Medical Malpractice and Abortion

Thursday, June 21, 2007
I thought this was an interesting bit at the intersection of morality and economics. An insurance brokerage firm, K&B Underwriters, is sponsoring a physicians’ survey designed to determine whether doctors who work within a “culture of life” framework (e.g., eschewing abortion) are less prone to malpractice suits than those who don’t. The company’s hypothesis is that pro-life physicians are indeed “safer” in this way, with the implication that pro-life medical practices could be one criterion taken into account when calculating malpractice insurance. It’s a controversial claim, to be sure, but an intriguing approach—and the results so far seem to be supporting the hypothesis.

You can read more about the initiative—and complete the survey, if applicable—here.

HT: Deal Hudson’s “The Window” column.
Bookmark Medical Malpractice and Abortion  at del.icio.us Digg Medical Malpractice and Abortion Bloglines Medical Malpractice and Abortion Technorati Medical Malpractice and Abortion Bookmark Medical Malpractice and Abortion  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Medical Malpractice and Abortion  at Furl.net Bookmark Medical Malpractice and Abortion  at reddit.com Bookmark Medical Malpractice and Abortion  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

More Audio from Acton University

Thursday, June 21, 2007
This post will be updated and bumped as more audio becomes available. Newer audio appears at the bottom of the list.
Bookmark More Audio from Acton University  at del.icio.us Digg More Audio from Acton University Bloglines More Audio from Acton University Technorati More Audio from Acton University Bookmark More Audio from Acton University  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark More Audio from Acton University  at Furl.net Bookmark More Audio from Acton University  at reddit.com Bookmark More Audio from Acton University  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Praying at the Pump

Thursday, June 21, 2007
Do you consider gasoline to be a gift from God? You should.

Andy Crouch, editorial director of the Christian Vision Project at Christianity Today, writes in a recent Books & Culture piece, “As our family sits together, eyes closed, we say grace. Today it’s Timothy’s turn. ‘God, thank you so much for all we have,’ he begins in what turns into a typically prolix nine-year-old’s prayer. Eventually he is done—’in Jesus’ name, Amen’—and I turn the key. We have just filled up our car with gasoline.”

The Crouch family has introduced a tradition of praying at the pump, to recognize the gift that is the ability to fill up with gas and drive around. I think that’s a great thing to do.

But even still, Crouch seems to have a hard time fully admitting that petroleum products ought to be seen as manifestations of divine grace.

“Unlike a well-prepared meal, gasoline does not prompt gratitude unbidden. The stuff is smelly, dangerous, and not at all self-evidently good in itself. It is a means to my ends, juice for a momentary sense of power and control. It is surprisingly hard to remember to stop and say thanks before I pull out, a little too quickly, into traffic,” he writes.

I have to say that I’ve had some meals of my own that were pretty smelly and/or dangerous, and the parallels between food fuel for the human body and gas fuel for the car could perhaps be expanded further. But seriously, it seems to me that, despite the new family tradition, Crouch is having a hard time admitting that something like gasoline is just as much a gift from God as our daily bread.

I’m not quite sure what this means: “I can reasonably expect that the food I eat today will be replaced by a fresh crop next season. But the gallon of gas I burn today is gone for good (though it does leave behind 19 pounds of carbon dioxide for the biosphere to absorb). In this fleeting historical moment that will be remembered as the petroleum era, saying grace seems like the least we can do.”

Maybe we all should think about thanking God for gasoline, not only when we are at the pump, but also when we’re sitting down to our “well-prepared meal,” which was made possible by the foodstuffs delivered from all over the world by petroleum-powered vehicles.
Bookmark Praying at the Pump  at del.icio.us Digg Praying at the Pump Bloglines Praying at the Pump Technorati Praying at the Pump Bookmark Praying at the Pump  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Praying at the Pump  at Furl.net Bookmark Praying at the Pump  at reddit.com Bookmark Praying at the Pump  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad

Thursday, June 21, 2007
In today’s NYT: “Oxfam Suggests Benefit in Africa if U.S. Cuts Cotton Subsidies.”

“Eliminating billions of dollars in federal subsidies to American cotton growers each year would reduce American cotton production and exports, raise world prices by about 10 percent and modestly improve the incomes of millions of poor cotton farmers in Africa, according to a new study by Oxfam, the aid group.”

About how many other industries could a similar thing be said? It’s also good to see that some of these multinational aid groups sometimes focus on liberalizing trade, rather than simply on direct government-to-government compensatory aid packages. Apparently Oxfam “has long campaigned for reductions in rich country agricultural subsides as a means to fight rural poverty in the developing world.”

One reason Oxfam is critical of bilateral free trade agreements is that they “do not address the adverse impacts of rich-country subsidies on poor countries through dumping, or the plethora of non-tariff barriers that continue to impede access to rich-country markets.” Their claim is that the bargaining power of individual developing nations is reduced under such agreements, so that the developing nation ends up giving up concessions to the wealthier nation, while the latter does no such thing. Reducing tariffs without addressing subsidies and other “non-tariff barriers” works to undermine the interests of developing nations.

The NYT piece ends on a bit of a pessimistic note, and no doubt the elimination of subsidies alone will not be enough to combat the grinding poverty that is so prevalent in the developing world. But it would do a lot to level the playing field and give resources and products from the developing world a fighting chance in the global market.

“Subsidy reform alone will not resolve all the challenges facing the cotton sector,” Oxfam said. “But it could significantly ease the burden on poor cotton farmers struggling to support their families.”
Bookmark Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad  at del.icio.us Digg Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad Bloglines Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad Technorati Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad Bookmark Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad  at Furl.net Bookmark Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad  at reddit.com Bookmark Subsidies at Home, Suffering Abroad  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!