Trey Dimsdale, J.D.Tweet
Research Associate at the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
Posted 6/10/13 at 12:34 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D.
Many people have followed the heart-wrenching case of Sarah Murnaghan for the past several weeks and most of those people have been hoping and praying for a miracle. Sarah is the 10-year old little girl who has been very near death in a Philadelphia children’s hospital awaiting a lung transplant. According to the rules that govern organ transplantation, Sarah is two years shy of the birthday that would allow her to be considered for an adult pair of lungs, so she is forced to wait for a rare set of pediatric lungs while patients in less dire need receive lungs from adult donors. The media has taken up Sarah’s cause and even the United States House of Representatives has gotten involved. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the government official with the authority to suspend the rules that keep Sarah at a disadvantage in her wait for organs, appeared by a House panel last week. Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania urged the Secretary, "I'm begging you. ... She has three to five weeks to live. Please suspend the rules.” Sebelius acknowledged that his is an "incredibly agonizing situation”, but reiterated that she cannot suspend the rules in this case. The family, however, appealed to a federal court on Wednesday, June 3 and the court ordered Sebelius to lift the application of the rule in this case.
As a parent, I sympathize with the Murnaghan family. No parent can blame them for seeking to move heaven and earth to save their daughter. In fact, their selfless dedication to their daughter is refreshing in a world that seems to marginalize children and allows (and often encourages) parents to kill their unborn children who have the same disease that imperils Sarah’s life. That being said, however, this is a rare case in which I agree with Kathleen Sebelius. I am fully aware that Sebelius’s course of action means certain death for Sarah, which means that it is not a course that should be taken easily or lightly, but it is one that needs to be taken dispassionately and distantly.
If Sebelius had lifted the rule in this one emotionally charged case, what then does she do in the next emotionally charged case? One unique thing about this topic is that every decision made about organ donation is a life and death decision. When ten people need an organ, only one can receive it and the other nine cannot. The rules are in place to ensure that all ten of those candidates have the best chance of survival. It may be that because one rather than the other receives the organ, someone will die, but the rules must strike a balance and be based on factors that are very unsettling to consider.
Organs are allocated in a way that considers several factors. A patient who likely will die of cancer within six months will not be a viable candidate for a heart transplant when the heart that they have would otherwise keep them alive for two more years. This is not to say that that patient’s life is not valuable. Of course it is, but the person who can be given the same heart and be expected to live for fifteen more years is equally as valuable and the organ has the chance to give more life, more happiness, and do more good in the second patient rather than the first. These are the types of decisions that are hard, that wreak of utilitarian paternalism, but are none-the-less necessary. Dispassionate and rigid rules which are based on likely outcomes insulate these terribly agonizing decisions from being made on the basis on irrlevant factors.
Had Sebelius granted the waiver, she would invited a flood of appeals for similar treatment and at the point that a rule has so many exceptions, the rule simply ceases to exist. The federal court in this instance did no favors to the system and in the wake of the court’s ruling, other similar motions have been filed for other patients. As dispassionate as judges and bureaucrats try to be, they are still human and can be moved by emotionally charged stories. The best system is one that regularly reviews medical statistics and forms rules for organ donation based on the assumption that the maximum prolongation of life is an unambiguous good. It is easy to advocate for a suffering and dying ten year old girl, but how many would rush to defend the appeal of a war criminal or serial killer seeking a bureaucratic or judicial exemption to the rule? Rules based on available technology, likely outcomes, and respect for all life will keep any of us from ever being forced to do either.
Posted 11/7/12 at 7:23 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
The issues of tax exemption for religious organizations and for the individual tax benefits that come with donations to religious organizations have a complex history. Most European nations have some sort of state supported church, so when the U.S. traces our tradition of treating religious organizations differently, we trace it back to complex circumstances that are often tied to free church vs. state church arguments. We don’t face that problem here in precisely the same way given that the United States does not have a state church, but there is no doubt that we inherited it when we inherited much in our legal and social systems. In order to be valid, every law that is enacted in this country must be enacted by a body with the authority to enact it. Additionally, no matter how attenuated the connection, there must be a “public policy” justification for the law. The just and justifiable law must encourage behavior that is beneficial for society, discourage behavior that is bad for society, or both. A law does not accomplish anything if it does neither. FULL POST
Posted 11/1/12 at 2:45 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
In the second Presidential Debate of this election cycle, President Obama was asked, “What has your administration done, or planned to do, to limit the availability of assault weapons?”
