Coincidentally, dueling essays on the topic appeared this week; one by David Brooks of the New York Times and another by Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. Brooks argues for not prolonging life beyond the point where quality of life is poor. Rubin picks holes in Brooks' thesis, I think with some accuracy.
What do I think? I think we are where we are now because this question is so complex and difficult that we've not been able, or willing, to turn these decisions over to cost accountant death panels.
