Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine

[Mixon]

I recently watched a short documentary on the famous virologist Jonas Salk, who developed an effective vaccine against polio. Afterwards I also read a brief wikipedia article concerning his work which left me with some questions pertaining to Objectivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

The excerpt that caught my eye was this: "In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. While working there, with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years. The field tests Salk set up were, according to O'Neill, "the most elaborate program of its kind in history, involving 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 64,000 school personnel, and 220,000 volunteers." When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a "miracle worker," and the day "almost became a national holiday." He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine, as he had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible."

Salk seems to fit the definition of one of the "Men of the Mind" based on his work and ability to achieve that which others had failed. The development and distribution of the vaccine was not carried out using a capitalist model, but through a combination of voluntary charity (March of Dimes) and taxpayer dollars. Was Salk wrong in not patenting his discovery? Was the non-profit distribution an example of altruism and sacrifice?

I wouldn't feed an adult who refused to work or claimed his right to exist without labor, but I have difficulty embracing the same stance with regard to children. In the first case, a being of volitional conciousness makes an irrational choice and deservedly suffers for it. Yet children have no choice when it comes to the character of their parents and it strikes me as a waste of human potential to not vaccinate infants who cannot pay. I've read AS and am currently working my way through Selfishness & Capitalism. Is there an objectivist essay somewhere that speaks to the topic of children should be treated in society?

[K-Mac]

It depends on why he did not patent it. If he felt he had no right to patent it, that he owed his work to society, etc., then he was being altruistic. If he just wanted to do something charitable, that's not necessarily altruism.

[themadkat]

You're looking at the question the wrong way. It's fine for Salk to choose not to patent his vaccine so long as he does it for the purpose of furthering his values, ie saving as many children as possible in the shortest period of time. It would only be wrong if he valued his personal profit more and only refused to patent it out of a feeling of duty. But neither choice, either to patent or not, is right or wrong without benefit of the context of Dr. Salk's values.

Also keep in mind that the source of funding matters. If Dr. Salk were working purely for a private corporation, it would actually be the company's patent, not his. This is usually the contractual agreement someone makes when they are hired. Similarly, in this instance Dr. Salk has to take into account serving the interests of his sources of funding, namely the nonprofit and the government. The source of funding is nearly as important as the discovery itself - it's what makes it all possible in the first place.

[JeffS]

I wouldn't feed an adult who refused to work or claimed his right to exist without labor, but I have difficulty embracing the same stance with regard to children. In the first case, a being of volitional conciousness makes an irrational choice and deservedly suffers for it. Yet children have no choice when it comes to the character of their parents and it strikes me as a waste of human potential to not vaccinate infants who cannot pay. I've read AS and am currently working my way through Selfishness & Capitalism. Is there an objectivist essay somewhere that speaks to the topic of children should be treated in society?

So what are you arguing? That children deserve special rights entitling them to the productive efforts of strangers? That their lack of choice justifies forcefully taking property from others?

[KendallJ]

The development and distribution of the vaccine was not carried out using a capitalist model, but through a combination of voluntary charity (March of Dimes) and taxpayer dollars.

This is not entirely correct. Capitalism is not solely an economic system, but a political one based fundamentally on individual rights. As such voluntary charity is the expression of individual liberties and represents a capitalistic system. The key issue here is voluntary. As for Salk, the right to something also includes the right to dispose of it as you see fit. This includes your life and the works of your life. So the fact that he chose not to profit from it does not make him an altruist, as Kelly pointed out.

... it strikes me as a waste of human potential to not vaccinate infants who cannot pay.

Please Rand's discussion of charity, and very specifically her conception of value. To "waste" something means that it has value, but it does not have value intrinsically, i.e. in and of itself. Valueing presupposes a valuer, i.e. something from be of value to someone. If you see a value and subsequent waste of value, then you can choose to appropriate some of your surplus to that value. If this is in accordance with a heirarchy of values, then it is not sacrifice and this is how Rand looks at charity. Charity is not a duty, and in a proper heirarcy of values, charity toward anonymous people comes from surplus. That feeling you feel is a valid one, as anyone who holds a general reverence for human life might too feel. It is when your valuing of such a thing somehow is made intrinsic in teh thing itself, and then that value is forcibly transferred to me to support that you violate individual rights.

