Posted on 05/09/2005 1:31:50 AM PDT by kingattax
Protecting family members and others who cannot defend themselves is fundamental to a civilized society. Terri Schiavo’s family, and many others, tried to protect her because that is what wild animals and civilized humans do for their own kind.
When a migrating goose is ill or injured, other geese stay with the downed goose until it can fly again or dies. They do not drown the disabled goose so they can conveniently resume their flight.
The concept that physicians should not kill unborn babies or hasten the deaths of patients came from Hippocrates, a 400 BC Greek pagan. As Western Civilization rose from barbarism and feudalism, family members and servants could no longer be killed at will by those with power. Until recently, defending life was a cornerstone of Western Civilization.
Our Judeo-Christian heritage is one of life and not of death. Life is proclaimed in the first five books of the Old Testament written after the exodus from Egypt and ancient Egypt’s obsession with death. The current efforts of the secular left are not only directed against life and other fundamental Judeo-Christian values but are actually an attempt to marginalize and destroy the basic values of Western Civilization.
The rapid decline of our societal values is dismaying. However, contrary to what is presented to us by most of the news media, Americans retain their traditional values. According to a Zogby Poll taken shortly after the death of Terri, 79% of those questioned would have opposed taking food and water away from Terri Schiavo had they known the facts in her case.
The glue of families and civilizations is the understanding that the members will care for and protect those who cannot help themselves, including children, the elderly, and the disabled. Family stability cannot survive when a husband can kill his wife with court sanction even when she is not terminally ill, governments can order the execution of disabled persons who have committed no crime, death can be hastened by withdrawing water and food (it takes longer but the result is the same as a barbiturate overdose or lethal injection), and the unborn survive at the convenience of their mother. If the family fails, so will our Nation and civilization.
The political left has claimed to champion the rights of the disabled and opposes capital punishment for criminals. However, these same liberals pushed for the expeditious death of Terri Schiavo and few liberals rose up to oppose her execution. This should have a very chilling effect on the disabled and all of us.
As a surgeon, I have observed the rising clamor that the last six months of someone’s life takes the greatest amount of health care dollars. The obvious solution they are seeking is to eliminate people before they consume this final amount of health care. It is essentially impossible to determine the time of the last six months of anyone’s life. Not to be deterred, some on the political left have a ready answer, simply deny all medical care to those over the age of 75 or 80.
By killing the unproductive, money will be saved by governments, insurance, and heirs. Is this why so many of the political left and news media oppose making Social Security financially viable and able to provide increased retirement income? Is execution to be society’s final solution for the solvency of the welfare state?
It is becoming increasingly expedient to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy, a malformed child, an infant of an undesired sex, a disabled person, the elderly, and others who are nonproductive, inconvenient, and do not vote. When we no longer have the will to take care of others in peril and need, we will no longer be able to depend on others to care for us when we are similarly afflicted.
History has shown us how easy it is to accelerate the elimination of the inconvenient as the Nazis did starting in 1935. Not only did they eradicate ethnic and religious groups they also killed large numbers of disabled persons. Veteran’s homes, insane asylums, and hospitals were rapidly emptied with German citizens being the first victims of the gas chambers and crematoriums. My friend Fritz’s father was in a German veterans’ hospital in 1939. Fritz visited his father on Friday finding him in apparently sound health. On Monday a letter was received that his father died on Sunday of pneumonia.
The Dutch physicians refused to euthanize for the Nazis during WWII. Ironically, they now lead the push for euthanasia. Many Dutch are now so fearful of being prematurely terminated, as physicians apparently frequently disregard government euthanasia regulations, they wear medical bracelets stating they do not want euthanasia.
Killing Terri added power to liberal tyranny. The socialist elite, including judges, will increasingly determine who will be born, live, and die. If they succeed, we will enter a very frightening and dreary new world.
The attacks on families and civilized values, including life, are deeply troubling. It is time for us and for our elected leaders to stand with courage to protect the defenseless and to move the United States back to its Constitutional foundations.
“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.” General Douglas McArthur
Dr. May resides in Lubbock, Texas and is a retina surgeon; he lectures on economics, and he has been on the faculties of the University of Illinois, the University of Texas, the University of California, Tulane University, and Texas Tech Health Sciences University. He has lectured and taught surgery throughout the United States and in Canada, China, India, Japan, Great Britain, and Western Europe
Protecting family members and others who cannot defend themselves is fundamental to a civilized society. Terri Schiavo's family, and many others, tried to protect her because that is what wild animals and civilized humans do for their own kind.
And Terri Schiavo's husband fought to honor her stated wishes regarding end of life care. She said she didn't want to live as a vegetable, yet her mother and father said that they would have disregarded her stated (or even written) wishes and kept her alive as a zombie if they could have. That is not "protection" by any means.
