"This person suffering from hereditary
defects costs the people 60,000
Reichmarks during his lifetime. People,
that is your money. Read 'New People'."
Posted on 07/08/2005 3:20:37 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Much has been said or written about the Terri Schiavo case, but the bottom line is that there was no moral justification for killing her because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that. Indeed, as radio host Julian Tepper points out, even if she had wanted to exercise a right to die, the autopsy results showed that she was not in a position to really know what was happening to her. So, therefore, what harm would have been done by letting her family take care of her until she died a natural death?
The clear facts of the case show there was something else at work here. And it is an issue that Bill O'Reilly on the FOX News Channel sometimes raised. As O'Reilly put it, "The medical evidence is just too overwhelming to justify keeping her on life support at taxpayer expense."
So that is what it comes down to. If the ultimate rationale for the Schiavo killing is that it would have cost too much to keep her alive, then we are all at risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Did O'Reilly forget that Michael Schiavo pocketed the money he received from his malpractice suit, and left Terri's hospice expenses to Florida taxpayers?
I don't remember hearing O'Reilly say that, but I do remember him saying that Terri's husband could have defused the situation and come out looking better by allowing her parents to take her home and care for her.
When we start killing people simply because they're inconvenient, we've lost our humanity. O'Reilly's quote tells me a lot about him, and none of it is good.
Cut off his (food)funds.
Ping
"Hey, Bill! How does it feel to be dehumanized by capricious human fiat?? See how easy this is?? No, I didn't think you did..."
Hi there, GGIR... I thought perhaps that was the case...but see the quote here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151122,00.html
. On the other hand...check out the context...
Enter Congress, who's passed a law affirming the family's right to federal protection. So now the feds will decide the case. Predictably, the left-wing press is aghast. Today "The L.A. Times" blamed the whole thing on those radical right-wingers, calling the new law a "constitutional coup d'etat."Does that sound contradictory? hmmm...
But a funny thing happened on the way to Liberalville. Every one of the liberal senators failed to show up to block the law. And any of them could have. All of them sat it out in a stunning display of partisan silence.
That happened, despite a new ABC News poll that says a majority of Americans agree that Terri Schiavo's 15 years of technological life should be ended.
In the end, that will happen, I believe. The medical evidence is just too overwhelming to justify keeping her on life support at taxpayer expense. But I'm glad Congress stepped up and voted to give her and her family every benefit of the doubt.
All life is worthy. And that should be a defining message for America.
And that's "The Memo."
Nope, it does not sound contradictory. Bill was saying what he "believed" would happen. He did not say it was his opinion that she was "too damaged to stay alive at taxpayers' expense.
He said "All life has value. And that's the memo for today."
He was affirming that all life does indeed have value. He was in no way suggesting that people should be put to death in order to save taxpayers' money.
This article blurs the distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. If a person is, for example, in great pain and wants to die, I don't think there's a problem with allowing him to receive his escape. And if it can be allowed for the Abled, then I think that *voluntary* euthanasia should be allowed, to assist those who can't do it themselves.
But the article uses revulsion at involuntary euthanasia to fight against all euthanasia.
Thanks for the ping!
Except that her parents wanted to take her home and pay for her care.
Wow. O'Reilly is a real scumbag.
"Kill, kill, kill....!"
"(It's sick out there and getting sicker." - - Bob Grant)
Very well put.
Good post, goodgirlinred.
"Euthanasia reminds me too much of suicide."
Actually, euthanasia IS suicide, and then there's FORCED euthanasia, which is murder.
Good detective work, thanks.
What is considered "acceptable" for suicide or euthanasia changes based on culture...and not just from place to place, but time to time.
Early Christians (in the 500 years before the Council of Braga) hurled themselves from cliffs to get immediately to heaven with their Lord rather than be vain and cling to this materialistic world. During the past few centuries, poverty was understood as the appropriate reason for offing onesself (altruistically not being a burden on others). Then, in Romantic times, the poverty angle was considered base...but it was truly beautiful to die for lost or unrequited love! Now, it's "terminal illness"....what will tomorrow bring "suicide is only for those who are rich enough to afford it to be lavish" or something?
Many doctors HAVE compassion and have actively euthanized patients...it's just not talked about openly.
Thank you. Yes, forced euthanasia is murder. I think it should be prosecuted as such.
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.