Integrated System of Morality and Ethics

Far more important to me than free market economics is an integrated system of morality and ethics that makes sense.  What passes for morality and ethics in the world, including America, is perverted, inverted and upside down.  Fortunately there is a school of philosophy called Objectivism that lays out the integrated, consistent, sensible system I was looking for.  Here, we apply the principles of Objectivism to a critical issue in health care – organ transplants – with astonishing results.

Friday, I read about saving the life of Luke Massella.  Luke Masella is, by all appearance, a fine young man who was given a new kidney ten years ago.  Because our morals and ethics are so screwed up, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have died because they were denied the same opportunity given Mr. Masella.  To understand why, it is necessary to first review the fundamental nature of health care, and then integrate that understanding into a broader ethical and economic analysis.

First, health care is not a right.  Rights are obtained from our creator by virtue of our existence as human beings.  Specifically, each human being has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  There are no other rights.  Rights are not given to you by other people, and especially not by the gang that we call government.  In other words, my rights do not come at your expense.

Health care is an array of products and services created and provided to us by real flesh and blood people, just like us, but probably far more talented.  Therefore they must be compensated for their efforts.  If health care were a right  I would not have to pay anyone for it, ergo the doctor now becomes my slave – or perhaps the taxpayer forced to pay the doctor’s fee for treating me is my slave.  This is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union where doctors were paid no more than bus drivers.

The second critical consideration is the meaning of ownership.  To own something means the right to dispose of it in any way you see fit without interference from anyone else, limited only by the injunction against injuring anyone else or damaging their property.  This all derives from our fundamental rights discussed above.  In this context we are specifically concerned with answering the question, “Who owns you?”  If you believe you own yourself, then logic dictates your answer to a great many political issues.  Unfortunately, few people stick to logic, resulting in policy and law that effectively transfers ownership to society or the thugs who currently run things.

Now let’s take on the issue of the life of Luke.  Ten years ago he was given a new kidney.  This was no ordinary kidney received from a generous donor.  It was a kidney made from Luke’s own cells created by a new “printing” technique.  Printing is an apt description.  You can see how the process is accomplished by going to a video demonstration on Ted.com where you will see a simple inkjet printer actually laying down layer upon layer of manufactured organ tissue.  Last Thursday Dr. Atala, the person credited with the creation of this technique, demonstrated the printing of an entire kidney.  Hopefully the video of that demonstration will be available soon.

Ten years later, Luke is alive and very well without needing a constant regiment of anti-rejection drugs.  The kidney is truly his!  My first reaction was wonderment and joy of the amazing world of science fiction I am privileged to occupy.  My next reaction was a fury that prompted this post.

If you own yourself then I must own my self. Therefore I cannot tell you how to dispose of your self and you must stay out of my business.  The typical arguments regarding the life threatening nature of the need for a new kidney and that most people do not have the knowledge necessary to make good decisions in this instance is nothing more than elitist paternalist drivel.  The principle of self ownership means that neither you nor the apparatchiks at the FDA have any right to decide how one disposes of his most personal of property.  Fortunately the great discovery by Ludwig von Mises of the principle of non contradiction means that proper ethics is not only good business, but also great economics.*

In a world devoid of inverted ethics and fascist control over health care, the last ten years would have been very different from the near silence about this technique we actually experienced.  Even today, there was no major mainstream media coverage of Dr. Atala’s demonstration.  It should have had the same buildup as the explosion of the first H-bomb!

In a world without the monsters at the FDA, a year after Luke was given his new kidney and a new life, word would have quietly gone out to the very rich about the availability of this procedure.  For millions of dollars in fees a filthy rich person would be given the opportunity to take the risks associated with this new technique.  Some, perhaps many, would have decided to spend the money and take the risk.  This huge influx of cash would have dramatically accelerated the research and development necessary to perfect and commercialize the printing technique.  By now, thanks to unfettered market forces, this procedure would be widely available at prices within reach of many millions, not just the rich.  In a few more years, it would be commonplace even for the very middle class.  This happy course of events may appropriately be applied to the entire health care industry if it were relieved of the crippling regulatory apparatus imposed upon it.  Unfortunately, the FDA and our perverted ethics will ensure that there will be no general availability for many more years, and the costs will be prohibitive for all but the fortunate few.

There is an analog here – the consumer electronics industry.  Cool new stuff is invented and sold at outrageous prices that only the very rich would consider.  The rich then not only purchase the new stuff, but also experience the inevitable bugs that go along with new technology.  I can still recall that not long ago a fifty inch plasma flat panel television cost fifty thousand dollars apiece that required expertise to install, and the buyers and experienced lots of problems in operation.  Today, even I can whip out my credit card and purchase a far better and larger device for less than a twentieth of that crazy price.   You may counter that health care is fundamentally different from consumer electronics.  It is not.  Both are provided by some humans to other humans.  That we can live without consumer electronics and not a kidney does not change that basic equation.**

I am delighted that Dr. Atala’s new technique will eliminate the issues surrounding organ donations.  However, I am dismayed that Dr. Atala receives a billionth of the time and energy given to the analysis of Charlie Sheen.

___________________________________________

*People familiar with the principle of non-contradiction will credit Ayn Rand with its discovery.  She said that if you think you have found a contradiction, you must check your premises because one of them is wrong.  However, Ludwig von Mises did a great deal of writing on epistemological issues which even econo nerds like me have not read.  Von Mises made reference to this principle in his memoirs written around 1940, predating Rand by many years:  “The basic relations used by logic to link statements are necessary to an inseparable from human thought; irreconcilable relations are unimaginable.”

**To see the post on this subject, go to physorg.com and type “kidney” in the search bar.  For available videos go to ted.com and search for Dr. Atala.

All the best to you all,

Stephen Reiss
[email protected]

Read more at SedonaCyberLink