Posted on 03/21/2005 4:05:17 PM PST by goldstategop
RUSH: Here's Gary in Champaign, Illinois. Gary, welcome to the program. It's nice to have you on with us.
CALLER: Thank you. Rush?
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: I'm a Republican. I voted for Bush, all that stuff like in your commercials, but I have to disagree with everybody on this one, and let me tell you why.
RUSH: All right.
CALLER: Six years ago my mother had a brain aneurysm, went through a surgery to repair it, had another operation, procedure and a few other things. Finally the neurosurgeon, the neurologist came and told us she was in a chronic or permanent vegetative state. And for nine months I convinced my five siblings to withdraw the tube feeding her and let her die naturally. We did not kill our mother, we let her die naturally. Now, I've seen film of this lady, I've seen the news reports, doctors have said she is in a chronic or permanent vegetative state. What that means is, you have very, very basic brain function. The part of your brain that makes you breathe still works, you may have some response to pain or other minor basic stimuli but they have absolutely zero cognitive function. That lady has no idea what's going on around her. She doesn't know the difference from night to day. She doesn't know who people are. She doesn't feel anything at all. The right thing for her to do is what her husband wants to do, and that is pull the plug on her and let her die a natural death.
RUSH: Okay. You've told a personal story.
CALLER: I've been there.
RUSH: Well, so have I. And I'm going to tell you a personal story.
CALLER: I do not think that I killed my mother. I let her die naturally.
RUSH: I know you don't want to think that. You let her die. You had the doctors remove the feeding tube so you didn't even do it. She died a natural death, starvation, on the basis that she couldn't feed herself, so she starved. I'm just going to go back to the first hour, and, you know, the New York Times ran a brilliant story on Sunday that starvation is painless, it's a very dignified way to go. We could rid the world of poverty by letting them all starve. They may not all be in a vegetative state, but they soon will end up in one after they don't eat or drink long enough. Just gonna let 'em die.
Let me tell you my own personal story. My grandmother, my maternal grandmother. To give you the short, down-and-dirty of this, she had a stroke and was sent to the hospital, and the doctors said, "We don't know how long she's going to live like this." She was not in a coma but she was not quite there. The doctors said, "We don't know how long she's going to live like this, but we're going to give you 48 hours, you've got to make up your mind what you want to do, pull the tube or send her to a nursing home and pay for it because we need the bed." So my mother, my father had passed away, my mother talked to my brother and I about it and she wanted to pull the tube. And I said, "Mother, you really want the burden of having killed your mother? You really want that?" Before the 48 hours had passed a decision had to be made, my grandmother had another stroke while nobody was there and passed away in the hospital. At least that was the story. I've always doubted it. Given that we were given 48 hours to move her out of there, I've often wondered. Nobody will ever know, so it's just speculation on my part. I don't know how many patients are actually killed already on the basis that they don't know what's going on, it's better for them, we need the bed, insurance isn't going to cover this, blah, blah, all these decisions.
Now, I know, Gary, that you don't want to think that you killed your mom, and this sort of thing, but the argument about this woman exists because I think your scenario of her circumstances doesn't jibe with what some family members are saying. Some family members are saying she does respond to stimuli, that she does know when her dad and mom walk in the room, this sort of thing. So I think that the way you have to understand this -- well, you, the audience, the way you, the audience, have to understand, because everybody -- well, 90% of the people on the phones waiting to talk to me disagree with me on this, and I think the culture of death is very seductive. We can tell ourselves that we're doing the best thing for the person that's going to die. And we do that to hide the fact that we don't want to be inconvenienced ourselves in some way, either financially or personally or a combination of the two or what have you. And individual case, okay, so Gary's mom died the way she did, that's not going to wreck society, a single instance, it's not going to, you know, sow the seed, fabric of destruction. However, when a culture of death overtakes a society, and we have one now, you know, we've gotten to a point where it's permissible and even heroic to abort babies.
In order to make that argument we've now started calling pregnancy a disease. Pregnancy is a disease, it's not a natural state for women say some abortion rights activists. Then on the tail end of the life spectrum we decide, "Well, this person wouldn't want to live this way." Even though they may never have said that they don't want to live this way we assume it for them because we project. We don't think we would want to live that way. "I don't want to see my family member suffer," or what have you. And I realize that each one of you that have been in this situation do not think that you have contributed anything but love and the goodness of your wishes to your family member in taking this action. But there are societal ramifications for all of these particularly as they accumulate and the cumulative effect of the culture of death is one of the things that takes us to where we are at now. And that is that we literally have divided up sides in this argument that perplex me, and they give me pause. There's an actual energized enthusiasm for this woman's death out there, and there's an actual energized enthusiasm to save her life. I can understand the energized effort and enthusiasm to save life. We're oriented toward that in so many areas of our society. Sadly, we're also oriented on the side of ending life, and there are a lot of people-- I hear all this talk, Democrats have all these accusations, Republicans have ideological attached to this. Let me tell you something, if you want to argue who's more ideologically at risk here by losing this, take a look at the left.