When a migrating goose is ill or injured, other geese stay with the downed goose until it can fly again or dies. They do not drown the disabled goose so they can conveniently resume their flight.
People are not geese, or animals. What a ridiculous comparison.
The concept that physicians should not kill unborn babies or hasten the deaths of patients came from Hippocrates, a 400 BC Greek pagan. As Western Civilization rose from barbarism and feudalism, family members and servants could no longer be killed at will by those with power. Until recently, defending life was a cornerstone of Western Civilization.
There's no "until recently" about it - defending life continues to be that cornerstone.
Our Judeo-Christian heritage is one of life and not of death. Life is proclaimed in the first five books of the Old Testament written after the exodus from Egypt and ancient Egypt's obsession with death. The current efforts of the secular left are not only directed against life and other fundamental Judeo-Christian values but are actually an attempt to marginalize and destroy the basic values of Western Civilization.
I agree with this statement, but it has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo.
The rapid decline of our societal values is dismaying. However, contrary to what is presented to us by most of the news media, Americans retain their traditional values. According to a Zogby Poll taken shortly after the death of Terri, 79% of those questioned would have opposed taking food and water away from Terri Schiavo had they known the facts in her case.
I would love to see the "facts" that were presented in the poll questions. I'll bet they weren't slanted at all. Not in the least. Heh heh...
The glue of families and civilizations is the understanding that the members will care for and protect those who cannot help themselves, including children, the elderly, and the disabled. Family stability cannot survive when a husband can kill his wife with court sanction even when she is not terminally ill, governments can order the execution of disabled persons who have committed no crime, death can be hastened by withdrawing water and food (it takes longer but the result is the same as a barbiturate overdose or lethal injection), and the unborn survive at the convenience of their mother. If the family fails, so will our Nation and civilization.
If we're talking about "family stability" here, how stable is a family where a person's end of life wishes can be overriden so that some of the family members can keep a zombified corpse around as a souvenir, over the verbal or written wishes of the patient? I wouldn't want to be a member of that family - would you?
The political left has claimed to champion the rights of the disabled and opposes capital punishment for criminals. However, these same liberals pushed for the expeditious death of Terri Schiavo and few liberals rose up to oppose her execution. This should have a very chilling effect on the disabled and all of us.
Honoring a person's end of life wishes is in no way an "execution." This is nothing more than misdirection and mislabeling of the issue.
As a surgeon, I have observed the rising clamor that the last six months of someone's life takes the greatest amount of health care dollars. The obvious solution they are seeking is to eliminate people before they consume this final amount of health care. It is essentially impossible to determine the time of the last six months of anyone's life. Not to be deterred, some on the political left have a ready answer, simply deny all medical care to those over the age of 75 or 80.
I'm sure you've observed the "rising clamor" many many times in your position mending retinas. I'm sure you have removed feeding tubes from scores of retina repair patients. It's an indication of how many people these days are on a downward spiral towards death due to retina problems. [/sarcasm]
By killing the unproductive, money will be saved by governments, insurance, and heirs. Is this why so many of the political left and news media oppose making Social Security financially viable and able to provide increased retirement income? Is execution to be society's final solution for the solvency of the welfare state?
I've told you a hundred billion times not to exaggerate!
It is becoming increasingly expedient to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy, a malformed child, an infant of an undesired sex, a disabled person, the elderly, and others who are nonproductive, inconvenient, and do not vote. When we no longer have the will to take care of others in peril and need, we will no longer be able to depend on others to care for us when we are similarly afflicted.
When we no longer have the will to honor a person's end of life wishes, we no longer have the assurance that we ourselves will not be maintained as living zombies, in opposition to our stated or even written wills. My wife and my mother-in-law and I (all conservatives) discussed the Terri Schiavo case, and we all stated that we would not want to be kept alive if we were in her situation (higher brain functions destroyed with no hope of recovery). If either of them were ever in Terri's situation, I would fight to honor their wishes in the same way that Michael Schiavo did. And I would hope that the courts would work the way they were supposed to work, like they did in Florida.
History has shown us how easy it is to accelerate the elimination of the inconvenient as the Nazis did starting in 1935. Not only did they eradicate ethnic and religious groups they also killed large numbers of disabled persons. Veteran's homes, insane asylums, and hospitals were rapidly emptied with German citizens being the first victims of the gas chambers and crematoriums. My friend Fritz's father was in a German veteran's hospital in 1939. Fritz visited his father on Friday finding him in apparently sound health. On Monday a letter was received that his father died on Sunday of pneumonia.
Apparently this guy has never heard of Godwin's Law. It makes it easy to determine his agenda. Compare opponents to Nazis and hope no one notices.
