WHO LIVES, WHO DIES? The Terri Schiavo case was only the tip of the euthanasia iceberg

WORLD NET DAILY.COM ^ | MAY 25, 2005 | Staff Writers

[CHARLITE]

The whole world watched as 41-year-old Terri Schiavo was slowly starved and dehydrated to death by order of a judicial system that defied Congress, the president and – many believe – the law itself.

But the Terri Schiavo story was not unique, as a stunning new edition of WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine – titled "WHO LIVES, WHO DIES?" – makes frighteningly clear. In fact, Terri's case is only the tip of the iceberg. http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=108

Take the case of Marjorie Nighbert, for example. Although she had asked for nothing more than a "little something to eat" and a drink of water, a Florida judge ruled she was not "competent" to make such a request for food, and the 83-year-old stroke victim was starved and dehydrated to death in a nursing home with full agreement of her family.

And yet, for every high-profile case involving the courts, many other elderly and disabled Americans are being quietly "helped along" toward death before their time, behind closed doors, without public knowledge. In hospices and nursing homes across the nation, citizens are being starved and dehydrated by removal of a feeding tube, or by refusal to insert a feeding tube when one is needed, or by administration of overly high doses of morphine. It's a murky legal and ethical area where "quality of life" and economic considerations increasingly are trumping sanctity of life as society's highest value – ending in premature death for too many of the nation's elderly and disabled citizens.

This edition of Whistleblower will show how, despite America's many highly ethical hospice workers and nurses dedicated to life, the end-of-life industry has also been invaded by "right-to-die" activists.

"WHO LIVES, WHO DIES?" exposes the perverse state of "medical ethics" – where some of the top ethicists espouse some of the most unethical views imaginable. It documents the dangers of "advance directives" or "living wills." And it exposes the scandalous classification of food and water provided by a feeding tube as "medical treatment" – thereby justifying the denial of basic sustenance to patients who had intended to forego "extraordinary measures" like heart-lung machines, but not be denied food.

Highlights of "WHO LIVES, WHO DIES?" include:

"Our political vegetative state" by Joseph Farah

"America's quiet holocaust" by Sarah Foster, which reveals that since long before Terri Schiavo, the disabled and elderly have been starved to death

"Hospice whistleblower warns elderly," a chilling interview with hospice expert Ron Panzer

"Diary of a nurse," a poignant first-person account by registered nurse Christina Brundage of how hospice care can hasten death

"Exposing the 'death is beautiful' movement" by David Kupelian, showing how bizarre New Age beliefs influence the euthanasia/right-to-die camp

"The real Terri Schiavo story" by Diana Lynne, an in-depth investigative report unveiling frightening contradictions, cruelty and conflicts of interest

"Schiavo-like woman speaks after 2½ years" – in which the attending physician admits, "I have never seen this happen in my career"

"At death's door" by Lynn Vincent, exposing the mortal dangers of "futile care"

"Assisted suicide and 'death with dignity,'" by Rita Marker, an authoritative, concise euthanasia primer, including the surprising origin of the "Living Will"

"Nazis: Pioneers in medicine" by Patrick Buchanan, showing how America's slide into euthanasia uncomfortably similar to Hitler's early days

"Compassionate Nazis" by Msgr. James C. Brunner, documenting the step-by-step process whereby killing the disabled led to killing the Jews

"Human non-person: Terri Schiavo, bioethics and our future" by Wesley J. Smith

"Never again" – on what can be done to prevent other Terri Schiavos from being starved to death "Euthanasia – in all its forms – has been off the American public's radar for far too long," said WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. "Terri Schiavo got people's attention, but most still don't realize how pervasive this 'culture of death' has really become – not in the Netherlands, but right her in the U.S.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

"The disabled person is starving because his health has failed and God hasn't acted to save him."

That kind of thinking is almost as perverse as some of them saying, "Let's take food and water away from a person and if God wants them to live He'll miraclously make them live without food and water.:

Funny thinking, isn't it? :)

"Who made you sovereign of the universe to deny that the doctors sent to insert the tube for food and water are not 'there by God's grace'?"

I agree with you totally on that.

Especially, when God allowed us to have all this fine knowledge to be able to save people, help people, and cure people.

People in Terri's condition aren't an end game. One day we'll have the knowledge and medicial expertise to bring them out of such situations but not if we kill them all off.