[Mixon]

So what are you arguing? That children deserve special rights entitling them to the productive efforts of strangers? That their lack of choice justifies forcefully taking property from others?

That is part of what I ask. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. To expand and clarify: Do infants/children deserve special rights entitling them to the productive effort of strangers (or even their parents)? The justification being that they lack the means to pay today nor can they claim it by force, but a healthy upbringing will on average yield more production tomorrow. So they gain the benefit today, but pay later. This would only be permissable for orphans or infants whose parents lacked the means to provide a base subsistence and only for those not taken care of by private charity. Initial funding would come from taxes on adults, paid back by the recipients as they gain the capacity to produce. It's an inverted form of social security, which should function to create wealth in society rather than destroy it.

[Chris.S]

That is part of what I ask. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. To expand and clarify: Do infants/children deserve special rights entitling them to the productive effort of strangers (or even their parents)?

No to strangers part. However, the parents having chosen to create a child (or the orphanage or foster-parents who choose to take the responsibility), must provide for the child as much as they are able to. That doesn't mean either of them have a right to someone else's property, whether it's a vaccine, or bread or water. Social Security is welfare, and functions to destroy wealth, no matter if it's for the elderly or the young.

Have you ever wondered why couples who have no jobs and live in crap-holes but have 5 kids are able to "support" those kids? At the expense of others, through taxation and social welfare programs. Because other people had your idea and the force behind them to implement it.

[Mixon]

This is not entirely correct. Capitalism is not solely an economic system, but a political one based fundamentally on individual rights. As such voluntary charity is the expression of individual liberties and represents a capitalistic system. The key issue here is voluntary. As for Salk, the right to something also includes the right to dispose of it as you see fit. This includes your life and the works of your life. So the fact that he chose not to profit from it does not make him an altruist, as Kelly pointed out.

Perhaps I should have used "business" in place of "capitalist" but I can call it neither given his reliance on taxpayer money.

Please Rand's discussion of charity, and very specifically her conception of value. To "waste" something means that it has value, but it does not have value intrinsically, i.e. in and of itself. Valueing presupposes a valuer, i.e. something from be of value to someone. If you see a value and subsequent waste of value, then you can choose to appropriate some of your surplus to that value. If this is in accordance with a heirarchy of values, then it is not sacrifice and this is how Rand looks at charity. Charity is not a duty, and in a proper heirarcy of values, charity toward anonymous people comes from surplus. That feeling you feel is a valid one, as anyone who holds a general reverence for human life might too feel. It is when your valuing of such a thing somehow is made intrinsic in teh thing itself, and then that value is forcibly transferred to me to support that you violate individual rights.

I didn't see any essays within Selfishness or Capitalism containing charity in the title, but will keep a lookout while reading. My initial post didn't originate from emotion, though I can understand the misinterpretation as "compassion" or a "reverance for human life." It's an issue of statistics and wealth creation. Let's say I take 1,000,000 infants, who without intervention will die, or suffer permanent disability. This tranlates as a loss of production or reduction in productive capacity. I can't make an accurate prediction about any single infant's intrinsic worth (his future productive capacity) today. Any single infant could be a John Galt, a Fred Thompson, or anyone in between. What I do know in aggregate is that the winners, over their lifetime, will more than pay for the cost of getting to the point where I can tell the producers from the looters. At which point the producers pay back what they owe and the looters are free to mend their ways or perish. Thus gaining for the infant producers life and all the rewards entailed, and for those producers who financed them a partial or full principal repayment (depending on structuring) plus the trade value of the infant producers future production (which without intervention would have been reduced or 0). Whatever losses remain from unrepentant moochers can be spread among the producers in manner so as to make the effect on any one individual negligible, much as loss by theft or bad loans are rolled into product and borrowing costs. This loss, however structured, represents the true cost of the infant producer surplus trade value. No physical force is involved, though there would be a tax to support the effort (which is repaid by the aforementioned direct and indirect means).

