‘Allowed to die’ - a quick lesson in media manipulation

LifeSiteNews ^ | 7/25/11 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

Is it “allowing a person to die” if he is helpless and is refused food and water?

Perfect question!

If we have the ability to give someone nutrition and hydration (which we do) and refuse to against their will, it is MURDER.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Ping

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Most of us will eventually die — whether or not we’re “allowed” to do so.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[QBFimi]

end of life ping

[July4]

The premise has been distorted by both well-meaning professionals (lawyers, doctors) and death cultists. The patient should be “allowed to live.”

[combat_boots]

I personally watched this happen to a step relative. It was murder. And the children were in some kind of medical field, too. They didn’t even let the person say goodbye to his dog.

[trisham]

Excellent article.

[Lou L]

“Should ‘minimally conscious’ patients be allowed to die?

What the hell kind of question is that? When I was about 8 years old, I slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk. I was knocked completely unconscious for a period of time. I was later diagnosed with a concussion.

Did I meet the standard of consciousness for being allowed to die?

[July4]

If I may, I’d like to add a couple more comments about so-called quality of life decisions: When I was young, I thought health and vigor and learning and happiness were what life was about, and I wanted nothing less! I am old now, and I know that life is about all those things and more. The old fellow who toddles along on his way to meet friends for a glacial game of checkers may not be particularly healthy or energetic, but he likes his life and would not voluntarily be deprived of it. Our expectations of life change with our circumstances.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's a quiz.

• If you were very ill, would you want ordinary care: to be receive effective pain management, be kept fed and hydrated, clean and comfortable, and be accompanied by people who are sensitive to your individual level of response and who truly care for you?

• Or you want to be legally abandoned, starved and dehydrated to death?

Those are two honest questions. And here's a third:

• Have you ever heard of "Love your neighbor as yourself?"

This is not a test of whether the disabled or dying person is truly human. It's a test of whether we are.

[trisham]

This is not a test of whether the disabled or dying person is truly human. It's a test of whether we are.

*******************************

Simply perfect.

[G Larry]

“Kill” is the term they neglected to use.

[BipolarBob]

That’s an unfair quiz.
I should get to choose being bludgeoned to death or at the very least dismemberment. I am pretty sure those were ObamaCare options.

[Rider of the Storm]

How come they never ask: Should “minimally conscious” Congresscritters be sent home?

[DManA]

Yes the question is meaningless. It doesn’t say anything about the hypothetical patient’s condition let alone the patient’s desire in the matter. Stupid poll.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So true. I did consider putting in “blood-loss trauma or smashed to a bloody pulp?” Options from one of those other “choice” questions.

[BykrBayb]

Another deceptive use of words which has bothered me for years is “end of life case.” How many times did the media refer to “the end of life case of Terri Schiavo?” It was a right to life case. They use the phrase “end of life” when referring to people who are not dying, when they’re discussing their right to life.

[BykrBayb]

Thank you both for your well spoken points. You both made posts well worth reading, again and again.