[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
I was hoping there could be a discussion based on what two distinguished
scientists agreed was "the most difficult ethical question facing science 
today." I thought the question was particularly relevant to this group because
Pirsig said that SOM science has "no provision for morals."

[Arlo]
First note the change from "science" to "SOM science". 

[Platt]
But, here are two scientists who apparently believe it's a question science has
some authority in answering, contradicting the thrust of the MOQ.

[Arlo]
And back to "science". I don't think this contradicts anythings, but maybe it
demonstrates science's overall expansion away from the S/O blindness Pirsig
noted years ago.

[Platt]
So far only Ian has offered to debate "how much 'rights' (to health care) an
MOQ argument would support." 

[Arlo]
Correct. I think Ian's pointing out the mixed approach of all Western nations
is accurate. The wealthy can, as always, ensure their own health-care security
(as Ian said, who would deny them?), while the poor are afforded a safety net
to ensure that "who lives and who dies" is not based exclusively on a person's
"economic value".

Your assumption, unless I am mistaken, is that the mode of distribution will
always necessitate some living and some dying (for want or treatment). Do you
think capitalism provides a "better" system for determining who lives and who
dies than the mixed "socialism" systems? On what "value" then, is this
determined?