Rating: 
Summary: Very Thoughtful and Challenging
Review: A co-worker loaned me this book. I started to read it with some misgivings thinking that it would challenge some of my own beliefs. It did to some extent. However, I found myself agreeing with the author far more often than disagreeing. The author appears to anchor his beliefs on basic religious--or humanistic if you prefer--ethics concerning the absolute moral value and equality of all human life. Christian ethics, Buddhist ethics, etc.--I believe would all be in fundamental agreement upon this absolute moral value and equality of human life.From this position the author argues against certain medical technocratic bioethics thinkers, HMO management in some cases, PETA and other animal rights groups' spokesmen, etc. He makes his case effectively. Our modern culture tends to devalue and discard that which is less than "perfect", i.e., whatever is old, disabled, plain, or just simply discomforting. Many of us seem to want to live in a world with no "edges" or anything or anybody that would upset us. Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" is a work that the author commonly refers to as an example of fiction turning into reality. He makes the very strong point that we are in grave danger of losing our ability to be compassionate, caring, empathetic, and so forth by embracing the medically utilitarian view of quick disposal of that which is terminal. I am sure that the author overstates at times, however, I have more than once run into the coldly clinical, elitist, dispassionate MD on a personal level. I believe that western medicine produces more than a few of these folks. They and their kin should not have the final say in how the physically and mentally disabled, the elderly, and the dying are to be "disposed of". I noticed that the other reviewers appeared to politically conservative. I am not of that persuasion. However my views on abortion and animal rights--like the author's--probably could best be described as "moderate" or seeking compromise. The boogie man in this tale is utilitarian functionalism which can be seen as a product of medical elitism, western modernism, and a lack of caring on the part of society and individuals. The cure, as the author suggests, is a return to values of love and compassion on the part of society. I'm not for sure if those values of love and compassion have ever been that terribly engrained in our culture, but they are very worthy values to strive for. And the author has done a very good job of doing so. Hopefully, this debate will not degenerate into some moronic discourse between "conservatism" and "liberalism". Imagine yourself, old, infirm, in great pain, and slowly dying. How would you like your last days to be lived out? You would undoubtedly want love, compassion, and understanding from those around you. The human, non-ideological solution. I would take issue with the author over the issue of terrible pain during the time of dying. Better palliation and pain relief are wonderful solutions and much more can be done along those lines. But I do believe that there are times that very humane families and doctors are faced with extraordinarily difficult choices for their dying loved ones. I agree with him that legalized euthanasia does not seem to be the answer. However, I would very much hesitate to condemn--much less litigate--someone for trying to help a loved one escape great agonies. I guess I'm saying that this is an issue without any totally easy answers. Additionally, the aging of the "boomers" is going to present enormous medical problems for this country. It will be difficult enough for the working people of the country to support the elderly, but given the sophistication and expense of new medical procedures, one is led to suspect that new expensive and technologically sophisticated medical treatments for an enormous elderly population could bankrupt the country. I do not think I exaggerate--I myself am a boomer. As a society and a country we could ameliorate some of these problems by vigorously pursuing goals of much better fitness, nutrition, and healthier lifestyles for all--but especially the elderly. That could save the country enormous health care dollars and keep us from some terrible choices. The author brings up the point of being true to the Hippocratic oath to the extent of providing the maximum amount of effective medical services to the suffering patient. In theory I agree with this. However, if you had a choice of spending 1 million dollars on a terminally ill elderly patient in this country or providing that amount of money to possibly save the lives of hundreds of people in Africa suffering from treatable diseases, which would you choose? Either slope is a slippery one. To look away from the dying in Africa is truly terrible and we are most definitely guilty as a society. Moral dilemmas like these will never fully go away.
Rating:
Summary: Examines moral issues involved in new medical scenarios
Review: An obscure cadre of bioethcists has won legislation likely to change our daily lives: that's the contention of Wesley Smith's Culture of Death, a title which examines how the value of life is now traded on cost-benefit ratios. The issue here is equal protection rights and equal life values: this presents some important legal arguments in examining moral issues involved in new medical scenarios.
Rating:
Summary: It is the doom of men (and women) to forget.
