Posted on 03/20/2011 9:58:58 AM PDT by wagglebee
We have discussed the Baby Joseph futile care case here. He is the baby who a Canadian hospital wanted to force off life support against the parents will and whose parents want a tracheotomy to help him live longer and at home. The impasse was resolved when the parents were able to move him to a St. Louis hospital.
Well, now Peter Singer has come out against the parents. From his column in the NY Daily News calling continuing care of Joseph “Deeply Misguided: “
Joseph’s parents, who have previously had another child who died from the same disease, objected to the removal of the breathing tube. Instead they wanted an operation performed that would cut a hole in the child’s neck, so that a breathing tube could be inserted in it and kept permanently in place. Joseph’s doctors refused to do this. They acknowledged that the operation might prolong Joseph’s life, but said it would not improve his well-being. A Canadian tribunal agreed with the doctors, giving them permission to remove the breathing tube. Then Priests for Life, a Catholic -abortion and anti-euthanasia organization stepped in, chartering an air ambulance to fly Joseph from Canada to Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, a Catholic hospital, in St. Louis, which will perform the operation the parents requested.
“We Rescued Baby Joseph!” says a page on the Priests for Life website. The organization’s director, the Rev. Frank Pavone, says he has been told that it could cost as much as $150,000 for Joseph’s stay in the pediatric intensive care unit. That doesn’t include the cost of the aircraft, which would have added thousands more to the bill. Priests for Life is, of course, asking its supporters to donate to pay these costs.
Here’s the irony. According to the most rigorous charity evaluation agency in the country, GiveWell.org, you can save a child’s life for about $1,000. All you have to do is give the money to their top-rated charity, Village Reach, which delivers vaccines and other urgently needed medical supplies to rural areas in developing countries. If Priests for Life were really serious about saving lives, instead of “rescuing” Joseph so he can live another few months lying in bed, unable to experience the normal joys of childhood, let alone become an adult, they could have used the money they have raised to save 150 lives – most of them children who would have gone on to live healthy, happy lives for 50 years or more.
Yet, this is the same Peter Singer who says that parents should be able to have their disabled babies killed.
So, we see the real utilitarian agenda here. And we see the hollowness of Singer’s “preference” approach to utilitarian decision making. It isn’t parental empowerment. It isn’t family intimate decision making. Their “preferences” don’t matter in a futile care imposition. In other words, the consistent through line of Singer’s approaches is the death of disabled infants.
We don’t have to choose between caring for profoundly disabled individuals and helping children who can lead “healthy, happy lives.” In fact, such thinking reveals the profoundly bigoted heart that lurks within the passive prose of Singer’s utilitarian advocacy.
Peter Singer is the embodiment of evil.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
**************************
The author is correct, but imho, Singer wants to help neither group of children.
And these cases are none of his bleeding business; pardon my language.
Singer’s the hell-spawn who wants to “legalize” raping your pets, too.
[oh, excuse me, “legalize sex with consenting animals”]
What an all-around great guy.
That is one sick wacko. He will find himself missing pertinent appendages if he messes with any animal of mine, ever.
There ought to be a law against control-freak, or just freaky, buttinskies.
No shocker here. The same crowd who complains that conservatives must “keep our laws off their bodies” have no problem forcing laws that murder innocent people onto everyone else.
People llike Peter Singer are the reason I believe in a BURNING Hell.
Maybe his next blind date will be a pit bull.
That would be most fortuitous. Where can we get the dog? How can we protect her after she eats him?
Actually, Singer does give a large portion of his income to third world charities.
He also spends or spent a significant sum to keep his mother in a nursing home, instead of letting her croak on the state dime.
His hypocrisy troubles him.
He does not want to allow the same privilege to others, although in their case it would not be hypocrisy.
I hope for these people that someday they are very much aware and on a ventilator and someone decides for them that it is better to remve the tube....
His parents were Jews in Austria who were able to escape to Australia right before the Anschluss. His grandparents died during the Holocaust.
Ah yes, the Australia-New Zealand Anschluss, I remember it well.
His parents were Jews in Austria who were able to escape to Australia right before the Anschluss.
Ohhh, nevermind.
No body.
No crime.
So, we send him out with a pack of them for an orgy.
Life is a zero-sum game for this asshat.
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.