''We take convicted murderers and give them a gentle death by injection, and we take someone like Terri Schiavo and decide she has to die and make her suffer weeks of dehydration and malnutrition and loss of dignity rather than provide a rapid euthanasia,'' Ponsky said. ''It's a paradox.'' From the point of view of the elites, this really the point of the Terri Schiavo case: RAPID EUTHANASIA for the unwanted. I expect it will become as common here as it is in the Netherlands--and given popular sentiment, perhaps more so--within the next decade.
1 posted on
03/26/2005 4:21:36 AM PST by
madprof98
To: madprof98
Terri's tube was removed, and no one is allowed to give her water or food -- even though she can take it through her mouth.
2 posted on
03/26/2005 4:24:13 AM PST by
ViLaLuz
To: madprof98
It's not about biotechnology, it's about murder under color of law.
3 posted on
03/26/2005 4:24:35 AM PST by
Diogenesis
(Si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: madprof98
Here's what I'm finding. People with money want to leave that money to their families, not to a hospital or a rich doctor, or nursing facility for care that extends a persons misery not their life. They don't see that Terri's situation is different. And if they do see that possibility, they don't want her case to rob them. She becomes a threat to their ability to pass on resources to loved children and grandchildren. They don't "get" the differences.
People without money don't understand why someone would want to off another human without so much as a look at the situation. And because they have nothing invested personally, they don't "get it" either.
Then there's some who operate from principle beyond "what's in it for me". And that group has to find the compromise. Because, the incentives are strong on both sides. And these choices have bad unintended consequences.
4 posted on
03/26/2005 4:27:02 AM PST by
GOPJ
(Liberals haven't had a new idea in 40 years.)
To: madprof98
Terri would not have met the criteria to be euthanized in the Netherlands.
5 posted on
03/26/2005 4:27:33 AM PST by
Ben Chad
To: madprof98
Gauderer said it wouldn't be appropriate for him to give an opinion on the Schiavo case, but he believes the government shouldn't intervene. The government is who removed the tube in the first place. The government is blocking anyone trying to feed her normally. The government has issued Michael Schiavo a license to kill and is defending him as he does it. The government is in this up to its filthy little elbows.
When Terri dies, this country is finished.
7 posted on
03/26/2005 4:32:52 AM PST by
atomicpossum
(Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
To: madprof98
''We take convicted murderers and give them a gentle death by injection, and we take someone like Terri Schiavo and decide she has to die and make her suffer weeks of dehydration and malnutrition and loss of dignity rather than provide a rapid euthanasia,'' Ponsky said. ''It's a paradox.''For this doc, rapid euthanasia is the way to go.....
To: madprof98
intended to help infants and children who couldn't swallow. Now they are commonly used so people who can't feed themselves (but CAN swallow) can be 'fed' by tube instead of having someone else feed them with a spoon......wouldn't want to waste all that 'oh so valuable' TIME, dontcha know!
20 posted on
03/26/2005 6:02:36 AM PST by
MamaTexan
(I am NOT a 'person' as defined by law!)
To: madprof98
From the point of view of the elites, this really the point of the Terri Schiavo case: RAPID EUTHANASIA for the unwanted. Yes, it is. The manner of death will become the issue, and sanctity of life and patient's wisehs are being overshadowed.
22 posted on
03/26/2005 6:15:10 AM PST by
Cboldt
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson