Posted on 03/30/2005 3:28:13 PM PST by quidnunc
The protracted death of the American brain damage victim Terri Schiavo is a deeply horrifying and disturbing spectacle. Twelve days ago Mrs Schiavo, who has been in a persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years, had the tubes delivering food and water to her withdrawn. Her death is now imminent.
Let us not mince words about what we are witnessing here. Quite apart from the unedifying saga of the struggle between her parents and husband over whether she should live or die, or the drama over President Bush’s intervention to force the courts to reconsider her case, the stark truth is that Mrs Schiavo is being slowly starved and dehydrated to death.
It has been said that she is being ‘allowed to die’. This is nothing less than a mutilation of the language in the service of a lie. Mrs Schiavo is not being ‘allowed to die’, for the simple reason that before the feeding tubes were removed she was not dying. True, she was in a persistent vegetative state; but however appalling her situation was, she was nevertheless living and not dying. It was only when food and water were withdrawn that, like anyone else upon whom this might be inflicted, she started to die.
In other words, this is nothing less than a state-sponsored killing. Not only that, its form is barbaric. Would the state ever be allowed to starve a healthy person to death? Of course not. The very suggestion is abhorrent. Yet it has been sanctioned for someone who is desperately sick.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at melaniephillips.com ...
"Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, penned this chillingly cold line in his book Practical Ethics.
In case you're not freezing yet: Singer explains that, "Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time." Hence, they're disposable.
Infant euthanasia (Have you ever imagined seeing those two words together?) is the practice Singer is discussing. And don't confuse it with abortion. We're talking out-of-the-womb, mom-has-delivered, right-here-with-you-and-me babies. Where's it happening? In Europe and the Netherlands, specifically — although word of it is slowly spreading. In Holland, the Associated Press reports that "at least five newborn mercy killings occur for every one reported."
"Mercy" is the keyword. Learning that your newborn has a fatal or potentially fatal illness must be an indescribably painful experience for a parent. But consider the added anguish of a doctor talking you into being "merciful" by ending your child's life.
And what determines merciful, anyway? That term is a bit vague in this context, as is most of the language advocating infant euthanasia.
Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, two doctors from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands confessed that "it is difficult to define" who, among infants, can or should be eliminated. Babies, obviously, can't tell you their pain is unbearable, so it becomes incumbent on "parents and medical experts" to determine what "hopeless" means.
"Hopeless" is another term for the infant-euthanasia glossary.
At the moment, the "mercy killing" of infants isn't officially legal — even in the Netherlands. It's just happening. But the Groningen doctors seem to believe that if they can present guidelines by which doctors can break the law uniformly — the presumption being that they be professional about their killing — that a law allowing such killing will follow.
-snip-
(Kathryn Jean Lopez [Newspaper Enterprise Assn] in National Review, March 30, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
Well, this was a truly excellent article. Well worth reading the entire piece. Not too long either.
Shall we kill everyone with a case of epistemological vertigo next? Or those who don't understand calculus?
Uh-oh...looks like I'm doomed...
This is a very good article. She makes the point of the disgusting barbarity of this very well. It is absolutely a state-sponsored killing and I am 100% against it.
God help us all!!
The whole Euthanasia movement needs to be exposed BIGTIME. Anyone interested can do a google search on the Hemlock Society. They are rather ecstatic about the courts 'standing their ground'. Did I say 'ecstatic'? I meant 'orgasmic'.
I've heard several bioethicists proclaim recently that because her cognitive abilities are below a certain level, Terri does not qualify as a person. Much celebrated and beloved by the pro-Michael crowd Dr. Cranford has also said mentally afflicted human beings are not people and thus cannot qualify for any rights (same, he says, for anyone with Alzheimers). I fear for our nation.
bttt
You are absolutely right about exposing those monsters!
TerriPing!
Actually 2 good articles are posted here, good info, especially Melanie Phillips' view from across the pond.
