Mercy Killing: Any Oxymoron

Yikes !!!

This is what socialized health care breeds

I support the mercy killings of dimwits who support mercy killings.

The only non-self-inflicted "mercy killing" that should be countenanced, IMHO, is on the battlefield or in remote parts of the world when someone is mortally wounded, there's no medical aid available or even the remotest chance of aid arriving in time to save the person, and to let the individual suffer until their impending death would be cruel and inhumane. Or to save someone from an even more hideous death at the hands of their captors.

What they're talking about in the article doesn't even bear thinking about.

If you correlate which countries have had state-paid health care and how long, you will find out who has the highest rate of euthanasia.

When the state pays the bills, the state will look after the state's interest. If you are sick enough, it will be in the state's interest to have you dead.

World Magazine in 2001 put out an issue totally covering abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and where it was leading... it even talked about human-animal hybrid experimentation and harvesting, which has been done for over 20 years. People need to wake up.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and from Descartes "ghost in the machine" theory of humans being just a responsive mechanism up to Darwin and others... they have lessened humanity along with abortion/euthanasia, as parts to be used or defective mechanisms unfit for life.

Holland already allows seriously disabled children to be euthanized.

Next step: slowly raise the age for the children while lowering the bar on what is "seriously disabled".

I understand there are several nice mercy killing processing centers in Europe. Bergen-Belsen and Treblinka come to mind.

Someday we will be standing next to a great mound of skulls, wondering how we got to that point, and we will look back to these days, and the arguments used to justify abortion, and realize that is where it all began.

My manners.

Welcome to Free Republic and thanks for posting.

I challenge all to read about the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands, Useless Eaters blog (google it), Hitler's early experiments involving the disabled and those deemed imperfect by Arian standards and after the test case of Schiavo/the states where 'death with dignity' was introduced in the courts.

For others who may be interested in the early runup history:

Those in the pro-life movement know that the courts have played a fundamental role in shaping the public policy, and public opinion, on life and death issues. With abortion, every unborn child was endangered by the one fell swoop of the double-edged sword, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The threat of euthanasia, however, is being defined and established piecemeal by the courts. It is also being done through a very clever-devious, actually -- strategy of identifying a legitimate right, distorting it slightly, applying it to conscious, competent adults, and then extending it to incompetent people.

1914- Schloendorff v. N.Y Society Hospital

A few cases dealing with related medical-legal issues have become the foundation upon which the pro-euthanasia movement was built. The cornerstone was laid early in the 1900's via Schloendorff v. New York Society Hospital (1914, N.Y.S.C.). This case was significant in defining a person's right to refuse medical treatment by withholding consent. The court ruled that providing treatment to an individual without their consent constituted an invasion of bodily integrity equivalent to assault and battery. A famous quote from Justice Cardozo is still being used today, "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body..." Autonomy and self-determination are key words always connected to the concepts of both abortion and euthanasia. The court's legitimate affirmation of the right to refuse treatment, unfortunately, established a gateway to passive euthanasia.

1965- Griswold v. Connecticut & 1973- Roe v. Wade

The subsequent blocks were laid in two non-euthanasia cases that defined the "right to privacy," Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, U.S.S.C.) and Roe v. Wade (1973, U.S.S.C.). In Griswold, the Supreme Court overturned state prohibitions on the use of contraceptives. This case invented the "right to privacy" which has been fundamental to social and legal acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. The court found the privacy right within the penumbra (shadows) of liberty rights clearly expressed in the Constitution. The word "privacy" never appears in the Constitution. The privacy right created certain areas of human interaction and behavior which could not be regulated or prohibited by the state.

The Roe court built upon the inventions of Griswold, determining that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child fell within the realm of personal privacy. Since the unborn child was not considered a person, the woman had full authority to decide "what shall be done with [her] own body." Characterizing the decision to abort as a medical decision, the concepts of autonomy and privacy were further linked together to justify abortion on demand and established grounds often used to justify euthanasia.

Right to Refuse Treatment + "Privacy" Right = Euthanasia "Right."

The above equation summarizes, in simple terms, the path of reasoning which the courts would follow beginning in the 1970's to their present day deliberations on fundamental euthanasia cases. If you don't quite see how this equation adds up, don't worry. It doesn't really make sense. As we have learned with abortion, justifying the killing of innocent people usually take some twisted reasoning.