I think a similar reasoning is behind Buffett and Gates search for a malaria vaccine. Though it is technically a charity.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Mixon

[Chris.S]

You're skipping past the morality of how all this infant medical care is paid for. Never mind the 1 million infants - ALL babies will die if not cared for. You're looking at economics without grounding it in morality, and using the same argument that current politicians use to justify any other type of welfare, that "future productivity will pay for the money we steal now". What if the future producers don't feel like producing in order to pay off the debts of earlier governments? The amount of money that you shackled to these future producers for them to pay off doesn't matter. The fact that you shackled them does.

[KendallJ]

No physical force is involved, though there would be a tax to support the effort (which is repaid by the aforementioned direct and indirect means).

Longer post coming on your methodology, but htis is socialism pure and simple. Using this same logic, why stop there? A case can be made for the future worth of just about anything, and one can simply suggest that rather than place the responsiblity where it belongs that society should pay for that future worth today.

Taxation by majority vote is force.

You misunderstood my original post. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth of something.

Edited July 1, 2009 by KendallJ

[Mixon]

What if the future producers don't feel like producing in order to pay off the debts of earlier governments? The amount of money that you shackled to these future producers for them to pay off doesn't matter. The fact that you shackled them does.

A future producer is by definition a producer, if he stops he would become a looter and starve accordingly, from that point he's responsible for himself. The debt he pays off is his own and it doesn't go away until paid, it is in essence a loan (not welfare) from the older to the younger. Welfare is given as alms, with no expectation that it will be paid back. When it's given to the elderly, they have no possibility of paying it back. They are at the end of their productive lives. No rational man would lend money when the probability of repayment is virtually zero, and only a fool would refuse a loan that saves his life. If he does refuse, that is your first hint you will be dealing with a future looter/evader and you should withdraw support to minimize loss immediately. The purpose of handling it via taxation is to spread risk among all taxpayers, whereas if a small group of taxpayers helps only a small group of infants the risk to them is enormous. The 1 million figure is arbitrary, but you need a sufficiently large figure to achieve a lower statistical variance. The larger the pool of infants becomes over time, the greater the aggregate expected value of productivity will match up with actual productivity. It is true that this loan, facilitated by government, is made without the consent of either party though both do benefit from it over time. The scenario is similar to a young person who lands in an ER, where law demands he be treated. His life is saved and the ER bills him. He works and pays his bill. This is in effect a forced extension of credit by the government. It certainly infringes upon the liberties of both parties, but again both are able to benefit.

[KendallJ]

A future producer is by definition a producer, if he stops he would become a looter and starve accordingly, from that point he's responsible for himself. The debt he pays off is his own and it doesn't go away until paid, it is in essence a loan (not welfare) from the older to the younger.

You haven't resolved the problem of someone else making choices and decisions for a child. You've simply made it a societal imposition. So now you've replaced a parental decision which you claim may be variable in it's rationality, with a government decision who's outcome you're going to force the child to accept whether he likes it or not, because he was too young to accept it when it was made.

I thought you said there was no physical force involved with this?? How blatantly wrong you are. You're going to force the taxpayer to pay for this, adn then you're going to force the child to accept his debt, calling him a looter if he chooses not to. One cannot be a "looter" if he had no choice in whether to accept the debt. The child is morally blameless. To label him as such is monstrous.

You do realize the police state you're talking about, right? This is how we got into this mess.

Edited July 1, 2009 by KendallJ

[Zip]

It's an issue of statistics and wealth creation. Let's say I take 1,000,000 infants people, who without intervention will die, or suffer permanent disability. This tranlates as a loss of production or reduction in productive capacity. I can't make an accurate prediction about any single infant's persons intrinsic worth (his future productive capacity) today. Any single infant person could be a John Galt, a Fred Thompson, or anyone in between. What I do know in aggregate is that the winners, over their lifetime, will more than pay for the cost of getting to the point where I can tell the producers from the looters. At which point the producers pay back what they owe and the looters are free to mend their ways or perish.

This next part sounds like pure slavery to me.

Thus gaining for the infant producers life and all the rewards entailed, and for those producers who financed them a partial or full principal repayment (depending on structuring) plus the trade value of the infant producers future production (which without intervention would have been reduced or 0). Whatever losses remain from unrepentant moochers can be spread among the producers in manner so as to make the effect on any one individual negligible, much as loss by theft or bad loans are rolled into product and borrowing costs. This loss, however structured, represents the true cost of the infant producer surplus trade value. No physical force is involved, though there would be a tax to support the effort (which is repaid by the aforementioned direct and indirect means).

