From: LeoCasey <LeoCasey-AT-aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:23:21 EST
Subject: M-TH: The Monster Responds


This would be humorous if it were not so absurd. In response to my inquiry
about how one makes choices (now or in a socialist society) on issues such as
organ transplants, where those who could use such transplants far outnumber
the organs which are available, Carroll first responds:

<< This is a real no-brainer, and if Leo were not so deeply embedded in his
 insanely individualistic world he probably could come up with something
 difficult. But this question doesn't even cause much trouble *now*. It is
 handled by some bureaucratic procedure. Only a monster would dream up a
 situation where some one sat and actually made a moral choice here. If you
 really mean this question Leo, I would rather live under the
 administration of Buchenwald than in any world you might dream up. >>

It seems like Carroll's rhetorical throttle is stuck in one gear, the trope of
hyperbole, and pushed to the floor. It also seems that the synaptic
connections between the rhetorical throttle and the logical engine are a
little loose and frayed. All of the questions about who gets the transplant
and who does not -- should the age of the recipient be a factor for
consideration, should the cause of the need for the transplant be a factor,
should the ability of the recipient to maintain difficult medical regimens
after the transplant be a factor, should the fact that an underlying
condition, such as chronic hepatitis B infection, could destroy the
transplanted liver be a factor, should a continuing drug addiction be a
factor, should the progress of the liver disease and thus the imminent nature
of death be a factor, and so on -- can be dismissed in the name of an
unspecified bureaucratic procedure (first come, first served???). And those of
us who think that some clear moral criteria should guide decisions over who
lives and who dies, who are not comfortable with the fact that a sports
celebrity like Mickey Mantle should be able to obtain a liver transplant after
a life of alcoholism and when the chances of the transplant taking are not
very good while Josetta Schmo never even gets a chance are the latest version
of Dr. Mengle. If it weren't so absurd, you would have to think it was a joke.
But then what should I expect from someone who nominates Gandhi as one of the
leading mass murderers of the 20th century?

A few hours later Carroll reads the morning paper, and wants a second shot at
the issue:
<<Of course it is a political decision, not a moral
one, and turning it into a heavy handed system of "fairness" will exercise
the same sort of corrupting influence on the public intellect that the
death penalty does. One simply must not invoke the whole formal dignity of
the state around issues life and death.

So probably the current hit or miss system of who is closest is least
politically damaging. I can't see it as a question very many will take to
the barricades over in either a capitalist or a socialist state. My
first wife was on a waiting list for a kidney in the summer of 1968 but
died of a shunt infection before her name came up. I don't think either of
us even under those conditions (and I wasn't a Marxist yet then) really
thought that there should be any very elaborate system of selection. We
just hoped for the best.

So I come back to my original response to Leo: it makes my blood run cold
to imagine someone making a big moral deal out of selecting patients for
organ transplants. It's best kept as casual, and at as low a level in the
bureaucracy, as possible. Anything else would be corrupting of the public
mind.>>

It is always amazing to watch the capacity of a Stalinist to twist and turn to
reach what he thinks is a necessary ideological conclusion when all of the
evidence in front of him points in the opposite direction. In order to avoid
making any moral judgments on who should get a liver transplant and who should
not, Carroll wants us to eliminate all consideration of "fairness." It is an
argument that would make any social darwinist proud: let the vagaries of the
market decide. The only question one needs to ask is why anyone who claims
that he is commited to social justice, much less a socialist, would take such
a stand?

Leo Casey


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---