Heads up on what I am thinking about right now... The blog that I linked to in my last post, had a post yesterday about the Lancet's series on neo-natal health which apparently concludes with an article which apparently concludes that "To provide selected, high impact neonatal health interventions at 90% coverage, an extra $4.1 billion per year is estimated to be needed on top of the $2.0 billion spent currently, giving a total of $6.1 billion in the 75 countries with the highest mortality." The author, Jeanne, mentions this in a context criticizing the absence of any "pro-life" voice on this issue. Quite. Let's see if we can do better.
I want to research the claim made in The Lancet. Knowing claims that have beenmade by other authors and organization in the past, this sounds reasonable. It this sort of plan is reasonable, or if some similar plan is reasonable, I think it should be pursued with the sort of resources we pursue other issues - it only makes sense. And the efficiency would be practically obscene to waste, even if the loss of human life weren't. So, I am saying, take a look, and if this seems to be something worth pursuing let's make a push to publicize it; let's turn our rhetoric into practical actions. Not that other causes aren't important too, but this one is as well.
I know I have heard other ridiculously low numbers for things like, say, eliminating poverty in Africa. I can't seem to remember how little money was predicted to be required (or, just as important, who made the prediction), but I remember it was very low. (And even for the money-loving, ending poverty in Africa has to be cost effective; after all, that's more consumers...) This prompted me to check one of my favorite sources of information (and analysis and opinion) on these sorts of things, the UN Human Development Report. Okay, since it is from the UN, none of my conservative friends will want to read it but, oh, well. I haven't read it in a couple years, but I checked back to see what was available. These are the ones I want to check out as I have time (and I recommend them to you all as well):
And finally, on a distantly related note, I have been informed through the familial information chain (which was getting its information from the Family Research Council) that apparently Congressman David Weldon of Florida intends to introduce a piece of legislation called the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act, or Terri's Law. A little search produced what looks to be the text of the propsed bill on the NRLC's web site. Obviously, this law is designed to save Terri Schiavo of Florida, a story you doubtlessly already know. It appears that all it does is to extend court (some court) custody (or something like that) to an "incapactitated person" which for its purposes the bill defines as "an individual who is presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of food, fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law," unless such person had in advance a written statement allowing the withholding of food or medical care, etc. Apparently this extension of custody is designed to require due process rights for the individual, or something. I am not entirely certain how that will extend protection to people like Terri Schiavo, though apparently it would. The idea is good, I guess, but I am not sure how the legal technique in this bill will work. I sense trouble ahead on that count, but I am certainly not a lawyer, and I am paranoid, so I could be wrong. Anyway, this if passed, might be a good solution to the sort of problem evinced by the Schiavo case in Florida. Thus, it couldn't hurt to take the advice of groups like the FRC (even if it is the FRC) and support it, I would think. Though, before throwing my full endorsement of it, I would like to see some analysis of it by someone who does understand the legal implications of it. (Yes, one of my great failings in life is that I am not a person who automatically writes my Congressman about every great idea some advocacy organization tells me to. And I mean no disrespect to the plight of Terri Schiavo by saying that, just to clarify. What I am concerned about is that this not become an ineffective political soccer ball.)
[The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation has more information on this bill and the propsed text. The way they put it, it sounds like the law would allow federal courts to review the decision of state courts when they decide that a person can be allowed to die (by extending habeas corpus). Supposedly, there is precedent for that. It makes more sense the way they put it. Since I am still not a lawyrer (okay, I am not half bad at copyright law, but that took me a while), I still don't get how their explanation relates to the actual bill text, but their explanation makes a little more sesnse. Weldon intends to introduce the bill next Tuesday, the 8th.]
[I think I am getting paranoid. Why would this law be a bad thing?]
[Naturally, there are other takes on the issue (I do find it interesting the courts keep taking Michael Schoavo's side, though of course, if there were an injustice, that would be expected), though whether this particular case is lousy or not does not necessarily affect the usefulness of the law. Indeed, if this case were to go to a lower federal court, and if the case were really as bad as it is presented here, the federal court could always kick it out, and we would be right back where we are. The only remaining question would be, do we need federal courts involved? Sure, why not, I guess? Whatever... I don't think I am smart enough to figure this out. This is the first I have really heard anybody say anything about this on the left, though, I note. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't though it was also creepy not to have.]
[And, finally having said all of that - last addition, really! - I find the amicus brief filed at one stage of the Terri Schiavo case interesting.]
Want to comment? You'll need to create an account first.