1976- In Re Quinlan

With groundwork laid, the privacy right called and the right to refuse medical treatment firmly established, the next step was taken in the case, In Re Quinlan (1976, N.J. S.C.). Karen Ann Quinlan, a young woman in a coma-like condition, was sustained by a respirator and feeding tube. Her parents petitioned to have her respirator removed claiming it was an extraordinary and burdensome measure. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the petition and invented the legal principal of "substituted judgment." This extended the right to refuse treatment from competent adults to surrogate decision-makers based on the surrogate's knowledge of an incompetent patient's desires and values.

Karen was "weaned" from the respirator [it was not simply turned off], and she began breathing on her own. She lived another nine years sustained by her feeding tube and basic care. At the time of the trial the family was asked about also removing her feeding tube. Her father responded by rejecting that option, saying that was her sustenance. Removing an extraordinary treatment was different in his mind than removing a necessary element of life.

1986- Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital

Another important case involving the principle of substituted judgment was Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital (1986, Massachusetts Supreme Court). This case involved 49-year-old Paul Brophy, in a persistent vegetative state but not terminally ill. The court ruled that a third party is capable of knowing what the patient would want done under these circumstance and can therefore substitute his or her own judgment for the patient's. Food and water were withdrawn and Paul Brophy became the first person in the U.S. to die from court-ordered dehydration and starvation.

1990- Cruzan v. Director

Cruzan v. Director (1990, U.S. S.C.) involved Nancy Cruzan, who was in a coma-like condition and sustained by a feeding tube but no other life supports. Her family petitioned a Missouri court for permission to stop feeding via the substituted judgment standard. Lower courts granted the right to her parents to authorize death by dehydration-starvation.

On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled there was no "clear and convincing evidence" of Nancy's wish to die this way. The clear and convincing evidence standard states that there must be clear and convincing proof that the patient, when competent, had a strong and firm commitment to ending their life support systems, including those that pertain to their present condition. Nancy's parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that "clear and convincing evidence" standard was too high, unconstitutionally restricting Nancy's right to forego treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional for Missouri to apply the "clear and convincing" standard. Nancy's family then returned to Missouri probate court with testimony from "new witnesses" who attested to Nancy's previously stated desire not to "live this way." The probate court found this new testimony adequate "clear and convincing evidence" and authorized the withdrawal of feeding. Nancy died of dehydration on December 26, 1990, 12 days after her feeding tube was withdrawn. Although the ultimate outcome in this case did not save Nancy's life, the Supreme Court's endorsement of Missouri's clear and convincing test was significant because of asserted that a state's interest in life is not solely dependent on the patient's quality of life. In this case, the court failed to find a "right to die" anywhere in the Constitution.

Limited Responsiveness Not Enough Quality

In the above cases, meaningful responses from the disabled persons were essentially absent. But other cases worked their way through the courts where patients were clearly aware of their surroundings and able to respond to those around them. In 1987, Nancy Ellen Jobes was starved to death after the New Jersey Supreme Court granted her husband's petition to have her feeding tube withdrawn. There was abundant evidence presented that Nancy could respond with movements or other gestures when asked. Likewise, Christine Busalacchi died in 1993 after her father successfully petitioned to authorize removal of her feeding tube. Christine would wave her fingers when asked to say hello or smile when a joke was told. Yet the courts accepted the testimony of experts brought in who were unfamiliar with Christine and saw her for only short periods of time. The courts seemed inclined to authorize dehydration deaths for disabled persons who cannot speak for themselves.

Starving Interactive Patients Not Judicially Correct-YET

1988-O'Connor v. N.Y. Court of Appeals

While the courts are willing to order the deaths of severely disabled, patients with some level of interaction seem not to be safe. In O'Connor v. New York Court of Appeals (1998), 77-year-old Mary O'Connor was conscious, not terminally ill and able to respond to questions about 60% of the time. When doctors sought to have a nasogastric tube inserted in an effort to provide adequate nourishment, Mary's two daughters sued to prevent the tube from being inserted and, later, to remove an IV line. The court refused to grant authorization of withdrawal of food and water because there was insufficient evidence that Mary would have wanted this.

The court ruled that previous statements made by Mrs. O'Connor that she would not want to "lose her dignity before she passed away" and would not want to be a burden on anyone" did not constitute "clear and convincing evidence" that she would want food and water withheld under these particular circumstances. The court argued that the clear and convincing evidence test is necessary "because if an error occurs it should be made on the side of life." This ruling marked the strictest standards to date for the withdrawal of food and water.

