This thoughtful piece by Sandy Szwarc highlights once again a serious and fundamental problem of our times, one that needs close and immediate attention because of the danger it represents for society, freedom, and culture: the role of public health.
Sandy takes inspiration from a California bill drafted by a 16 year old boy, believe it or not. Prepare yourself, because this is truly appalling (emphasis added): “The bill will require all poor women receiving welfare benefits to be tested for narcotics. Those who test positive will be required to undergo treatment or lose their public assistance, including healthcare.”
If you need further proof of the moral inversion of “public health” and of the political class in California, here it is: the boy, who suffers from cerebral palsy after being born prematurely to a drug addicted mother, won a writing contest called “There Ought to Be a Law.”
The consequences of the total lack of moral principles of healthist societies championed by California are explained by Sandy: “if one steps back to think of the proverbial slippery slope, what other unhealthy behaviors might a politician find potentially harmful to children or costly to the state and similarly choose to regulate by force…? What about having to maintain an ‘ideal’ weight, comply with treatments and take prescribed medications for ‘ideal’ health indices, engage in ‘healthy lifestyle’ behaviors, eat low-fat diets, not smoke, and put in two hours of exercise each week, all in order to receive Medicaid benefits?”
Sandy is right, of course. The political technique is always the same, and it always works, especially in eras of confusion and lack of principles: get the “heart-bleed case” to inject the social cancer into the political system – and then use the infiltration to apply the same cancer to any target you want to hit. That is why principles have to be tight, uncompromising, guarded – and apply to what "we like" and to what "we do not like,” or they become meaningless bad jokes.
The boy’s suggestion represents a total betrayal of a sacred principle of both medicine and social contracts: social medical care and benefits must be dispensed unconditionally, or they become instruments of blackmail – and “public health” intends to blackmail people into behaviour control. As it is still a moral consensus that blackmail is a crime punishable by law, the use of publicly-funded institutions to blackmail citizens is a crime. Apparently, and very sadly, an exception may be made when the criminals are “public health” authorities or healthist politicians, or at any rate, when the blackmailer purports to act for the “good” of the blackmailed.
Blackmailers, take note, and learn from the healthist state. Never mind demanding cash for the compromising picture of the unfaithful spouse: that paid well enough back when society had a moral standard. Much more profitable today is a picture of the victim with a needle, a drink, or a cigarette – to be sent to the criminals of “public health & welfare” who will rush in to test the victim and deny medical care … unless you are paid off, of course. Not only will you make a lot of money (especially from poor people), but you will probably get an award for responsible social behaviour. Crime in the name of health pays, and healthism shows the way.
The criminals who gave the award to the boy wanted to launch yet another confirmation of the fact that moral perversion has become the California standard. They also want to let everybody know that medical care and welfare is now a tool to blackmail defenceless people and to coerce them into the behaviour THEY want people to have even when that behaviour, at worst, harms only the person who practices it.
“There Ought to Be a Law”? Puerile minds think there should be a law against anything that “we don’t like," and in protection against just that, here is the kind of law that must be enacted: denial of socialized medical care for the purpose of personal behaviour coercion well ought to be a harshly punished crime. This form of eugenics merits jail time. Additionally, medical professionals who perpetrate such crime should lose their licences to practice, while institutions that perpetrate should forfeit any and all public funding in perpetuity.
That would be a good law, that would be a moral law, and this is why, in California and any in state or nation that has embraced the healthist ideology, it will never be a law: not until we force it. Healthist ideology is immoral and criminal. What are we prepared to do to defeat eugenic crime? Hint: whining will not work.