John Weidner over at RandomJottings makes an excellent point on what will eventually occur as the comparative effectiveness panels under the new health care regime begin to make life and death decisions about medical treatment.

Imagine a person is made a slave because our law allows it. And another person is made a slave because he's kidnapped by someone who is breaking the law. Are these two things equivalent? No, clearly not. An individual criminal act is not the same as a wrong sanctioned by our laws and our government.

Or, imagine that one woman loses her unborn baby because she can't afford medical treatments. And another woman gets a legal abortion. Are these two things equivalent? If the Christian view of abortion is true, then, no. The second is far worse, spiritually, for our society, because we all become complicit in the crime.

The same thing is true of health care. A utilitarian might say that a person dying because he could not afford care is no different than a person dying because a bureaucratic committee has decided not to purchase some piece of medical equipment. I say, not at all. The latter is far worse, because our government is cold-bloodedly deciding that some people are expendable.

But, as is often the case, if you’re rich or famous you won’t have to worry about being denied any treatment. Have you ever heard about a Canadian hockey player having to wait for knee surgery? No, the bureaucracy will recognize that treating the famous promptly is good public relations. And the rich? Well, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Tijuana as the new home to world-class medical facilities.