Mortal Peril

It's an attention-grabbing premise: an argument against universal health care. Law professor Epstein describes himself as ""a good contrarian,"" and he enjoys attacking the conventional wisdom about who ""deserves"" access to health care. It's a huge subject, and Epstein covers a lot of ground, from Medicare funding and the failure of Clinton's health plan to the debates over physician-assisted suicide and HMOs. His underlying theme is a belief in free-market principles; government interference, he believes, has only made health care worse and harder to obtain. This perspective brings a fresh eye to some issues not commonly debated; for instance, he makes a credible argument for allowing the sale of organs. He also warns against using isolated HMO horror stories as a basis for public policy, something that seems to be happening in state legislatures across the country. But he goes too far in the opposite direction, taking emotional issues and turning them into dry, economic case studies. In his effort to be dispassionate, he all too often slips into legalese and jargon, which means this book is more likely to appeal to fellow academics than to the general public. Health care policy must be looked at logically rather than emotionally if any substantive changes are to be made. But as Epstein himself points out, ""[a]ll too often, the dilemmas in medical ethics start where rational economic theory leaves off."" Unfortunately, economic theories will not be enough to solve such hotly debated issues. (Apr.)