These "BIOETHECISTS" that are quoted in the article and some posts are quite scary, they are opening the door for street criminals to target the elderly, infirm and Mentally challenged and have their lawyers claim innocence because the victim has no rights, as posted on number 7 by shezza:
I've heard several bioethicists proclaim recently that because her cognitive abilities are below a certain level, Terri does not qualify as a person. Much celebrated and beloved by the pro-Michael crowd Dr. Cranford has also said mentally afflicted human beings are not people and thus cannot qualify for any rights (same, he says, for anyone with Alzheimers). I fear for our nation.
"I've heard several bioethicists proclaim recently that because her cognitive abilities are below a certain level, Terri does not qualify as a person."
Sooner than later, I'll be at that stage. That scares the S**T out of me.
It looks like two thousand years of civilization never happened. I thought we were getting better, moving ahead, but the impending death of Terri, a pawn in the hands of the euthenasia lobby would seem to give the lie to our progress. I prefer to remain with the unvarnished facts gleaned from reading numerous reports on the history of this pathetic and disgusting situation. Terri's guardian was awarded a large sum of money in a malpractice suit, the sum awarded was judged to be sufficient to care for her then anticipated life expectancy of 40 years, yet when she was placed into a hospice, her life expectancy on the admission form was shown as six months. Her brain scan at the time of the award did not indicate what was later claimed, that she was in a PVS. Bone scan details availbale on the Net show that Terri suffered trauma which a professional opinion indicates were similar to injuries that might have been suffered by a victim of a vehicle accident, an accidend/incident which never took place.
There have not been any further tests, no MRI imaging of her brain, no cat-scan since her original admission to a hospital after she was found on the floor of her residence and taken to hospital, is that correct?
How could a diagnosis of PVS have been made without any tests?
The hospice is apparently in contravention of medicaid (?) rules, no documentation for her care has been submitted to that organisation for five years. Her guardian has not been required to pay for her care, the taxpayer has. The funds awarded for Terri's care have in the majority been used for legal fees...and to top it off, no new evidence has ever been presented, althought this case has been before the courts some 20 or more times, (on appeal?) no additional testimony was allowed to be given. A pile of affidavits from medical professionals and hospice personnel have been utterly ignored.
And on FR there are comments from 'the dark side' that the parents of this victim of what sounds like spousal abuse and a pawn of the Right To Kill Movement, have abused the court system and made a mockery of the court!?
Lord help us each and every one of us. Felos, Greer and the 'man' Terri married must not be allowed to get away with this. And a pox on Peter Singer, I am ashamed that he is an Australian.
Yes, it is obvious that anyone who doesn't understand calculus does not possess the requisite level of cognitive ability to be allowed to live. Attempts at teaching calculus to these pathetic wrecks are strictly forbidden, as are tests to diagnose innate mathmatical ability.
Melanie Phillips writes:
>>>For what the Law Lords never accepted was the crucial difference between, on the one hand, allowing a dying person to die without pointless medical intervention, and on the other taking action with the express purpose of ending the life of someone who is not dying.<<<
Yes, Terri was not dying.
Her life was as it was. Killing her will not make her
whole, or begin her life anew.
Terri's life was not a burden to her family,
her life was a miracle, and her life was the only
one she had, or will ever have on this earth.
Is it better to be dead,
then to live an imperfect life?
The courts are not merciful to Terri or
her husband or her family.
The courts have decided to deny a citizen
due process of law.
And it that, all of us have something very
real to fear.
While the articles are indeed well written, I cannot agree out of hand that it is "true" that Terri Schindler is in a "persistent vegetative state", since people far more medically qualified than I am do not concur at all on that definition of her condition.
Conceding that point seems to be part of what brought this situation to its current deplorably inhumane and God-less place along the continuum of sinfully depraved disregard for, and abuse of, human life. Now our nation has (even more) innocent blood on its hands.
Lord have mercy on us, Christ have mercy on us.
A.A.C.
>"And a pox on Peter Singer, I am ashamed that he is an Australian."<
I'm simply ashamed that he is a human being - talk about something for which there is a decided lack of supporting evidence...!
A.A.C.
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.