Say WA? Evergreen State ping
Quick link: WA State Board
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 06/08/2009 1:47:18 PM PDT by wagglebee
LifeNews.com Note: Ken Connor is a pro-life attorney who was intimately involved in the fight to save Terri Schiavo and is the former president of the Family Research Council. He is now the chairman of the Center for a Just Society and the co-author of "Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty."
Last week in Washington state a 66-year-old woman with terminal cancer made history as the first person to undergo physician-assisted suicide since that state legalized the practice in November of 2008.
Proponents of legalized suicide celebrated Washington's approval of this policy as a victory for the "death with dignity" movement. These suicide advocates, in keeping with the rhetorical tactic of their ideological cousins in the pro-abortion movement, equate "dignity" with "choice." Unfortunately, as with the abortion debate, the "choice" rhetoric of the right-to-die movement eclipses critical moral and ethical questions which ought to be at the forefront of the debate.
Is suicide really a way to honor life and preserve dignity? What are the social and cultural implications of normalizing the "right to die?" Will voluntary physician-assisted suicide give way to involuntary physician-assisted suicide where doctors decide whether their patients would be better off dead? Will the "right" to suicide be transmogrified into a "duty" to commit suicide? Will the elderly who consume more than they produce be deemed "resource hogs" that have a duty to die and get out of the way?
In an age of scarce economic resources, will the critically ill or the handicapped or the demented be viewed as expendable by their younger, healthier counterparts? How will the medical profession be transformed if those who are trained to cure are given a license to kill? These and many other questions should be asked and answered before we decide it's okay to encourage terminally-ill persons to choose self-destruction in the name of dignity.
But we won't get answers if we allow this debate to be defined solely in terms of the euphemistic "right to choose." Indeed, these questions won't even be asked.
Dying with dignity does not require suicide. The question, "Do you want to suffer and die or die with dignity?" presents a false choice and assumes that there are only two alternatives at the end of life—pain or death. Properly employed, modern medicine has the tools to mitigate pain. Hospice care, for example, employs a multi-disciplinary approach to ensure that terminally-ill patients endure their final time on earth with dignity—free from pain and nourished physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.
Hospice care does not seek to stop the dying process. The goal of hospice care is to make a difficult time as comfortable and peaceful as possible for both the patient and their loved ones. The important distinction between palliative care and physician-assisted suicide is that the first respects the inviolability of human life in spite of the difficulties presented by illness while the second rejects the sanctity of life in favor of an expedient escape from pain and fear.
The embrace of the right to physician-assisted suicide endorses a form of radical, atomistic individualism that ignores the fact that people are part of a larger community—including families and society—and that the decisions of individuals impact others as well. One does not have to look very far to see that granting a license to kill to those who are trained to cure undermines the ethics of the medical profession: Holland's embrace of voluntary physician-assisted suicide quickly led to a rash of involuntary "suicides" perpetrated by doctors who presumed to know what end was best for their patients.
We ought not to confuse curing with killing. For thousands of years, physicians have taken an oath to first "do no harm" to their patients. Changing the paradigm to "kill or cure" will wreak havoc on medical ethics and put untold numbers of lives in jeopardy.
The philosophy animating the right-to-die movement is that life's value is measured only by material standards. Once those standards are no longer being met, one's life no longer has value. In contrast, those who view life as a sacred gift from God believe that every stage of life is precious and holds unique meaning. This is true even at the end of life.
There is meaning to be found in suffering, not only for the person suffering, but for those providing care and comfort to the sufferer. A person's final time on this earth is a time for reflection and absolution, a time to share love and forgiveness. For those providing care, this time provides an invaluable opportunity to provide comfort and succor in a most profound way, and it affirms the fragile and precious nature of life.
Euthanasia means "good death"—but where should we draw the line? Exchanging a "sanctity of life" ethic for a "quality of life" ethic will put the weakest among us at great risk. If our society adopts the notion that the terminally-ill are mere vessels of pain and decay—no longer worthy of our best efforts at care and comfort—it will set a dangerous precedent that will inevitably impact other vulnerable members of our society.
When quality of life becomes the reigning criteria, then not only the terminally-ill, but the disabled, the elderly, and the infirm become prime candidates for "dignified" death by suicide.
Consider the elderly for a moment: A significant proportion of elderly residents in nursing homes are afflicted with age-related disabilities and dementia. They often don't know who they are, or where they are. Frequently, they don't recognize their children and, in child-like fashion, they may require assistance with even the most basic activities of daily living. A compelling argument can be made that their "quality of life" has been diminished. How long will it be before doctors, family members, and legal guardians who embrace the quality of life calculus decide that the lives of such individuals (who are also expensive to maintain) are no longer "dignified" and are unworthy of living?