The Dutch physicians refused to euthanize for the Nazis during WWII. Ironically, they now lead the push for euthanasia. Many Dutch are now so fearful of being prematurely terminated, as physicians apparently frequently disregard government euthanasia regulations, they wear medical bracelets stating they do not want euthanasia.
The Terri Schiavo case has nothing to do with euthanasia and everything to do with the right to privacy as stated in Florida law.
Killing Terri added power to liberal tyranny. The socialist elite, including judges, will increasingly determine who will be born, live, and die. If they succeed, we will enter a very frightening and dreary new world.
This is the same BS "slippery slope" argument the liberals are always using to prevent something from happening. The good doctor should be ashamed of himself for the rest of what he wrote. "Dreary new world" is a great name for a place where kooks and weirdos can override your personal medical orders due to some manufactured agenda that can't be stated rationally.
The attacks on families and civilized values, including life, are deeply troubling. It is time for us and for our elected leaders to stand with courage to protect the defenseless and to move the United States back to its Constitutional foundations.
It is time for us and our elected leaders to reaffirm the right of any American citizen to sign his name to a Do Not Resuscitate order and have it honored by the hospitals and the courts. I certainly don't want "err on the side of life" to override my stated request to err on the side of the patient's orders. Not when it concerns MY life.
Dr. May resides in Lubbock, Texas and is a retina surgeon; he lectures on economics, and he has been on the faculties of the University of Illinois, the University of Texas, the University of California, Tulane University, and Texas Tech Health Sciences University. He has lectured and taught surgery throughout the United States and in Canada, China, India, Japan, Great Britain, and Western Europe
Keep operating on those eyes, Doc, and leave the end of life decisions to the patients. Thanks.
At last, a voice of reason in the wilderness! Thank you for a well-reasoned reply to the continued bleating on this one "celebrity moment" that is based only on the evidence the media has been privy to read. Like the Rodney King verdict, those who made the decision were privy to much more information than we got, and people who had much more interest in their own agenda (be it physical domination over others or a place in the limelight) used the stampede for reasons that had nothing to do with one human being's life and death.
And for the record, cats and dogs, as well as many other animals in the wild, not only routinely kill the children of rivals but will kill or abandon weak or disabled young animals for the good of the herd. People who live on farms can bear witness to the fact that life in the animal kingdom bears no resemblance to "Charlotte's Web."
If it had EVER been established that Terry Shiavo had signed a 'living will' you might have at least one point (the only important point) to validate your 'stance'. Without that you and Michael have arbitrarily demanded a death sentence of an innocent based on YOUR preferences.
If the physicians currently ignore government euthanasia regulations, they will be willing to ignore a few letters on a bracelet.
In the rare situation where anyone is watching, the doctors might need to find a friendly judge.
Yes, and last Tuesday we had a mare present us with a healthy foal. The mare (rescued from neglect, abuse and starvation) refused to nurse this foal. All this past week and for several weeks into the future this foal requires hand feeding every three hours.
I guess we should stand around and watch the foal starve to death. Better yet, why not blow its brains out...and Terry's too, at least that is more humane.
Only naive people are oblivious to the fact that the doctors get the "final" say.
Kudos for Donald May, M.D.....he represents a compassionate, thinking, ethical, intellegent individual with the qualities I would like not just in my physicians, but my friends, as well.
Doctor Cranford was a contributor toward the starvation deaths of Nancy Cruzan and Terri Schiavo.
"[Nancy Cruzan, three days before her death from starvation] turned and looked at me and stared at me with a panicky look, sweating profusely, and the thought I had was, she was thinking, ‘Oh, here’s a policeman, he’ll help me.’ But we weren’t allowed to do that,"...Doug Seneker
He's certainly one of the good guys, who understands what is really going on and isn't afraid to speak out.
Did he?
She said she didn't want to live as a vegetable,...
Did she? Was she?
Please show us something to back up those statements. Something along the lines of evidentiary level proof. You know; witnessed statements, absence of conflict of interest, demonstrative behavior supportive of like motivation and a lack of credible evidence to the contrary. The kind of testimony that carries such a high level of credibility that it would lead an impartial juror to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is presently publically known about this case makes it impossible for any such impartial conclusion to be made. The doubts about all those sources of supporting evidence are tremendous.
This is not to say that your statements are factually incorrect. They may be true. But given what is known about the matter the shadow of doubt cast over the three conclusions you have come to is enormous. The credibility of the supporting evidence would be insufficient to warrant the issuance of a permit to build a storage shed. The doubts surrounding the petitioner would, in most jurisdictions, be undeniable cause for a vigorous investigation into his conduct. Again even if this were only a matter of applying for a building permit.
You are either almost entirely ignorant of the information available to date, incapable of rational dispassionate thought or a liar defending an agenda personal or otherwise. Irregardless of which category you fall into your entire post becomes suspect and irrelevant in the face of those first two ridiculous statements.