They've got two things they're going to lose on, if the judge here -- and he's a Clinton-appointed judge, and I have no idea what's going to happen in this case -- but if the left loses it, they lost twice. They're going to have lost because the Congress has exercised Article 3 and is exercising its authority over the judiciary. They can't stand that because that's going to send a bad signal over their filibuster of Bush judges. The second thing they're going to lose on is their base, the pro-abort, feminist base. I mean, they're as actively involved in this as -- "Well, Rush, this has nothing to do with abortion." -- no, it doesn't have anything to do with abortion. It has to do with the rights of individuals under the so-called declaration of privacy or what have you to terminate a life they'd rather not deal with. Which is what abortion is. That's all it is. I want to kill this baby, I don't want to deal with it. You come up with other excuses, "I don't want it born to poverty, oh, it's a sorry circumstances," da-da-da-da-da-da, but boil it down, that's what it is, and if they lose both of these -- and that's why they're panicked. They've got two ideological battles that they're fighting in this little battle here over Terri Schiavo, and they're afraid to lose both of them. But don't think they don't have an ideological stake here, either.
Ain't it the truth! Automatic seminar caller.
How stupid are these people? (don't answer that, I already know)
It seems every day we see the courts upholding the right of husbands to murder wives or ex-wives, doesn't it? Where are the "feminists" on this?
But the judge has refused to permit even food and water by mouth. According to the family, she is capable of receiving liquids. A spoon is artificial too, I suppose.
He talked about the decision making on his Grandmother years ago.
At that time he said nothing at all about suspicions like these.
Sometimes Rush's memory gets a bit embroidered to fill out a current story.
SO9
It's common sense.
Have you ever noticed how Rush plays the audience? For example Rush will make a point about a subject of the day and then a caller will call in and make a BETTER point and Rush says "You know I was thinking the same thing". You and I know he was not or else he would have said it. He says that line all the time because he does not want to be upstaged by someone that makes him appear "Less than knowlwdgable". It's theatrics. He is a master of this.
Anyway I just don't beleive all that Rush says and that's my opinion. I've personally caught him on several subjects over the years.
I'm glad you said it's just your opinion. Mine is the exact opposite. Rush is one person I truly trust.
He won't. And the moment she dies his politcal career is over. And ought to be.
FL law calls for removal of custodial rights in event of a "conflict of interest". Schiavo has a new common law wife and two children, the conflict of interest is scathing. Judge Green has acted outside the law. On that alone Jeb should have acted...too late now, he won't do a damn thing.
Some nursing homes and hospices will withhold liquids from patients with family consent... I am not sure whether a living will is also needed. The patients are then filled with morphine...
These people think they are doing good.
Quote: Rush is one person I truly trust.
Remember, there is some acting and showmanship involved in any radio or TV production. I also like Rush and have listened to him for 15 years. I just don't take everything he says to the bank.
Bump for a good post. You're right until we string up (figuratively, now) a few of these judges up who are taking the Country down this degraded path, nothing will change. Terror of the wrath of a righteous people needs to fill the hearts of these judges, only that will bring them to heel.
If you had viewed any of the video available on the net of Mrs. Schiavo, you would have noted by simple observation alone that while she shows evidence of cerebral damage, she shows no clinical evidence of decerebration or decortication.
Let her die with dignity, like a plant?
Cordially,
If we were really a people jealous of our liberty, we would have started dragging these judges by the collar down the steps of their respective halls of justice decades ago.
You beat me to it.
My understanding of eliciting hospice services is that you are only going to use pallitive care and let the patient die without intervention.
Rush Limbaugh-----Barf!
Why are you telling me this? The whole thread is based on Rush's show? Why me? Barf on you.
I know its painful to relive that, but it does provide the contrast that we need to keep in mind. There are hopeless conditions, but is Terry in that condition?
Yup. He brought his "A Game" on air today. And I am sure that he informed a lot of the sheeple - specifically regarding nutrition as a not extraordinary matter.
Most of the sheeple do not have the distinctions defined yet. Rush did a good job on that.
I see that this will lead to more people having the black robed grim reaper help them murder their loved ones.
Dont all babies to the age of three qualify under these circumstances?
Any judge ruling to end a life, should have to spend time with the person before making this decision, and be at the bedside while it happens.
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.