Be my dead valentine: Nab sicko in Web scheme for mass suicide

Cops last night were trying to avert a potential Valentine's Day mass suicide allegedly hatched on the Web by an Oregon man with a diabolical death wish. Gerald Krein, who police said lured at least 31 people from the U.S. and Canada to his Yahoo chat room, planned for simultaneous suicides by hanging that would be recorded on Web cameras.

Fearing Krein's correspondents might still go through with it, detectives subpoenaed chat room records to find the plotters - a mostly female group that apparently included a suicidal mom from the East Coast who talked of murdering her two kids.

"We're trying to identify the woman," said Klamath County Sheriff Tim Evinger. "Hopefully we can intervene if anyone still has the notion to follow through."

Krein, 26, who lived in a trailer in Klamath Falls, Ore., with his elderly parents, was charged with solicitation to commit murder and jailed after a psychiatric evaluation.

Evinger said Krein did not belong to a cult. Nonetheless, "The scary part is with just a name and intent on the Web, you can draw in people worldwide," he said.

County District Attorney Ed Caleb said Krein had to be taken seriously. "There is always a chance this is a joke, but our position is anytime a person makes these kinds of overt actions they need to be looked into."

It's no crime to correspond in a suicide chat room, dozens of which are registered on the Web. But it is illegal to persuade another person to commit suicide.

Krein launched his alleged scheme Jan. 16 when he sent out a Web invitation to a "suicide party" over the Internet.

"Krein was attempting to solicit women and children into suicide," Detective Monty Holloway wrote in court documents. Holloway got wind of the plot from a Toronto woman who had entered the "Suicide Ideology" chat room and saw E-mail from the suicidal mom with two kids.

On Wednesday, deputies kicked in the door of the Kreins' trailer, which has a photo of actor Don Knotts as Barney Fife in a window. Krein was erasing his computer files, sources said.

This was not the first time Krein had been suspected of plotting mass cybersuicide. Acting on a tip, local cops questioned him five months ago. "He said he was joking," a Klamath police officer said.

Krein's neighbors described him as a creepy "mountain man" who wore tie-dyed T-shirts. They complained to his parents when he and a woman had sex in front of a window that looks out on a day care facility. "His eyes are really weird," neighbor Kelly Rodts, 27, said.

Interesting. When a misfit like this tries to organize a mass suicide, the roof falls in on him. When Hollyweird produces an artifact that will induce millions to be more sympathetic to "assisted suicide", its producers are rewarded with a large wad of cash.

One item in the list generated by a GOOGLE search on
"Million Dollar Baby culture of death"

'Million Dollar Baby' Cost Too High
http://www.joniandfriends.org/apcm/APCMviewer.asp?a=93&z=4

Clint Eastwood’s film Million Dollar Baby appears to be giving a good return on investment through steady box office receipts, it was number three on the box office charts for last weekend grossing 21.5 million so far, and the flurry of press spurned by the dark and unexpected subject matter at the end of an otherwise wonderful film. Here is another example of how Hollywood creates a furor while making artistic commentaries on the human condition and on the gut wrenching, often unfair, choices we human beings sometimes have to make.

What is the issue with this initially triumphant story of a female athlete, played wonderfully by Hillary Swank, who, with the help of her crotchety trainer, played by Eastwood, perseveres to be a champion boxer? Well, near the end of the film, Swank’s character receives a devastating spinal cord injury, which leaves her completely paralyzed from the high neck down. On a respirator and severely depressed, this once highly focused athlete begs for her trainer to help her commit suicide. He refuses, and she tries to bite her tongue off to bleed to death. When that doesn’t work, her trainer gives in to her appeals and removes her respirator and injects her with adrenalin.

Now, what’s wrong with this, you may say? That poor woman, who is nothing but a shadow of her former self, has the right to take her own life, doesn’t she? After all, who would want to live like that?

Here’s the thing... When we begin taking life when someone is depressed or has a devastating injury, because it seems so reasonable, or as some say, kind, what then would prevent us from taking the life of someone we assume would want to die when they cannot respond in a way that seems reasonable to us? What may seem reasonable to one person may not seem reasonable to another. We’re then confronted with the question, who should die? Based on whose opinion? What about those who can’t speak?