Review: Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are highly emotional issues. Often both sides a bit shrill in pleading their case. Smith offers a reasonable accounting of the arguments for standing against the "Culture of Death" and a chilling warning about how that culture is slowly insinuating it self into everyday life. While he does give many human accounts of the problem he maintains a lawyers clear course to the facts and argues his case well. So well in fact that his work seems to be a primary target of the pro-PAS legions. The terms "culture of death" and "slippery slope" are often used in a sneering manner to discount those who do not believe as they do. To me this says they are very afraid of what he has to say. That would say volumes about the strength of his argument. I'd also recommend his "Forced Exit" and "Power over Pain" co-written with Eric M. Chevlen MD. (one Hell of a resource for anyone who deals with pain issues professionally or personally). Smith is a very readable writer and obviously has done his homework on the subject. Folks the problem is real, TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. As a friend recently pointed out even if we are not currently elderly or disabled we are almost all headed that direction. Take the time to educate yourself rather than to just react. This book is one of the best places to start.
Rating:
Summary: Modern medicine at a crossroads?
Review: In spite of the title, this book isn't about what most people would think it's about. It is not about abortion. Rather, it is about what author Wesley J. Smith terms "futile care theory" - modern medicine's inaction due to the direction of bioethics and cost-benefit ratios. Through compelling and often disturbing anecdotes Smith examines how "bioethicists" threaten patient welfare through redefinition, organ harvesting, and support for euthanasia. Futile Care Theory, he explains, allows physicians to base care decisions upon the patients' "quality of life", thereby often deciding that no care is the best care. I found Chapter 6 especially interesting, as Smith discusses how our culture protects animals at the expense of people. A similar action was taken by the National Socialist government in Germany just prior to the Nazi's creation of their "Final Solution" for the extermination of the disabled, gypsies, Jews, etc. Smith includes an appendix which shows the payback in terms of medical discoveries and cures which have resulted from animal research. In the end Smith advocates a "human rights" bioethics - one that will again value human life. His work is eye-opening and demonstrates just how much we have embraced what Pope John Paul II has termed a "Culture of Death." I recommend this book quite highly.
Rating:
Summary: A fantastic expose of the lack of ethics in medicine
Review: Shocking and informative, this book is written with conviction and a powerful sense of wrong and right. A must-read for anyone interested in end-of-life care.
Rating:
Summary: A fantastic expose of the lack of ethics in medicine
Review: Shocking and informative, this book is written with conviction and a powerful sense of wrong and right. A must-read for anyone interested in end-of-life care.
Rating:
Summary: A survey of new, dangerous trends in medical ethics
Review: The assault on medical ethics in America received argument in a title that shows how a new generation of physicians and 'bioethicists' threaten patient welfare. From new thinking on comas and death to cases for organ harvesting from the disabled and terminally ill, Wesley Smith's Culture Of Death provides a survey of new, dangerous trends in medical ethics.
Rating:
Summary: Bioethics War on Humanity
Review: The ominous term "Culture of Death," coined by Pope John Paul II encompasses a variety of current trends-the glorification of violence in movies and music, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, the escalating use of sweat shop labor, and a host of other degradations that debase humanity. Wesley J. Smith wisely limits his focus to an exploration of the innocuously titled bioethics movement, and what he finds is very scary! Bioethics has many deleterious similarities with another increasingly popular craze--multiculturalism. Both fads seek to diminish the value of the individual for the good of the "group," both seek to revolutionize basic aspects of society and castigate all those who advocate a different perspective, and both have snowballed in acceptance without any genuine proof of their beneficence. One pernicious difference can be seen in the end result of their adoptions. While multiculturalism presents great potential harm by devaluing persons and encouraging stereotypical group identities, Bioethics dictates that some lives are more valuable than others and some are not worth saving or even palliating. Bioethics has already made a host of insidious advances from the enforced withdrawal of feeding tubes-sometimes against patient's wishes-to the feasibility of "assisted suicide" to experimentation on severely disabled babies (an activity straight out of Dachau) to everyday occurrences like stem cell research and far-flung abortion. One of the areas were bioethics has scored impressive success is the animal rights movement which openly promulgates the notion that some animals are more important than some people. Obviously those of us who are proud animal-lovers would never tolerate any form of mistreatment of our furry friends, and when medical animal experimentation is absolutely necessary, we are right to demand that the creatures be treated humanely. Still the thought that a severely disabled newborn baby deserves less care than any animal or any other human being for that matter (a prospect vehemently purported by Princeton University's resident madman Peter Singer and a gaggle of other animal rights extremists) would be farcically amusing were it not gaining such horrifying acceptance. Adding to the disquieting nature of bioethics is a recurrent racist streak. One cited opponent to the organ-for-sale mentality states that "proponents of fiscal rewards argue that since minorities are more likely to be poor, financial incentives are likely to be more attractive to them." Animal rights fanatics have concocted the bizarre word "speciesism" to scurrilously equivocate their cause with racism. Some members of this lunatic fringe go as far as "comparing the Holocaust and slavery with banal activities like animal husbandry and eating meat." The author further intimates how in 1933 the government of Germany advocated legalizing euthanasia and employed many of the same euphemisms bandied about today. A tiny familiarity with 20th century history is all that is necessary to know what followed that gross dehumanization. Despite the infuriating and unnerving nature of this work, it does contain some genuinely inspirational stories. Mr. Smith documents some cases of heroic family members or hospital workers who defied conventional wisdom and doughtily fought to save the lives of loved ones or patients who had been written off by bioethicists devoted to improving society while destroying individuals.