The President responded, “We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.” This response should be troubling to all Americans whether they are gun owners or not. The response that he gave reveals some fundamental problems with the President’s interpretation of our Constitution, his understanding of the nature of our rights, and his view of the role of government in our lives.
Posted 10/29/12 at 11:46 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
On Monday, October 29, a newborn baby boy was discovered abandoned in Corsicana, Texas. He had been stuffed into a bag and left on the door step of a family’s home. Thankfully, news reports confirm that he is doing well, although no details have been released about the chain of events that led to his abandonment. As of the time of this post, his mother has not been located and nothing more about him has been revealed.
There are a few things, however, that we can deduce from this situation. Firstly, whoever his mother is, she chose life instead of abortion. Secondly, we can presume that her circumstances are such that she was desperate and those circumstances drove her to do something rash. Given that we do not know who she is, it is impossible to tell whether this abandonment was planned or if she went into labor, delivered the child, and simply found the first inhabited structure where she could leave him. FULL POST
Posted 10/3/12 at 9:21 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
In Philippians, the Apostle Paul warns the church that we are in the midst of a “wicked and perverse generation.” For every generation of the church, this has been true, but in the lifetimes of most in the American churches, we have never seen a culture that is more hostile to Biblical truth. We are being pressured to accept the “inevitability” of the redefinition of marriage that would allow two men or two women to marry. We are being pressured to abandon the defense of the sanctity of life by acquiescing to the legal right for a woman to kill a child in her womb or the legal right for a family to kill a dying relative.
The state has appropriated the church’s obligation to care for the poor and in the process, created entitlement programs that plunder the property of citizens and result in cycles of government dependency and poverty. The wicked and perverse generation of which we are in the midst is killing its children and its elderly, redefining the family, and creating a toxic economic environment that hurts the poor and creates perverse disincentives. FULL POST
Posted 8/17/12 at 2:31 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
In the days following September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, televangelist Pat Robertson claimed that the ACLU largely was to blame for the attacks because of their support of homosexuality and other sinful behavior. In the weeks following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, he said that the hurricane was God’s judgment on a city that had tolerated gays and lesbians. In 2010, Robertson blamed a people who had made a deal with the devil for the earthquake that ravaged their already poor country. Last year, he stated that it would be understandable, if not permissible, for a man to divorce his wife whose mind was ravaged with Alzheimer’s because she was already, in some sense, gone. Yesterday, Robertson embarrassed Christians even further when he took shots at the most vulnerable among us—orphaned children.
A viewer who is the mother of three girls, all of whom have been adopted from overseas, wrote in to The 700 Club and told of her experience with dating men who don’t want to date her once they find out that her children are not her biological children and that they have been adopted from orphanages overseas. Robertson’s co-host immediately responded that those men are “dogs”, but Robertson interjected. He said that these men were not wrong. They shouldn’t be expected to take on the “United Nations” for their family. He recounted the story of a friend who had adopted a child from Columbia who grew up “weird” and stated the very obvious truth that we really have no idea what has happened to those children before they arrive here. Many have been the victims of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and most have been undernourished. All of these things can have a devastating impact on the future development of these children and according to Robertson, no man is obligated to assume another person’s problems. FULL POST
Posted 8/4/12 at 12:12 AM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
This week, Gabby Douglas made history by being the first non-white woman to win the gold medal in the ladies’ gymnastics all-around and the first American gymnast to win gold in both the individual and team events. In the moments after receiving her individual gold medal, Gabby told a reporter, “It is everything I thought it would be; being the Olympic champion, it definitely is an amazing feeling. And I give all the glory to God. It's kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him and the blessings fall down on me.” It isn’t particularly unusual to see American athletes publicly express some sort of religious devotion. This is, however, a much more specific declaration of faith than “Tebowing”, making the sign of the cross before throwing a pitch, or kissing a crucifix before stepping into the batters’ box. Gabby tweeted later in the evening, “Let all that I am praise the LORD; may I never forget the good things he does for me!” Many of her tweets after that include similar references to God. FULL POST
Posted 7/26/12 at 1:46 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D.
