Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
It's the same euphemistic rationalization that the liberals put forth when they assert PC speech codes. Nothing in the actual text of the statement is objectionable in itself, but when taken as a whole it is a license to reject out of hand anything one doesn't agree with by assigning to the opposing argument one of the labels in the text as unacceptable, or alternatively, claiming it is opposed to one of the labels in the acceptable column.
The proof is in the pudding. Why doesn't anyone want a fact-based discussion of the parallels to the T-4 program? Don't I have any takers for a rational, logical comparison of two systems under which a government has put citizens to death by means of starvation?
That must be perfect for listening to those Jesse Jackson inspiration CD's. lol
More than enough - I assure you - more than enough!
Don't have Glenfiddich, but I do have 12 year old Double Wood Balvenie.
Apology accepted with no hard feelings.
My biggest pet peeve regarding the Terri supporters is their claim that anyone who disagrees with them will be "happy" when this woman expires.
That is utter nonsense. If there was any way to make this woman anything more than a vegetable again, I would be behind keeping her alive 100%. However, that is not the case. I will feel no joy when she finally dies, but I realize that, in this case, keeping her alive artificially does nothing other than make the parents feel a little bit better.
I can add one!
If yer thinkin' of camping out, I got plenty of room on the North 40, even a couple RV hookups! Both are 30amp/220volt lines! :)
Playing around in a backroom thread I'm told is supposed to revolve around a humorous premise is *coming out*?
Now, THAT is funny.
Embrace the *resistance* Kryptonite, embrace it. LOL
I didn't call anybody names in post #2. I drew an accurate historical parallel which the fact-based logical sane coalition still refuses to acknowledge on the merits, other than in their repeated ad hominem attacks against me.
No, it's ok to discuss the parallels between bio-ethics then and now. It's calling people inflamatory names that gets people fired up and frustrated.
The Nazis were working on the idea of eugenics and that the value of a person was what that person contributed to the state.
Although occasionally someone brings up the cost issue, for the most part, what we are seeing now are conflicts based on "personhood" based on brain function = self.
There is danger that we will cross the line thinking we are "pulling the plug" on people who have experienced brain death, or are unable to live without extraordinary means when if we hadn't intervened, the person probably would have already died, such as a person who has had a massive stroke but has been intubated and is being kept alive until something like his kidneys fail.
For me there is a difference between that and starving a person who is not in physical failure. This is a moral decision - the state of the art in bioethics says that if too much brain damage has happened, he, the part of him that was there before the trauma is dead, and the body isn't worth saving. I disagree with that viewpoint, but the laws of our land allow a person to choose to refuse treatment. If a person has indicated they wish to do this, it would be wrong of me to make them take treatment. Because of my moral stance, I suspect the best I can do is lobby for laws that improve pvs diagnosis, require clear determination that this was in the person's wishes, and make sure that guardians don't have conflicts of interest.
I watch the economics argument carefully. I am not happy with the Texas law giving hospitals the right to pull the plug exactly the way they do right now...but at least they give the family some time to make other arrangements. I would like the law to give the family more time to deal with it. I am uncomfortable with triage of stable patients. But so far, the cases that have made the news have been sad, hopeless and perhaps cases that ought to be let go.
I will not call the board at St. Luke's Hospital in Houston Nazis because they reach these conclusions. There is a point where it can be time to let go. The hard point is making a set of rules that makes sure it doesn't happen because our definition of quality of life reflects someone's prejudice about life's quality rather than medical reality. And there will be differences of opinion on this.
You've got "nazi" on the brain. Says more about you than you might think...
For a real experience, I recommend Lagavulin. It's gotta smell and taste so reminiscent of the moors of Scotland that you expect to hear bagpipes every time you drink it.
If all it takes to keep someone alive is to supply them with food and water, and that is deliberately denied to them in full knowledge of the result, then yes, that is murder.
And if we are a civilized nation we need to put a stop to it.
I'm in! Let me check the batteries in the RV.
I listened to Dennis Prager for a bit yesterday and that is exacty what he said; that he was against removing the feeding tube but is four square against calling the removal murder.
Are you saying he's not saying what he's saying?
If so, you are demonstrating the inability to confront fact that we are decrying.
Note: I am not arguing your point at this time about the merits of calling the removal murder, but your denial of fact about Prager's position.
Excellent post, SE Mom. Thanks for the ping, L.
I think all Terri-related threads should be rewuired to have the sub-title "Posts deleted by MOderator" ;0)
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.