versed by the U.S. Supreme Court inn1964, because his confession had beennobtained in the absence of a lawyer,nBernhard Goetz was concerned withn”right and wrong.” Unlike convictednfelon Troy Canty, Coetz was also concernednwith the “truth,” which Cantynpresented differently at each of hisnpublic appearances. Whether JudgenCrane, who ruled as inadmissible evidencenan interview Canty gave tonABC’s 20/20, has the same concerns,nmay be open to doubt.nUnlike James Ramseur, brought innto tell the truth from a prison where henis doing eight and a half years for rapenand sodomy of a pregnant woman,nBernhard Goetz so far has not refusednto testify. His lawyer, Bary 1. Slotnick,nunlike Barry Allen’s lawyer, who advisednhis client not to take the witnessnstand, has been given ample coveragenin the newspapers which depict him asna Mafia confidant and a glory seeker.nAlthough he is the only one ofnGoetz’s assailants not given immunity,nBarry Allen’s refusal to talk has beennwithheld from the jury by JudgenCrane. Just what it is that Mr. Allen isnafraid of, the judge has not disclosed.nOn the other hand, Judge Crane hasnlabeled “hearsay” the evidence of Ms.nArnetha Gilbert that the youths hadnrun out of the subway shouting, “Henshot me for nothing. … I just askednfor $5.00,” because, according to thenNew York Times, the youths were apparentlynalert and “coherent,” “sontheir statements could have been calculatednto absolve themselves.” As anproper guardian, the judge has repeatedlynordered the jurors to disregardnMr. Slotnick’s defense, taking carenthat they form no opinion the benchndoes not have in mind for them.nWhatever the outcome of the latestntrial, despite all the Constitutionalnsafeguards against double jeopardy, itnis apparent that Bernhard Goetz isnfacing overpowering odds. The entirenstructure of the managerial state requiresnthe existence of an occasionallyntroublesome welfare class, and like angood feudal seigneur the state of NewnYork is determined to defend its retainers,nwhatever they might have done.nBernhard Goetz’s revolt against thenstate-condoned terror and the humiliationnof the New York subways—nquite rightly—has been perceived asna threat against a corrupt despoticnsystem.nThe questions raised by the Goetzncase boil down to this: Can the state,nwhich refuses to protect citizens fromnviolence, at the same time preventndecent people from arming themselvesnin self-defense? “The issue,” saidnBernhard Goetz in his taped confession,n”isn’t the $5.00 or something likenthat, that’s unimportant, you known… it was they wanted to play withnme. … In New York, I feel, and a lotnof people feel, you have to have a gun,nbut they don’t let you, to them that is anbig crime, they have you, also theynhave you trapped . . . you’re in a situationnwhere you must carry a gun andnthe reality, the reality they are so uglynthat, so, you see . . .nIn a crazy dance of technicalitiesn(who stood where, doing and sayingnwhat when the shooting occurred),nBernhard Goetz stands an excellentnchance of losing, unless the jury performsnas well as the two previous NewnYork juries who acquitted him. Whatevernthe outcome of his trial, the statenof New York’s attack on the right ofnself-defense will inspire contempt andnoutrage in most of the U.S. Unfortunately,na courtroom is not a two-waynmirror, and Bernhard Goetz cannotnreverse his position. Judge Crane andnAssistant Attorney Waples are securenin their indignation.nCatastrophic health insurance—nalready endorsed by the President andnnow on the fast track to approval innCongress—will soon shift the economicnburden of huge unexpectednmedical bills from the elderly to thenfederal government. But already somenmembers of Congress are complainingnthat a much more inclusive publicnhealth-care plan is needed. Unfortunately,nmost policymakers forget hownmuch the nation’s health bills havenbeen affected by the fragmentation ofnthe family.nIn recent years, an increasing numbernof young people are postponingnmarriage until they have had a chancento taste the excitement of the singlesnscene. But the fern bar and the healthnspa may turn out to be way stations fornsingles headed for the hospital—orncemetery. Writing reeentiy in SocialnScience and Medicine, Drs. CatherinenK. Reissman and Naomi Gerstel pointnnnout that singles suffer from higher ratesnof disease, disability, mental neuroses,nand mortality—a pattern that holdsnfor both sexes and for every ethnicngroup.nDivorce brings its own health problems.nAccording to Professor HaroldnMorowitz of Yale University, “Beingndivorced and a non-smoker is slightlynless dangerous than smoking a pack anday and staying married,” adding facetiouslynthat “if a man’s marriage isndriving him to heavy smoking, he hasna delicate statistical decision to make.”nDivorced and single people also stay innthe hospital longer than married peoplensuffering from the same illnesses,nand the risk of cancer and heart diseasenis much higher among the single andndivorced than among marrieds. This isnnot good news at a time when almostnhalf of American marriages end inndivorce.nMore than half of the mothers ofnsmall children now work, but fewnrealize the health risks of day care. An1984 study in the Journal of the AmericannMedical Association concludednthat day-care children are 12 timesnmore likely than children in traditionalnhomes to catch the dangerous diseasenresponsible for most cases ofnchildhood meningitis. The AmericannAcademy of Pediatrics (AAP) also recentlynreported that “outbreaks of gastroenteritisncaused by bacteria, viruses,nand parasites; . . . hepatitis A; andnvaccine-preventable diseases havenbeen documented in day-care groups.”nMany observers now predict thatnrising costs will eventually cause thencollapse of Medicare. According tonAlexa Stuifbergen of the University ofnTexas at Austin, “Policymakers are increasinglynlooking to the family as anhedge against the rising cost of healthncare services.”nThis rediscovery of family responsibilityncould mark a healthy first step innreshaping public health policy. Butnunless this move is matched by taxnreforms that support the traditionalnfamily, the family will be pushed tonthe end of the line to receive governmentnbenefits and pushed to the frontnof the line to pay for those benefits.n—Bryce /. ChristensennJULY 1987/7n