In an earlier post, I identified the third erroneous Marxist assumption that I would be addressing as the assumption that the family does not matter. As I prepare this post, however, I think that a better way to describe a catastrophic flaw in the Marxist worldview is that it is morally bankrupt. Marxism hides behind a veneer that articulates the goals of the system in a morally admirable way. Who can argue that freeing the oppressed from oppression is a good thing? Anyone who has read the Minor Prophets knows that God cares about the way that nations treat the poor among them. Any believer who takes his faith seriously knows that while we are to be primarily concerned with the condition of men’s souls, we follow Christ’s example when we do good works that eliminate temporal human suffering. There is no doubt that there are well-intentioned Marxist idealists out there who believe that Marxism presents the best formula for accomplishing many laudable goals. As genuine as their belief may be, it is no less wrong. Marxism presents a system in which theft is institutionalized as personal property rights are eliminated. It also unnecessarily pits employee against employer, assuming that any situationally unequal relationship must be exploitative in some way. The most grievous moral defect, however, is Marxism’s goal of abolishing the family. FULL POST
Posted 7/24/12 at 1:56 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D.
This is the third of four posts about some of the false assumptions of Marxism. The last post dealt with Marx’s erroneous assumptions about the nature of property. This post deals with Marx’s erroneous assumptions about the way that the market determines value. The issues that are addressed in the post relate to those addressed in the last. Each of these, in the context of Marx’s work, appears to be twisted in the way that best serves his purpose of inciting class warfare. Marx feeds workers (the proletariat) false ideas about the nature of their work and the relationship that they have with their employers (the bourgeoisie).
In section one of The Communist Manifesto, Marx makes a very brief, but crucial statement on which he does not elaborate. He writes, "the price of a commodity...is equal to its cost of production.” This statement is found in a broader discussion of what he observes to be the commodification of proletarian labor. A fair summary of this Marxist theory is this: raw materials pass through production before becoming finished products that can be traded on the market. The value of the raw materials is substantially lower than the price for which the goods are sold. The value of the labor used to transform the raw materials into a finished product, according to Marx, represents the added value and any wage lower than the added value represents stolen labor. The labor of the proletariat is transformed into a commodity by the bourgeoisie and then stolen for their benefit. This forms the basis of the Marxist worldview and if it is flawed, the entire system is invalid. FULL POST
Posted 7/16/12 at 2:14 PM | Trey Dimsdale, J.D. |
This post is the second in a series of four that deals with some of the faulty assumptions of Marxism. The last post was an introduction to this series, and in this post, I will address the first of three faulty assumptions. The three flaws of this system that I will discuss in these posts are: 1) a flawed and inconsistent conception of the nature of property, 2) a flawed understanding of the nature of economic value, and 3) the erroneous assumption that the family does not matter. There is a certain challenge in writing on this topic because, as I stated in the first post of this series, Marxism has so many flaws that it is difficult to limit a discussion to only three. Additionally, these particular three overlap at a few points, so you will probably fine that each of the remaining blog posts do not cleanly address just one of the above listed flaws.
The focus of this post is Marxism’s flawed and inconsistent understanding of property. Property is at the heart of Marxism. Property is that which vests the Bourgeoisie with advantage over the Proletariat. Those who own the factories and the tenements are able to employee and rent to Proletariat workers. While most would agree that job creation and the provision of affordable housing is a socially responsible and beneficial use of wealth, Marx would disagree and argue that the employer/employee and landlord/tenant relationships are inherently exploitive. This concept will be fleshed out in greater detail in a later post, but for now, it is sufficient to know that Marx argues that labor is property that is stolen from the worker by the factory owner. Given that property is the source of power and the means of exploitation, the concept of property plays an important role in the Marxist system. FULL POST