Say goodbye, fascist troll.
Well, THIS surely is no SHOCKING revelation!
Liberals wouldn't recognize IMMORALITY anymore, if it was a snake and bit them!
It's absolutely AMAZING that the LEFT who have the AUDACITY to self-proclaim themselves as "THE PARTY" of "compassion" and helping the needy, no longer see innocent, disabled Americans as "THOSE IN NEED"!
The PARTY who habitually advocates feeding the WORLD'S poor and hungry, yet allowed an innocent, disabled fellow American spend 14 days dehydrating and starving, until all her vital organs dried up and LITERALLY cracked, causing her DEATH! The PARTY of "COMPASSION"! Uh-huh!
The PARTY which advocates providing a water source for the plethora of ILLEGALS so they won't DEHYDRATE to DEATH, as they consistently break our Nation's laws and enter our country illegally, yet allowed an innocent, a disabled fellow American spend 14 days dehydrating and starving, until all her vital organs dried up and LITERALLY cracked, causing her DEATH!
The entire LIBERAL platform consists of whatever is convenient to the LIBERAL cause, moment by moment. There is NOTHING about the Liberal platform which is consistent and which doesn't repeatedly contradict itself, when necessary.
The LIBERAL PARTY is the party, which cosistently advocates lawlessness, violence and who, while advocating IMMORALITY, have simultaneously re-defined immorality, as is now attempting to re-define *MARRIAGE* and *APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL*!
A "VOICE OF REASON" you say? Allowing a human being to spend 14 days, slowly dehydrating and starving to DEATH is "reasonable" in the eyes of LIBERALS?
Allowing a baby to develop in its mother's womb and pass through the birth canal, only to stab the baby at the base of the baby's head and suck out the fully developed brain, causing EXCRUCIATING PAIN before DEATH, is "reasonable" to the Liberal Party?
Educate me, what exactly does the LIBERAL PARTY find *unreasonable*?
Pro-euthanasia talking points.
| The patient wants death but the doctor won't go along |
Tell the doctor he has no right to interfere with a patient's desires |
| The doctor agrees to help the patient kill himself, but the spouse objects | Tell the spouse not to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship |
| The patient wants to live but the spouse wants the patient to die |
Find a doctor to say the patient is incapacitated then say no one should interfere with the spouse's decision because the spouse wants what's best for the patient |
| The patient, spouse, and doctor want the patient to die but a parent disagrees |
Tell the parent not to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship |
| The law prohibits euthanasia | Tell the legislators they should not interfere with a doctor/patient relationship |
| The patient says he wants to die if the pain gets too bad | No one should interfere with the doctor/patient relationship (IOW, the doctor is in control and can reassure the patient or not) |
| The patient faces a long period of recovery | No one should interfere with the doctor/patient relationship and the doctor will "helpful information" to the patient (including telling him his odds of full recovery) |
| An artist is blinded and wants to die | No one should interfere with a doctor/patient relationship |
| A violinist loses his arms and wants to die | No one should interfere with a doctor/patient relationship |
You saved me some precious time by opening with a lie and closing with another one. No need to read the rest of your trash.
Merriam-Webster Online DictionaryMain Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.Definition irregardless
adverb US NOT STANDARD
despite; not being affected by something: I don't think children should be hit, irregardless of what they've done wrong.Compact Oxford English Dictionary
irregardless
• adjective & adverb informal regardless.
— ORIGIN probably a blend of IRRESPECTIVE and REGARDLESS.
Thank you, "Judge" TigersEye. I love how private citizens are clamoring to see evidence and coming up with judgments like the above, with no formal training and no idea what they're really talking about.
Thank you, "Judge" Tarantulass. I prefaced the statement I made with "What is presently publically known about this case ..." Shall I diagram sentences for you? I am as capable as anyone (with an open mind) to read and understand what is available to the public. (How you know what my educational status is is a mystery to me. Fed? No. You would know that I have some knowledge of medicine.)
It's hard for the layman to make much of a judgment on the case when the private medical information remains just that - private, as it should be. But the court heard it, and heard the testimony of the doctors who had cared for Terri for years, ...
BS Many doctors saw her, conflicting diagnosis were rendered, and significant reasonable doubt has been cast on the doctors who diagnosed her as PVS. Note: I said doubt was cast about the doctors, not just their diagnosis. You lied again.
Now that things have seemingly quieted down, I will be happy to discuss the matter with you in a rational way.
Get real. There's nothing honest about you. If there were you would have posted long ago with your facts. You still aren't. Things were "shrill" here? Gee, I wonder why? People like you are downright eager to lie and distort in order to support the killing of a helpless human being. It's repugnant.
But she's dead now so your aim must be to push the agenda forward for more killing. Go for it. Just talk to somebody else about it.
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.