This whole idea of ending life could not be embraced by the minds of those who see life, even in the body of the ill or injured, as invaluable, able to contribute to the good of man, able to contribute to the advances of science, able to give to their communities in ways that may be unique but just as valuable or more so than their able-bodied neighbors. This then suggests that it is the minds of the able bodied that view the challenged life as less than able, not as valuable, not able to contribute, not able to love or be loved in any worthwhile sense. Ask any person with a visible physical disability about discrimination. It is the worst discrimination statistically in the nation. It is usually not those with disabilities who struggle with knowing they can contribute, but rather convincing the able-bodied that it is so. Ironically, those who have survived serious injury or illness often receive the gift of empowerment from having survived something important, and the gift of clearer understanding of what really matters in this precious life.

Here’s another thing… In the face of devastating injury, many people feel they want to die. But, they move from depression and feeling that there is nothing for them, into the light of a new day where new triumphs are reached bringing new joys and depth of character and love of life that could not otherwise be experienced. We can handle so much more than we think we can. We can have peace and happiness in the midst of situations that might have previously been thought of as unendurable. That is just one reason why virtually all disability advocacy groups and others like the Institute on Disability Studies, the Scholl Institute for Bioethics, the California Medical Association, and Joni and Friends are so vehemently opposed to this idea of ‘helping’ someone die, which may sound warm and fuzzy, but in the searing light of truth, is just murder.

The weak, injured, downtrodden, depressed, should be nurtured and cared for, not encouraged to end their lives. We should be rallying to support and love those who have suffered illness or injury. The “Right to Die” in practice would mean we would be giving the medical system the right to give death rather than care. With all the problems with HMOs and managed care, are you willing to take that risk?

Here’s another thing… In the Netherlands where this ‘warm, fuzzy’ idea of putting people to death was made legal in 2001, they have already begun to see changes reflected in the culture. The idea of ‘Right to Die’ as slowly and sneakily as the setting of the sun, darkens into the ‘Duty to Die’. It truly moves from a culture of life to a culture of death. You end up teaching an entire generation that it’s okay to end a life that’s inconvenient or difficult in some way. And, as evidenced in the Netherlands, where they started out with such ‘kind’ intentions, euthanasia has now become the norm for people with a terminal illness, not the rare exception. Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessary for patients not competent to choose for themselves. Euthanasia has spread to disabled infants without the permission of their parents. Euthanasia has lead to a decrease in hospice and palliative care [1]. The line in the sand is very real, and though invisible to the eye, it is none-the-less deeply felt in the heart and soul.

So, what’s a Hollywood producer to do with a great story? Well, first of all, we should not be looking to Hollywood for our values and moral structure. Though, whether they like it or not, their mediums of film, television and music are extremely powerful tools that impact our culture and cultures around the world in ways we may never fully understand. They have the right to make their films in our nation of free speech, that’s true. But, if they were really as concerned about making the world a better place as they usually say they are in their political statements, they should begin in their own front yards and use their media more responsibly. There’s nothing wrong with making us think about things, what we believe and why, which is called a ‘world-view’. You have one, whether you realize it or not. And, it’s of paramount importance to know what your world-view is and why, because it is through the lenses of your world-view that you see everything around you and make your decisions. I am free because I have the privilege of being American, and because of that freedom I can do many things, but there are many things I don’t choose to do because, whether or not I may have the freedom to choose them, exercising that choice would impact others negatively. I want to use whatever gifts and talents I have in a positive way to help make my community and my planet a better place. There’s a verse in the Bible that says, “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable,” I Corinthinas 6:12.

It is not a responsible use of media to push agendas, via film or the evening news, which, in communist Russia would have been called what it is, indoctrination. I think it doesn’t take too much digging to see that Hollywood is guilty of this from time to time. However, it is also inappropriate to ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ and make that claim in every case. All art is a reflection of the artists’ views in one way or another.

It’s important to note that very few people statistically seek to end their lives in this manner. According to the Scholl Institute for Bioethics, in the State of Oregon, which passed the first Right to Die law in the U.S., since it was enacted in 1997, 265 patients have requested the prescription of death, and 171 actually used the prescription. But, of those patients who requested assisted suicide in 2003, up to 87% made that request because of fear of disability and 63% cited fear of being a burden on family, friends and caregivers as the reason for their suicide[2]. That’s not a choice. That’s feeling like you have no choice. “Given the absence of any real choice, death by assisted suicide becomes not an act of personal autonomy, but an act of desperation. It is a fictional freedom; it is phony autonomy,” Paul Longmore, 1999. And, in Oregon, our very own state in the U.S., the ‘kind’ law that was passed states that the prescription for death can only be prescribed to those who have the ability to request it themselves and take it themselves. But, in the short time it’s been legal to assist in suicide in Oregon, they are already moving to amend the law to include ‘euthanasia’, which means the prescribed death potion is administered by someone other than the patient. The cold machine of life devalued is already humming and swallowing fearful people in the name of kindness.

