O Emanuel
Presidential transitions are challenging under the best of circumstances, of which the Trump-to-Biden handoff was…um…not. So we can forgive President Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force (CTF) for not being in the loop on the latest progress and paths forward.
In fact, it can be argued (and I am doing so) that the Biden CTF would best benefit the nation by being sidelined indefinitely.
President Biden announced his CTF last November 11, with the stated goal of enabling the incoming administration to hit the ground running, bringing some adult supervision to Federal coronavirus management long perceived as chaotic under President Trump. The CTF was established with 12 leaders from clinical, epidemiological, logistical and other medical disciplines.
When the CTF was announced, one name immediately leaped off the page: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
The CTF’s summary of Dr. Emanuel says:
Oncologist and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania who since 1997 has served as chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.
The summary left out two interesting facts: first, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, former mayor of Chicago and chief of staff for President Obama. Rahm is famous for his quote: “Never let a crisis go to waste”, in support of the Obama administration’s legislative ambitions after the financial collapse of 2008.
This is hardly a strike against Ezekiel – it’s natural for an administration staffing up complex organizations from scratch to seek out reliable connections and references from trusted partners.
More relevant is Dr. Emanuel’s other notable claim to fame: his arguments in favor of euthanizing people when they reach age 75. Reference his 2014 essay in The Atlantic: Why I Hope to Die at 75
Euthanizing is a strong term, and Dr. Emanuel himself rejects it. But you be the judge. His essay cites his personal intent to refuse all medical interventions—even antibiotics and vaccinations—after he turns 75 years old, saying he believes older Americans live too long in a deteriorating state.
Emanuel acknowledged that some people will be mentally capable and active past 75.
"[T]here are outliers…there are not that many people who continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It's a very small number."
But even those who do live beyond 75 aren't actually doing anything "meaningful" with their lives, Emanuel said.
In a 2019 interview he stood by his original position:
"These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people 'do,' almost all of it is what I classify as play. It's not meaningful work," he said. "They're riding motorcycles; they're hiking. Which can all have value—don't get me wrong. But if it's the main thing in your life? Ummm, that's not probably a meaningful life."
Dr. Emanuel has repeatedly stressed that he is not advocating mandatory withdrawal of life-extending therapies for the senior population. But he does cite his intent to forego preventative procedures such as colonoscopies when he arrives in his sixties.
And his essay makes it clear that he hopes that others will emulate him.
In the Atlantic, Dr. Emanuel references studies and history demonstrating that humans “peak” in their forties, followed by a gradual deterioration, culminating in a prolonging of life that is no longer valuable.
“But the fact is that by 75, creativity, originality, and productivity `are pretty much gone for the vast, vast majority of us.”
Critics of Dr. Emanuel’s position cited vibrant octogenarians ranging from Grandma Moses to Betty White as examples of how the cut-off at age 75 would eliminate those who could still make remarkable things happen.
But to make such arguments is to concede the subtext of Dr. Emanuel’s polemic: that the value of human life is measured by the ability to create and produce (in his words): “meaningful work”. Though not likely deliberate on his part, he still evokes the classic Marxian trope: the worth of a citizen depends upon his ability to contribute to the collective.
And we all know what Marxism does with citizens who cannot produce.
While I respect Dr. Emanuel’s attempts to limit his argument to voluntary suasion, I have no confidence that progressive advocates of public policy would follow suit. His reasoning serves as a playbook, a rationale for those seeking to relieve senior citizens of the burden of their lives, while conveniently also alleviating their burden on state-directed resources.
We probably won’t go full Logan's Run on our diamond-anniversary peeps, with a festival of formal execution once an age limit has been reached. But it’s hardly a stretch to imagine subtle adjustments to healthcare practices that would achieve the same effect, just with fewer fireworks.
Hence, I will retain my reluctance towards extending the authority of central planners over healthcare decisions.
After all, in his same essay referencing his rejection of treatments Dr. Emanuel also said:
“What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out. Certainly if there were to be a flu pandemic, a younger person who has yet to live a complete life ought to get the vaccine or any antiviral drugs.”
And now this ethicist is advising President Biden on how to innoculate against a pandemic that has devastated senior populations around the world.
As Yoda might say…”poor the optics are.”