Why should I be forced to support the unwanted uncared for offspring of someone else. I have two children which I am currently spending almost half of my yearly salary to put through university (because I value them) and you, sitting there with no children {I assume} want me to pay for someone elses progeny? To what end? Where are their parents?

This idea is nothing more than another loophole so people can shirk their own responsibility. While I'm working my ass off to do what I believe I should for my kids you are going to punish me by telling me that I have to work even hard to support the kids of people that either aren't working hard enough, can't work hard enough or won't work hard enough?

What happens to the moochers??? Fuck all. They sit back and mooch some more because now the state is forcing everyone else to do the job that they should be doing in the first place. I loose, my kids loose (I have less for them) and all kids loose (the redistribution of my and other producers resources is spread over a much wider area) with the only ones coming out on top being the moochers who never cared what happened in the first place.

As for your idea of the kids repaying what they "owe" how is that going to work? Do you have some sort of cutoff when you deem me to have paid enough and I start becoming the moocher? And now the generation after me has to pay for the infants and the old guys like me who paid for them? What happens when the cycle of population means that a small generation is paying for both a huge moocher generation and a larger infant generation?

Slavery.

I've gone on long enough.

BTW. The tone of this is a little angry for a reason, though it is feigned.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Zip

[KendallJ]

I didn't see any essays within Selfishness or Capitalism containing charity in the title, but will keep a lookout while reading.

The lexicon is helpful for locating where topics are discussed in context.

Suggest you look up Charity, and it's antithesis Altruism.

[JeffS]

That is part of what I ask. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. To expand and clarify: Do infants/children deserve special rights entitling them to the productive effort of strangers (or even their parents)? The justification being that they lack the means to pay today nor can they claim it by force,

I lack the means to open my own business. Do I have a right to force you to buy me one? Why, or why not? With my own business I could be more productive. I'll pay you back at some later date.

This would only be permissable for orphans or infants whose parents lacked the means to provide a base subsistence and only for those not taken care of by private charity.

Oh, I see. So it's not all children who have more rights than the rest of us, it's only a select subset of children. Are there any other special groups who deserve special treatment under the law? Perhaps it really should only be black, Hispanic, or some other minority group of poor children who get these benefits. After all, white children, especially white males, already have an unfair advantage in the "production game." So, maybe we should amend it to "only permissible for minority orphans or infants of minority parents who lack the means to provide a base (definition to vary dependent upon advances in medicine, clothing, housing, and culinary techniques) subsistence."

Initial funding would come from taxes on adults, paid back by the recipients as they gain the capacity to produce. It's an inverted form of social security, which should function to create wealth in society rather than destroy it.

Mixon, you're going to be taking wealth from some in hopes of it being "paid back" (certainly not to those you've taken it from) later. Whether you actually will create wealth is circumspect. What is certain is you will be destroying wealth when you point your gun at the heads of the producers whom you'll be taking it from.

[Mixon]

I thought you said there was no physical force involved with this?? How blatantly wrong you are. You're going to force the taxpayer to pay for this, adn then you're going to force the child to accept his debt, calling him a looter if he chooses not to. One cannot be a "looter" if he had no choice in whether to accept the debt. The child is morally blameless. To label him as such is monstrous.

If all forms of taxation, which by the coercive effect of law, are considered examples of physical force by the state against its population then wouldn't that make all non-voluntary taxation illegitimate? If so, how does the government legitimately raise money to support a military, police, and legal courts? Today our government is taxing us all by force, yes? Does that give us a moral justification to respond with force?

I suppose an infant may refuse a bottle, and by not refusing accepts a debt. Though this choice seems a bit illusionary morally speaking. If all adults begin life as a tabula rasa are they just as capable of volitional choice as infants? If NO, and that which is outside the province of choice is also by definition outside the province of morality, then aren't they indeed morally blameless? Or put more precisely their capacity for volitonal choice grows from infancy into adulthood. If YES, then isn't that infant just as responsible for repaying the debt as I am for paying my credit card?