[.38sw]

Christine Busalacchi ate and drank on her own well but her father had her dehydrated to death because of her incontinence.

This statement concerned me, as I'd never heard of Christine Busalacchi, so I did a Google search. From what I could find, she was severely brain damaged in a car accident in 1987, and was unable to eat and drink on her own. She was diagnosed as PVS and was declared incompetent to make her own decisions, but she was probably incontinent as well. Nowhere did I see that incontinence was the reason for her father seeking to have her feeding tube removed, and nowhere did I see that she was able to eat and drink on her own. If incontinence were the only reason, I'm sure someone would have been happy to pay for her Depends. Do you have a source for that? Thanks.

[billbears]

Well if the some would have had their way, the decision would have eventually been left to the 536 political hacks sitting in Washington to legislate. As it is, the decision is left to who the separate and sovereign states decide would be the best person to make that decision. If the states decide that is a guardian, husband, wife, etc. I trust the state legislatures, their judicial systems, and the medical professionals more than I trust turning that decision over to the national government and those from different parts of this nation whose views I may disagree with more than my own state legislators

[jec41]

It is hard for me to believe that a country I served now has laws in place to determine if I would be allowed to be born or aborted and laws that decide under what conditions I should die. I hope they put off life term limits for a while because I am enjoying myself but I suppose its only a matter of time before some group study determines that we have enjoyed the major benefit's of life and we should be terminated at seventy. I can hear them now, you've had your fair share of life and are using the benefits of others, therefore turn yourself in or we will send the life police after you. The only good thing that can become of this is we will get rid of a lot of politicians. Almost worth it.

[MarMema]

From what I could find, she was severely brain damaged in a car accident in 1987, and was unable to eat and drink on her own. She was diagnosed as PVS and was declared incompetent to make her own decisions, but she was probably incontinent as well. Nowhere did I see that incontinence was the reason for her father seeking to have her feeding tube removed, and nowhere did I see that she was able to eat and drink on her own

Well you're not so up on this, then, are you?

The state of Missouri Public Health went to court to try to save Christine and made video of her, which was given to all four major tv stations in St. Louis and shown that evening. In the video Christine waved to the camera, smiled, and moved her legs. Also Time featured Christine on the cover and in the piece stated that she ate and drank. Her father was interviewed about why he wanted her to die and said he did not think she wanted to live in a diaper.

So don't be so sure you can find everything on the internet. Back in Christine's time, the net was not so much a part of our lives.

Besides there are numerous sites on the web stating that Christine could eat.

The Busalacchi controversy was not about making a medical decision: Christine was neither dying nor too sick to receive food. In fact, in 1991, she was able to take most of her food by mouth before her father insisted that only the feeding tube be used. The controversy was not about the severity of disability: There are many people who cannot smile, eat, or laugh like Christine could (even as a so–called "reflex") who are currently receiving care and treatment. And despite the offensive and medically untestable label of "vegetative," a recent study showed that most of the families studied were unwilling to withdraw food and water.

[TheCrusader]

"I wouldn't want to live as Terri Schindler S. did..."

When people say things like this, I wonder if they first considered that Terri Schiavo did not instantly go from being perfectly healthy to the state she was in just before they killed her. When people gradually degrade they tend to change their minds about the "quality of life" thing and begin to be happy just to be alive, see their family at their side, see their smiles and 'interact' with them as best they can.

In any case, it's a very dangerous thing to give the power of life and death to some judge who will be only too happy to assume the role of Ceasar and give thumbs up or down. The issue of life and death as it pertains to "quality of life" should always err on the side of life when there is any question, or even a microscopic shred of doubt about what the person wants.

[MarMema]

While unable to speak, Miss Busalacchi was reported to have been "alert and responsive." She could laugh and smile, and had learned to take three meals a day by mouth. Christine was also able to breathe on her own.

[little jeremiah]

ping to self for later pingout.

Charlite, you seem to post a lot of articles that would interest folks on one of my pinglists.

Could you alert me when you post articles - IOW, pingify me?

Thanks.

[CHARLITE]

"Could you alert me when you post articles?"

Yes indeed. I will add you to my list, which really is quite small. I made a gross error the day before yesterday, and pinged a list which another FR member had sent to me, containing people interested in items pertaining to Islam.

The person whose list it was, reacted furiously. It was entirely unintentional on my part. So, from now on, I have a policy never to ping anyone who hasn't requested a notification.

