Posted on 11/30/2004 9:13:52 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Evidence from next door to me (Oregon, a few hours drive) shows that is highly probable that it is being abused.
This story is from a woman killed in Oregon by "assisted suicide"
Kate Cheney, 85, reportedly had been suffering from early dementia. After she was diagnosed with cancer, her own physician declined to provide a lethal prescription for her. Counseling was sought to determine if she was capable of making health care decisions.
A psychiatrist found that Mrs. Cheney was not eligible for assisted suicide since she was not explicitly pushing for it, her daughter seemed to be coaching her to do so, and she couldn't remember important names and details of even a recent hospital stay.
Mrs. Cheney was then taken to a psychologist who said she was competent but possibly under the influence of her daughter who was "somewhat coercive." Finally, a managed care ethicist who was overseeing her case determined that she was qualified for assisted suicide, and the lethal drugs were prescribed.
Yes, I do know the Tracy Latimer story; and I'll have no problem stating that I think this is an extremely sad, sick and depraved thing to do to a person who has had a stroke. Tracy knows what is happening, she is a victim; and I would surely oppose anyone depriving her of food, care or medicine.
However, this is NOT the case as stated in the article. Granted, there is a slippery slope; but the same arguement may be made for gun control. Guns kill people, therefore no one should be allowed to have guns. We both will likely admit that the gun control logic is flawed; but so is the absolute statement that euthanasia is the murder of 'less than perfect' people.
As technology moves forward, the line between life and death will blur. When we are able to sustain a brain, will it be considered 'murder' to allow to brain to die, when the body ceases to function? Where do we draw the line?
More propaganda.
This is the same utilitarian garbage coming from the bioethical movement.
paging Dr. Cranford, Dr. Ronald Cranford, to the courtesy phone...
She was a young girl with cerebral palsy whose father killed her in the garage.
I think your worries are completely unnecessary. What will be far more likely is that you will not want to die, and will be told at the hospital that they cannot afford to provide you with life-sustaining treatment. And you won't be terminal, btw.
But your 'slippery slope' leaves some questions unanswered.
Consider, a patient's head is 95% cleaved off. Only the brain stem remains, so the muscles twitch, the lungs breathe and the heart beats. Meanwhile, a person in dire need of these organs waits.
These are case by case situations. Life is full of them, ranging from murder vs. self defense; to Brain-dead and harvesting healthy organs from a still breathing corpse.
I was thinking of the Florida woman who has been in and out of a coma for the past 5 years. Her husband wants her euthamised; before her life insurance policy is completely used up.
In this instance, she has moments of consciousness where she recognized her mother, and responds to sights and sounds.
Purpose? If the purpose is to render the patient unconscious and painfree while they die; or to actually kill them with seditives; the end result is the same. What is the difference?
If I give you enough 'x' to kill a patient, or if I administer enough 'x' to keep them pain-free until they die; the final result is exactly the same. The only difference is how you may 'feel' about it.
This has been an entertaining and thought provoking debate. However, it is now 2am in my part of the world; and I'm off to bed.
It has been a pleasure discussing this issue with you both. We each have strong feelings on this; and although I can state that I do indeed see your points (especially the "Slippery Slope" aspects), I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.
Good night.
Yes, I am sorry, my intent was not to mislead you. I am very aware of the Terri Schiavo case.
Yes they are all case-by-case situations.
The point is that in many cases, abuses are made possible by laws.
Have you heard of Christine Busalacchi? St. Louis, Missouri, home to Italians. She broke my heart for many years.
When she was very young her mother died, and she never seemed to get past the grief. She became a difficult teenager when her father remarried. Which led to drinking and a car accident. Without heroic measures she survived, but with much brain damage.
Her father wanted her dead. The state of Missouri went so far as to videotape her in bed, waving to the camera, and had it broadcast on all 4 major television networks in St. Louis. It was not enough. Eventually her father was able to stop her from eating and force her to be dependent on a feeding tube, and then, months later, had the feeding tube pulled and allowed her to die of dehydration.
What the right-to-die movement is about is removal of those who are a "burden" on family members, who do not want them around any longer. This will be an incredible loss for our society, eventually. We will gain nothing with yet another "freedom" granted to us.
Christine and her father were featured on the cover of Time magazine. In the photo her father had the sheet pulled down to show the world his daughter's feeding tube location. How disgusting is that?
Nancy Cruzan used to show visible excitement and knowledge of the smell when her can of liquid food was opened next to her bed, to be poured into her feeding tube. What kind of father kills his own daughter with that kind of awareness?
Most of the people being killed are not in serious pain or suffering from terminal illness, but are simply brain-damaged or very old and feeble and unable to care for themselves.
Make no mistake, dehydration is not a pleasant death.
Hugh Finn cried when he was told that he was to be killed by removal of his feeding tube.
I have corresponded with Bob Marshall, the Virginia representative who fought so hard to save Hugh Finn.
May God Bless the souls of the "least of these", Tracy, Christine, Nancy, and Hugh, and all the hundreds of others like them who are being killed for convencience.
And God Bless Bob Marshall. A hero for all heroes.
You truly don't know what you are talking about. Pulmonary problems in premies have NOTHING to do with brain development. It's has to do with the inability to make pulmonary surfactants during a specific window in gestation. Your Free Republic's Dan Rather.
Not all extreme premies do well but some become regular human beings. Is their existence not worth the cost? We spend over a billion each year on cosmetics. This is a drop in the bucket.
Let's give them some euthanasia. Let them try and euthenate someone their own size.
Paradox. Notable also that "to kill" is "merciful", while "to treat" is not.
If a person wishes to die; forcing them to remain alive despite pain, suffering and failing organs does nothing more than deplete medical equipment that could be used to literally 'SAVE' a life that needs that equipment NOW. I'm certain you will find a MD who will tell you of an experience where a life could have been saved, if only a vital hospital resource were immediately available. Unfortuantely, that resource was in use keeping a brain-dead patient's body alive.
Okay, we're talking about babies. Is a natural instinctual inclination to wish for death, or life? For a hint, I would invite you to click this link and watch as a baby "rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the [vacuum aspirator]." Is that baby thinking of the burden and cost to her family?
How much is a life worth? Please, give us a number. Please tell us: What would you rather do with the money? What, iow, is "more important" than the sanctity of life? Are you beginning to see how a society's policies reflect its values?
Just how did you come to lump me and Aussie Dasher in with this position. He posted the story and slammed it with his first comment. My posts took issue with the position taken by Hodar.
Reread, please.
this is happening all over the world. And like every issue it's not just black and white, but there are many shades of grey. Of course, killing innocent babies is murder, I would agree with that. And I would also not like to be euthanized myself or see anyone be. My grandmother who has just recovered from extensive treatment for cancer has explicitly stated to anyone within hearing distance that on NO ACCOUNT does she want to be treated again if the cancer comes back, she thinks nature should take it's course and I do believe she has the right to refuse medical treatment being of sound mind.
The death rate climbs soars in Nazi, oops I meant Dutch, "hospitals" just before weekends as socialized medicine doctors kill off their really sick patients, so that they won't be bothered during their time off.
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.