortable, and to be assisted away from this world when the time comes. My children know my wishes. They know that I love them and that our time on this earth has been a pleasure. As a mother, I will always try to understand the needs of my children. They do not need to care for me, if I am capable of making the decisions necessary to care for myself.
How many families will honestly tell you that caring for an elderly loved one is a burden?... How many families pray that Aunt Nance will pass quickly. one day, in her sleep?
Comment: #16
Posted by: Susan Pellish
Sun May 16, 2010 6:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Duty to Die is one of the best and most truthful article I have read on the subject in a long time. Keep informing people so perhaps they will get thier heads out of the sand.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Stephen E Jones Sr.
Sun May 16, 2010 8:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Have I ever read anything by Thomas Sowell that wasn't SPOT ON?? Never!! I hope this article is not prophetic though. Especially since I am now 62. PLEASE keep sending your words our way!! We need to hear them!!
Comment: #18
Posted by: don thoms
Sun May 16, 2010 4:19 PM
|
|
|
|
There have been some examples of highly educated groups or peoples saying that the elderly deserve to die, and some have been saying this for the past two decades. Consider the former governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm. He made a whole speech about how he believes that old people have a duty to die and that we should begin rationing health care services. Those of you that are saying that Sowell is just making up the idea that groups of educated and elitist people want health care to not be provided to the elderly really need to open your eyes to the real world.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Sonia
Tue Jun 1, 2010 7:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|