Posted on 06/12/2011 11:14:06 AM PDT by wagglebee
I can think of few things that would undermine universal human equality than for society to think that killing despairing people with serious illnesses or disabilities could be a splendid means of incresasing the supply of transplant organs. I warned about this likelihood in my very first foray into anti euthanasia activists in Newsweek, June 28, 1993. From, “The Whispers of Strangers:”
Of greater concern to me is the moral trickledown effect that could result should society ever come to agree with Frances. Life is action and reaction, the proverbial pebble thrown into the pond. We don’t get to the Brave New World in one giant leap. Rather, the descent to depravity is reached by small steps. First, suicide is promoted as a virtue. Vulnerable people like Frances become early casualties. Then follows mercy killing of the terminally ill. From there, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to killing people who don’t have a good “quality” of life, perhaps with the prospect of organ harvesting thrown in as a plum to society.
Bingo! All are happening now.
In the years since, I tried to find evidence of such happenings in the Netherlands for years. Nothing. But Belgium has jumped so enthusiastically off the euthanasia cliff, it only took them a few years before coupling voluntary euthanasia with organ harvesting, as I wrote about here earlier. And now, doctors announced they collected the lungs after a patient was killed by euthanasia. From the press release:
Between 01/2007-12/2009 in Leuven 17 isolated lung transplantations were performed from cardiac death donors, including four after euthanasia, Dirk van Raemdonck and colleagues (Leuven) report. “All donors expressed their wish for organ donation once their request for euthanasia was granted according to Belgian legislation. All donors suffered from an unbearable non-malignant disorder.” One recipient died from a problem unrelated to the graft. The other three patients are still alive – in a good condition.
“The donors were admitted to the hospital a few hours before the planned euthanasia procedure. A central venous line was placed in a room adjacent to the operating room. Donors were heparinized immediately before a cocktail of drugs was given by the treating physician who agreed to perform the euthanasia. The patient was announced dead on cardiorespiratory criteria by three independent physicians. The deceased was then rapidly transferred, installed on the operating table, and intubated. The thorax and abdomen were shaved, disinfected and draped. A rapid sterno-laparotomy was performed. The abdominal team took care of liver and kidney preservation with a rapid flush cooling technique via a cannula inserted into the abdominal aorta. The thoracic team then opened pleural cavities and quickly inspected both lungs before topical cooling with ice-cold saline was started.
The non malignant conditions were probably neuro/muscular disabilities that euthanasa/organ harvesting promoters have targeted in a Power Point presentation as splendid subjects for this process because their organs are generally not damaged.
Imagine being a devalued person with a serious disability and come to believe your life isn’t worth anything, and in fact, worry that you are a burden, to realize that you could reverse the situation by being euthanized and harvested? This is a emotional inducement to be killed, and as such, is extremely dangerous to the wellbeing of people with serious disabilities.
And it won’t stop there. Just as I was right in my 1993 prediction, trust me on this: Coming next–paying people with serious disabilities to be killed and harvested, like Jack Kevorkian once advocated. Utilitarian booster of such a course would argue that it saves society money on the costs of long term care, allow the disabled person the satisfaction of offering a benefit to society out of their personal tragedy, and leave a nice bundle for family, friends, or cause. Win. Win. Win.
Once you accept the premise that there is such a thing as a life not worth living–to the point that killing is an acceptable answer to the problem–there aren’t many arguments left against such a regime. People with disabilities should be very alarmed.
Unfortunately most people are blissfully unaware of how vulnerable we all are.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Most of you on these life threads know how I feel the individuals’ decision to stay alive or not.
But I must admit THIS is the first time I can actually see the lubrication on the slippery slope between “allow” and “encourage.”
This is really creepy. I am reminded of “Parts: The Clonus Horror,” even if it was sent up by MST3K, the underlying idea (revisited in “The Island” IIRC) is still very much valid.
And you are right, there IS a slippery slope, especially when utilitarianism is the basis of policy.
>>The acting in “The Island” was terrible, but the premise was not at all invalid and could easily happen in the next decade if allowed.<<
When I first saw “Parts: The Clonus Horror” (starring the late Peter Graves, of “Biography” and “MI” fame) on MST3K, their treatment was, as usually, LOL funny. But the underlying idea — that people would have themselves cloned and those clones would be nothing but walking/talking/living spare parts banks — really struck me as a great plot line: as a cautionary tale when one of the clones decides to be a person and not a parts depot.
I had heard that “The Island” was an attempt to do just that but also it stunk.
There’s still potential gold in them thar plot hills. Want to co-produce a movie? ;)
Don't forget that back when Al Gore was just VP rather than a Nobel Prize winning billionaire he was running around saying that conservatives were genetically different and suffered from a form of retardation. So, they can just define conservatism as a form of disability and bada bing, bada boom, a huge pool of organs for those who are healthy democrat fascist humanists.
Thanks for the post, too, I try and keep an eye on the trend towards breeding organs. The next thing you know they'll be paying people who match a specific genetic profile to have their baby rather than abort it, then lobotomize and raise the child in captivity until the organs are needed. Slavery and murder are no obstacle to improving the quality of life and lifespan for the right crowd.
as a cautionary tale when one of the clones decides to be a person and not a parts depot.
Defining persons as "non-persons" (this is done by the abortionists, it was done by American slave owners and the Nazis did it with Jews, Gypsies and others) is an integral component of evil.
There’s still potential gold in them thar plot hills. Want to co-produce a movie?
I wouldn't want to give the culture of death any ideas they haven't already thought of.
For nearly three centuries Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal was the masterpiece against which all other satire was judged, now some are almost treating it as a "how to" guide.
Would I be mistaken if I assumed that these ghoulish doctors will get $50K and up per transplant, and that the hospital that snuffs the “donors” will get even more than that per organ........all paid for by insurance companies or the gubmint? (Read: taxpayers).
P.S. And don’t tell me the ghoulish doctors are doing it for free, or for altruistic reasons. As El Rushbo says: “Always follow the MONEY trail!”
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.