This terrifying prospect has already become a reality for some vulnerable individuals right here in America. It will only get worse unless we seriously reevaluate the merits of the right-to-die movement.
As with other issues involving life's most critical questions, the right to die is not a simple matter of "choice." Its implications stretch much further than the wishes of any one individual. It is incumbent upon policy makers to understand these implications, and to not be swayed by the misleading rhetoric of choice, or the allure of the bottom line. They will also do well to remember that the idea that there are some lives "not worth living" undergirded Adolph Hitler's Aryan-supremacy world view. His policy of eliminating the "unworthy" began with the mentally handicapped and physically disabled but spread to millions of Jews.
The world has seen what happens when we embrace the notion that there are those among us whose lives are not worth living. We must not repeat this mistake again.
This is a FACT which the culture of death vehemently refuses to acknowledge.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I fully expect that when I turn 80...I will be means tested and if I don’t have the means...I will have to walk into an abortion chamber and be terminated.
Sorry, I meant to ping you and got sidetracked.
It’s okay. It popped up on my radar...
Not a good time to be an old person in America.
My dad is gung-ho for socialized medicine a la Canada. A year ago he had to have open heart surgery to replace a valve and have a quadruple bi-pass.
Under Canada's system he would now be dead, since he was 83 at the time and the cutoff for such treatment in Canada is 65.
He loves Obama, but he loves himself more. If Obama had come along 10 years sooner he'd have essentially sacrificed his life for his false messiah.
I know a number of Canadians who are fairly wealthy and they ALL have funds set aside to travel to the US and Europe if necessary for medical treatment.
It has come to the attention of the Department of Health-care Allocation that your illness is terminal. You need to report as soon as possible to your local office of the Center for End-of-Life Disposition for further instructions.
We are grateful for all your contributions to the nation and wish you a happy transition from this life.
Sincerely..."
Zero’s administration already encourages the termination of newborns or nearly newborns whenever possible. There is not doubt if he is re-elected, his Brownshirts will pay a visit to all 80 year olds especially those who have not voted “properly” in order to escort them to termination centers for disposal. Since I have never voted properly (such as voting for the democrats) I have eight more years to go.-—This really sounds far fetched but there is already a precident for this in Nazi Germany
Edward G. Robinson, in Soylent Green. Great movie, who knew how prescient it was?
Some time when my dad is extolling the magnificence of President Obortion I'm going to point out that his own legacy to his four children may be that, should we health challenges similar to his in the coming years, we can thank him for our being denied the care to keep us alive.
In his eyes he's been blessed with long life to see a dream come true in President Obortion.
He likely won't live to suffer many of the repercussions. His offspring, however, will.
It will be very tempting to point out every time one of his children or grandchildren is placed on a waiting list for rationed care, cannot get care at facilities where it is available now, or is flat out denied care due to age or other "economic" considerations that they can thank their dear old dad/granddad for enthusiastically contributing to ushering in this "progressive" health care.
I am 77 and consider the my input into the decision of when and how I leave this earth (die of those in Rio Linda) to be primarily mine.
Welcome to the beginning of Obama DeathCare or shall we call it Liberal Auschwitz Care? Pelosi, Reid, Feintein, Boxer, et al. intend DeathCare for the peons aka the American people. You can be assured that the Elitist Royals in the US Congress will exempt themselves from the DeathCare they mandate for the peons.
Start calling DC 24/7 NOW before you’re on a boxcar headed to the DeathCare “Clinic” run and mandated by the Government.
|
Lord Jesus, you healed so many people during your public ministry. I bring before you now, in prayer, all those who are terminally ill -- those afflicted with cancer, AIDS, and other illnesses.
|
|
Look lovingly and compassionately upon them. Let them feel the strength of your consolation. Help them and their families to accept this cross they are asked to carry. Protect them from euthanasia, Lord.
|
|
Let them see you carrying their cross with them, at their side, as you once carried yours to Calvary. May Mary be there, too, to comfort them.
|
|
Lord Jesus, I know and believe that, if it is your will, you can cure those I pray for (especially N.). I place my trust in you. I pray with faith, but I also pray as you did in Gethsemane: your will be done.
|
|
Bless us, Lord, and hear my prayer. Amen.
|
| Reprinted from "Queen of Apostles Prayerbook" with permission of copyright holder, Pauline Books & Media, |
“In his eyes he’s been blessed with long life to see a dream come true in President Obortion.”
Does your Dad drink a little?
That’s a beautiful prayer. Thank you. I need to copy it and say it every night, for there is always someone in my large extended family battling cancer.
Of course the same people who want universal health care want euthanasia and abortion. It’s the only way it works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.