[KendallJ]

If YES, then isn't that infant just as responsible for repaying the debt as I am for paying my credit card?

ARe you suggesting that if a child is capable of volition, then you vaccinating him is an example of his exercise of that volition. The fact that children might be capable of volitional action as regards some aspects of their lives, does not mean that any and all actions which they may or may not have agreed to are "voluntary." It's a bizarre definition of voluntary.

And if the child kicks and scream that he doesn't want the shot? Isn't he exercising his volition then?

You were doing better when you were trying t make a pragmatic cost-benefit calculation than to imply that a child is making a deal with you to pay you back for his shot. Of course the whole real irony here is that you started arguing that the basis for taking the decision away from the parents is because children were innocent, helpless (i.e. non-volitional) victims of their parents irrationality. But now that you're vaccinating them instead they become volitional beings responsible for paying back the debt you thrust upon them.... and of course the unspoken assumption is that somehow governments are eminently more rational in setting their policies.

As to taxation, you should read more Rand. She explicitly addresses it. Check the lexicn under... well "taxation".

Edited July 1, 2009 by KendallJ

[Mixon]

I lack the means to open my own business. Do I have a right to force you to buy me one? Why, or why not? With my own business I could be more productive. I'll pay you back at some later date.

Of course not. An infant lacks the immediately capability to maintain his life let alone own a business. You have the capacity to do both. If you can produce more as a business owner, save your capital or convince a lender of your ability. If you generate excess production you will pay back the loan. If you fail, your loan is repaid by those who borrow and repay.

[softwareNerd]

I suppose an infant may refuse a bottle, and by not refusing accepts a debt.

Imagine you come home and find your dog dead, poisoned by a neighbor who found it irritating. The neighbor says he told the dog the meat he offer it was poisoned, but the dog nevertheless accepted it enthusiastically, with wagging tail. Dogs don't accept or refuse in any legal sense; neither do infants.

[JeffS]

Of course not. An infant lacks the immediately capability to maintain his life let alone own a business. You have the capacity to do both.

"Capacity" wasn't part of your original justification. You wrote:

"The justification [for infants/children deserving "special rights entitling them to the productive effort of strangers (or even their parents" is] that they lack the means to pay today nor can they claim it by force."

Regardless, not only do I not have the means to pay today for my own business, I also lack the capacity. Given your argument, I would be justified in forcing you to buy me a business.

You also reason that the possibility of paying the debt back, that the possibility of increased production, also justifies using such force. It's possible I'll pay the debt back. It's possible I'll be more productive. I've met all your qualifications, why would you deny me the use of force in order to get you to pay for my new business?

I'm just trying to nail down what your criteria are for treating some people differently than others.

[nanite1018]

I see where Mixon is coming from. Essentially, his question put simply is this: we all know parents are supposed to take care of their children. What if they don't?

Parenthood is the one area where I, too, am not clear on how Objectivism can deal with. It is, by definition, a position in which one human life cannot be independent and is totally dependent on another person. Given that the child is unable, under any circumstances, to provide for themselves, it seems then that neglect or maltreatment of children by their parents should be a crime. But how exactly do you punish them? Put them in jail? Perhaps, but then where do the children go? If you say "well charity will take care of them" then you are putting them in a very very precarious position (there is no reason to believe that all the children who are neglected, malnourished, etc. by their parents would get much better treatment from charity).

The only extension of this argument I see is in the severely mentally handicapped, and perhaps the physically impaired as well (those who literally unable to do productive work). It seems like a travesty to leave the fate of those who cannot possibly survive on their own to die because their parents would not take care of them. Given that these individuals were placed into a position of dependency without their consent, but now exist, it seems a requirement that they be provided for, somehow. In essence, children should not have to pay because their parents were unfit and neglected them.

How does Objectivism deal with children and parenthood?

[Zip]

I see where Mixon is coming from. Essentially, his question put simply is this: we all know parents are supposed to take care of their children. What if they don't?

This is a loaded question. It tries to lead you down the garden path that says there are a lot of parents that will not take care of their children. Seriously though out of all the millions of couples that produce children today in our heavily taxed socially constrained nations how many don't take care of their children? Now be careful, being poor is not neglect and bringing a child up in a strict household is not abuse. How many children are not cared for?