Rating: 
Summary: Culture of Death
Review: This is a well written exposition of frightening changes in the values and practices of the medical profession. I found myself reading only a little at a time simply because the subject is painful to think about. It describes the development of a "culture," that is a school of thought and practice, that places little or no value on human life as such. Its major strength is in the lucid discussion of intellectual developments and their effects in practice. It also relates many concrete cases and shows their inter-relationship with ideas and their acceptance. The main weakness I see is that there is little consideration of the economics involved except for accasional references to managed care versus fee for service insurance. There is no discussion of the fact that traditional medical ethics, including the Hippocratic oath, arose in a world of private patients. When people chose (and paid) the physicians that treated them, the medical profession could hardly exist without patients' confidence that their interests would be paramount to those they gave such power over their lives. The treatment of those who couldn't pay helped assure those who could. The advent of insurance provided by third parties, employers or governments, was bound to change things. Few people can choose a job based on whether the insurance provided will pay the doctor of their choice. With payments coming from an insurer not selected by their patients, medical practitioners' loyalties had to be divided. We could expect thinkers to rationalize the division.
Rating:
Summary: Essential work on euthanasia, end-of-life care, etc.
Review: Wesley Smith has written a readable treatise on euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide (murder), the devaluation of the handicapped, and the idiocy of the animal "rights" movement. If you are interested in these areas, or writing a paper or researching an article on these fields, this book is essential reading. Smith has termed the assault on basic human values led by the twisted values of the Kevorkians and Singers as the "culture of death". This term is accurate and portrays this sub-culture as it really is. Smith starts with cases of neglect where physicians or others try to kill or let die others due to a variety of reasons. Some of these cases are disturbing in hind-sight because you invariably can see the Ghosts of the Nazi ethicists lurking behind the scenes. Smith then includes chapters on euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, withholding life-sustaining measures (like food and water), and finishes with chapters on organ donation and animal "rights". He presents lots of evidence and direct quotes from both sides. His treatment of the legal cases and legal reasoning involving these issues is especially strong. Now, on a personal level, I am a physician who deals with these issues daily and there is truly a culture of death out there. Every day I fight a mostly losing battle with a system that argues more about pharasaical "rights" than what is best for the patient. Recently some family members of a dying patient kept vigil on a comatose relative so that he wouldn't "suffer" from the nurses turning him and wiping his butt after bowel movements. Mercifully, he died before I had to call in the police to remove them from the hospital. The family somehow felt that their "rights" to decide their loved one's care trumped common sense and decency. One fault of this book is that it doesn't discuss the greatest culprit in the devaluation of life - abortion. "I will give no deadly drug to any - even if it is asked for. Similarly, I will not aid a woman to procure abortion." These lines from the Hippocratic Oath were the bulwark of medical ethics. Most doctors no longer take this oath, but a bastardized, liberal monstrosity that is meaningless. My advice is if your doctor doesn't believe the original oath then find another, because he doesn't have your best interests at heart. In short, this book lacks pro-life information essential to this topic. That's why I gave it 4 stars. However, it does an excellent job showing how our society devalues life in the areas of euthanasia, physician-assisted murder, and the harm that the animal movement is doing to human beings.
| 