Now, besides the fact that you should never make policy based on the few exceptions, which means you sacrifice the good of the many for the few, what about the healthcare system? What person in this country wouldn’t have serious doubts about the motives of stingy HMOs that are already notorious for not wanting to provide necessary care for patients? If euthanasia is made into law, that would truly be a marriage made in the pit of darkness. It’s Logan’s Run (a 70’s movie starring Michael York) come to life.

And, who can decide for certain what terminally ill really means? We all know those who were given a death sentence by well-meaning doctors only to outlive all of their peers. Medicine is not an exact science; it is an art. And, what a loss to the world if we had not had the contributions of those condemned who went on to do such great things, like Franklin D. Roosevelt who became president of the United States, or Christopher Reeve who has touched countless lives in dealing with his own disability. Not to mention Joni and Friends own Joni Eareckson Tada, who, though challenged with quadriplegia, has persevered to found an organization that is now touching lives and hearts around the world.

But, in spite of these facts, and the fact that Californian’s have voted down the Right to Die initiatives on several occasions, the squeaky-wheel groups like the Compassion in Dying Federation and the Hemlock Society keep pushing.

From a purely analytical point of view, I don’t see the value in exterminating citizens of the world when the cost to society is so astronomically high, altering the view of life itself, planting seeds in the minds of children already overloaded with violent images, silently speaking volumes to the most vulnerable in our society.

From a Judeo-Christian point of view, it is a betrayal of all that the torah and the gospels teach, that only God ‘briah’s (Hebrew for the awesome creation power that only God possesses), that only God is the giver of life, and, as the creator of life, is the only one who has the right to take it, that life is sacred and precious. It turns the bedrock foundation of caring for the lame and the poor, into the sinking sand of self-service. The statue of liberty’s prolific words slowly fade in the acid rain of apathy, leaving us with nothing but a shell of a society that once welcomed the weak, the tired, the poor. This is no small change in thought, in American culture, in the hearts of men. This can and should take the breath away from everyone in this country.

The future of America got noticeably dim with the signing of the Oregon law. But, the power of one is a mighty power, though it often doesn’t feel that way. We all have the ability to choose death or life, and that choice is made in all of the little decisions we make every day.

Should you be outraged at the movie Million Dollar Baby? No, it’s a story about two people who make a poor choice. It would have been nice if they had chosen to make a film that had a different ending, but this is what the filmmakers had to say. Is it endorsing euthanasia? Is it pushing an agenda? Maybe. It seems more than coincidence that this was made and released just as yet another initiative is being considered to make Physician Assisted Suicide legal in California. But, in this case, talking about this issue is a good thing. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, this should be a call to action for that 80% of our U.S. population. No one has to have such a tragic end as the star in Million Dollar Baby. And, no one should be made to feel that death is the only choice of dignity. Easier paths are rarely the correct paths. Life is not just about what’s easy; it is also about hardships. And, as human nature dictates, we learn the most from the most difficult experiences. Those difficult experiences are part of the journey. They should be learned from, experienced fully, not eliminated. It is in the fires of our own suffering that we learn the greatest empathy, compassion, and the art of caring for others. If it is suggested that dignity is only found in ending my life prematurely, that also says that to choose to persevere is weakness. This could not be farther from the truth. And, if my life changes someone for the better in my persevering, even if it’s only one, then I am better for it, and so is the world.

The idea of euthanasia, brought from the back rows of the theater to center stage in Million Dollar Baby, should at least light a fire in you when you think about the implications of movements that seek to alter the way life is viewed in U.S. law, which only reflects cultural trends and in-turn changes culture. This is a big one, folks, and 20 years down the road, we can either look back with gratitude and pride that we supported life, or look back with distress and wonder how we arrived at such a dark and murky place. The choice is yours.

[1] Scholl Intsitute for Bioethics
[2] Scholl Intsitute for Bioethics

Statistics provided by the Scholl Institute for Bioethics.

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.