Parenthood is the one area where I, too, am not clear on how Objectivism can deal with. It is, by definition, a position in which one human life cannot be independent and is totally dependent on another person. Given that the child is unable, under any circumstances, to provide for themselves, it seems then that neglect or maltreatment of children by their parents should be a crime. But how exactly do you punish them? Put them in jail? Perhaps, but then where do the children go? If you say "well charity will take care of them" then you are putting them in a very very precarious position (there is no reason to believe that all the children who are neglected, malnourished, etc. by their parents would get much better treatment from charity).

Objectivism is in no way contrary to parenthood. I value my children. I decided to have children only once I knew I could take care of them, that's the personal responsibility that so many people who live on the welfare of the state ignore in having their huge broods (octo-mom for example). I made a commitment to take care of my children I did not and would not ask you to do it.

Where does this problem start? Well it can be traced back to bad philosophy for one thing, evasion of personal responsibility is an attempt to make "A" not "A". But to be simpler than that lets look at the practical responsibility of neglect. Who is responsible? The parent/s correct? So your first question is how do I make this deadbeat parent or abusive parent live up to their responsibility? Well that is where you can and should apply your force, not to me or anyone else but to the deadbeat.

"Well what if the parent is absolutely unable" is your next question, but seriously if the parent is existing then you simply take what he/she/they are existing on and give the child it's share. I personally view parenthood as a sort of contract you voluntarily enter into where that child is entitled by virtue of your decision to bring it into the world to its fair share of your effort (to a point) that's the deal you make when you say I am going to have children. It doesn't have to be much. It is not a mortgage on all your productive effort but a minimum requirement.

So the problem lies with the parent/s not society so the parent/s must pay for it. This means that putting a parent in jail is counterproductive because then you have taken away the possibility of that parent looking after his commitment. You can however ensure that the parent does not have any contact with or opportunity to abuse the child ever again.

I don't understand why do the same people who concoct these doomsday scenarios and claim to care so deeply about what will happen to the small number of children who are not cared for ignore charity out of hand? If you care so much then after forcing the parent to live up to his/her/their commitment that is where you start, not by holding government's gun to my head.

[KendallJ]

This is has been discussed numerous times as well. Suggest a search for children in the title.

I don't think Rand addressed it directly, however, I would think a de minimus rights protection is warranted on the part of govt. When I say de minimus, I'm talking about those parental actions when have acute survival threats to the child. The government should not be in the business of assuring proper development of a child.

In the same way that a brilliant mind can be born into extreme poverty, and that is a fact of reality and does not confer special privileges on that mind, so too bad parenting does not either. It is a fact of life, most of which can be undone when you're an adult, assuming you choose to do so.

Things like lack of vaccination, and passing on bad philosophy to a child are what they are. They are facts of existence.

As Zip has pointed out, why is it that people "care enough" to force other people to act? It is really a misplaced concept of value. You are responsible for what you care about. If you value the neglect of other people's children so much, great, you are free to contribute and to advocate others to do so. Think if we had self-interested charity instead of forced ineffecient taxation. The reason we think charity can't handle the problem is because most of us "already gave at the office."

I don't want to suggest that the feelings of horror or disgust at the maltreatment of children is not warranted or heart wrenching. Those are valid feelings to anyone who values life in general, and Rand expressed such in essays such as the Comprachicos. If you feel that way. Do something about it! Don't demand that I should. That is the point.

Edited July 2, 2009 by KendallJ

[Mixon]

I finished reading Rand's essays on collectivized ethics and government financing in a free society. I now understand the reasoning and see how my plan violates Objectivist ethics. Governments may not use coercion by law (force) to collect taxes though it would be permitted to charge for services (giving value for value) or accept money from those who give voluntarily out of self interest. A government's only responsibility is to protect them from foreign invasion, criminals, and provide a court system. It is not the responsibilty of government to provide any material needs of its citizens (infant or adult) or protect them from nature. Accordingly, the needs of any person or group cannot be legally or ethically turned into a first mortgage on the lives of others. It would be unethical to deprive any individual of property by force, even to save his own life.

[JeffS]

Well done, Mixon.