Thanks so much for your interest, "little jeremiah!" . . such a sweet name! You sound like such a dear person!

Char :)

[little jeremiah]

Thanks - I definitely want ON your list.

Some people like me, some people hate me with a virulent hatred. Kind of like the original Jeremiah. Only I'm just a teeny one.

:-)

Symbolically speaking, of course.

[MarMema]

I like you very much. Just fyi.

[backhoe]

These are the defining issues of our times:

-Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...--

-Useless Eaters vs The Death Cult--

-Thunder on the Border-- (Minuteman Project)--

1- an unaccountable Judiciary.
2- whose life is it, anyway? Yours, or someone else's?
3- whose Country is it?

There are other vital issues, of course- but these three will determine just who we really are as a nation.

[Ramonchito]

Now that the Terri Schiavo's case has finally come to a close with her untimely death, the best thing that can be done is to stop condemning Judge Greer, the courts and the federal government for her death.

Condemnation is not going to help things. In fact, in will just complicate matters. The reason why both the state and federal legislatures failed to pass legislation to avoid the unfortunate circumstances that led to Terri Schiavo's untimely death is because euthanasia itself is a very controversial if not divisive topic. Many people consider euthanasia as plain murder no matter what justification may be advanced to make reasonable exceptions for its practice.

There is no federal or state law dealing exclusively with euthanasia. The only law touching on this matter is the common law -- the law laid down by the courts dealing with euthanasia.

Politicians are afraid to handle the legal issues in euthanasia because it is a highly divisive and controversial matter to tackle with.

Condemning politicians in the case of Terri Schiavo’s is just going to make politician's even more afraid and insecure when it comes to dealing with the legal issues of the matter. If you think by condemning politicians for their inaction in Terri Schiavo's case, you are going to motivate them to do something about it, you are dead wrong. By your condemnation, you are just going to make it harder for politicians to act to avert similar cases. By your condemnation, you will just prolong the crisis, not help in doing anything about it.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you! I like you very much too!

[.38sw]

Well you're not so up on this, then, are you?

No need to be snarky about it. Why would I be "up" on this case? You had stated that her father had her she had her feeding tube removed because she was "incontinent". I found that to be unbelievable, so I asked, and did some searching. Thanks for the links.

[WFTR]

oh never mind. You aren't worth the trouble to debate.

That's just liberal-speak for the fact that you're too intellectually lazy or dishonest to make a case. That's sad. I used to respect you. Now, you're just another person that I wouldn't want making my decisions.

[WFTR]

You make some good points, and as you pointed out, there are other issues. It's a bad sign when no one cares enough to feed a disabled person who can eat but society is willing to use a feeding tube. I don't know of a good solution, but solving the problem by sticking a tube down someone's throat in order to warehouse them as "alive" is a bad sign. However, the fact remains that many people are in situations where there is no good answer, and I'm not going to agree to usurping that decision from the patient's loved ones.

[WFTR]

I'm not funny. You're just deluded.

[WFTR]

In some cases, I'm sure that people do change their minds as their health declines. I've also heard loved ones say, "Please, just leave the room, close the door, and come back in a few days when it's over." We didn't go that far to accomodate her wishes, but we kept her as comfortable as possible under the circumstances, kept crushed ice available for when she was thirsty, arranged regular nursing and occasional doctor visits to ensure that we weren't making anything worse, and didn't stick a tube in her throat. We made the right decision, and that decision was no business of the arrogant, deluded, self-appointed arbiters of medical decisions who are arguing with me on this thread.

As I said in my first post, I'm certainly not in favor of giving power to some judge. We at least halfway agree on that point. I see danger in giving power to a judge no matter where he stands on the overall issue. Maybe you'd like to give that power to a judge as long as he'll always rule in favor of using the tube.

I think that judge's decisions on medical issues should always be subject to extensive review. Most judges simply don't have the technical or medical background to make unalterable "findings" on these issues. When even doctors disagree, our system shouldn't pretend that the first judge who looks at the case will arrive at the right answer.

In any case, I appreciate your reasoned post on the issue.

Bill

[MHGinTN]

William, when you make comments like the following, you will not be taken seriously as anything but an agitprop who thinks foul things of people of faith; live with it or change, the choice is always yours but presently you hold no credibility: "The disabled person is starving because his health has failed and God hasn't acted to save him." WFTR