Serious Reading

The primary reason that I read The Economist cover to cover is that doing so gives me the opportunity to think about things that are distant from my daily routine. In fact, since they rarely, if ever, talk about going to the grocery store, wondering if we’ll ever get those curtains rehung in the dining room, or looking for clean socks, it would be fair to say that everything they talk about is distant from my daily routine. Its an enjoyable process, particularly if I can bring myself to stop and actually think about what I’m reading, rather than simply nodding to myself and moving on to the next article. In the current issue, two articles caught my eye and made me slow down and think.

The first is about the woman who is Mr. Bush’s choice to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. It is easy to take pot shots at this choice, and I’m as willing as the next person (possibly more) to denigrate Mr. Bush’s abilities and motivations. Nevertheless, I assume that she is not a casual choice, but the result of serious analysis. Considering that he wants to pick someone who is politically acceptable to him, and attitudinally acceptable to the conservatives, yet not so conservative that it would automatically trigger anger and obstruction from the Democrats, I think that he found himself weeding out a number of people who were qualified for the position. This candidate, though probably not the sole one with this distinction, is still likely one of the few who met the litmus test – conservative, acceptable, not likely to trigger a fuss. Yet because apparently one of the requirements was not ability, a fuss has been generated. I find myself doing the same calculus now that I did when Roberts was being considered – if this one isn’t approved, which way will the President go on the next? Will he pick someone who is more qualified for the position, and more politically acceptable to the Democrats, knowing that this will anger his supporters, or will he pick someone who is qualified for the position while being more conservatively rigorous, relying on numerical superiority in the Senate to achieve success? Given that choice, is the nominee the best of a bad deal?

The second is a series of articles on the politics of euthanasia. One starts with what they call ‘the policeman’s dilemma’ – a policeman comes upon someone who is grievously injured in a car wreck, the car is on fire, and the person will likely be burned alive before he can be extricated. He begs the policeman to shoot him. What should the policeman do? The article goes on to less dramatic but equally compelling incidents – a person is terminally ill, no hope of recovery, and in serious, agonizing pain. They beg for someone to end their life. Do they have the right to make that request, and does anyone have the right to honor it? There are good arguments on both sides of that issue. We do not countenance keeping someone in agony if we can provide medical relief; it is a logical step further to say that we should not countenance keeping someone in agony if medicine cannot provide relief, but other actions can. Yet it can also be said that agreeing to the death of a person at their request can easily be perverted into granting death for lesser reasons, and not always at the wish of the person involved. Grandpa is a pain, we want him gone. No one would agree to killing him because he is a bother, but if we can make the case that he is in pain, that no surcease is available, and that only euthanasia will suffice, should he not be euthanised?

Worthwhile reading.