1996-In Re Martin

In Re Martin (1995, Michigan Supreme Court) involved 44-year-old Michael Martin, who sustained severe injuries to his brain and total paralysis on his left side in a car/train accident. Martin's wife petitioned the courts for authority to have his feeding tube removed, claiming that Michael had previously made competent statements to her that he would never want to be a "vegetable" or kept alive in a dependent state. There was extensive debate as to Michael's cognitive capacity. Several physicians testified on both sides, claiming either Michael's indisputable competence or incompetence. The trial judge interviewed Michael and determined that even though he was conscious, responded to questions accurately and expressed no current desire to die when asked, Michael was incompetent to make a decision regarding his own death.

Still the judge originally denied the petition, citing Michael's consciousness, lack of terminal illness, and lack of a written advance directive authorizing withdrawal of feeding. Martin's wife appealed the case. The Michigan Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court after concluding that the advance directive criteria was unsupported by law. The trial court ruled the removal of feeding to be consistent with Michael's wishes, and thereby, in his best interests. The court of appeal's second opinion upheld the trial court's second finding and granted Mrs. Martin's petition.

On appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the clear and convincing evidence standard was pivotal. In the face of conflicting testimony, and the uncorroborated testimony of Martin's wife, the high court declared that the state's interest in protecting Michael's life demanded that clear and convincing evidence of a prior wish to be starved and dehydrated be presented. Michael would not die this way. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Mrs. Martin.

A Notable Exception... While the O'Connor and Martin cases reflect a general rejection of the courts to dehydrate mentally incompetent, conscious disabled persons, at least one court was not so protective.

1984-In Re Heir

At the time of her case, Mary Heir was a 92-year-old demented woman who had lived in a state Mental hospital for 57 years, thinking she was the Queen of England. Because of a blockage in her esophagus, she had required tube feeding for several years. When, for some unknown reason, the feeding tube became dislodged, her court-appointed guardian petitioned the courts to prevent the hospital from reinserting it. The guardian asserted that Mary had pulled the tube out as a statement of her intention to stop taking nourishment and die. A Massachusetts appeals court granted the request.

Due to the persistence of a pro-life attorney and physician, the plan to kill Mary Heir was abandoned. Efforts to save Mary were aided by the fact that on the same day the Boston Globe was reporting on Mary's case, it reported that 94-year-old rose Kennedy was doing well after a "minor surgery to correct a nutritional problem." Mrs. Kennedy had a feeding tube inserted. The obvious discrimination between Rose Kennedy's "minor surgery" and Mary Heir's "highly intrusive and highly risky procedure" to reinsert her tube helped to sidetrack the fatal plan.

The Deadly Progression: Asserting the Right to Euthanasia

The previous line of "right to die" cases dealt directly with decision-making for incompetent patients, both conscious and unconscious. The following cases deal with individuals asserting the right to intentionally bring about their death, when a natural course of events would not otherwise do so. These cases represent the third step in a four step strategy to legitimize euthanasia- competent patients have the right to request death on demand.

1986- Bouvia v. Superior Court

The Bouvia case was significant because it not only confirmed the right to refuse treatment as "basic and fundamental," as suggested in Schleondorff, but also became the first judicial call for death on demand via passive euthanasia. Elizabeth Bouvia, a mentally competent 28-ear-old quadriplegic, with cerebral palsy, capable of speech and able to move her fingers on one hand, simply wanted to die. While she was capable of eating, she had a feeding tube inserted to supplement her nutritional intake. The court ruled in her favor stating that by refusing food and water Elizabeth had "merely resigned herself to accept an earlier death..." The court ignored blatant evidence of emotional distress in Elizabeth's life, including a miscarriage, the break-up of her marriage, the death of her brother and dropping out of school.

One of the justices writing in support of the majority opinion even went so far as to argue that the state and medical profession should be "permitting and in fact assisting the [patient] to die with ease and dignity." This case initiated the belief that competent persons with a "poor quality of life" should be allowed and even helped to die. It sent a devaluing message to members of the disability community by implying it was acceptable to "die with dignity" before becoming too much of a burden. Even after winning her case, Elizabeth chose not to exercise her "right to die."

Crossing the Line to Active Euthanasia

All of the case summaries up to this point have dealt with judicial system's endorsement of passive euthanasia. These rulings have firmly entrenched within our system the right to refuse medical treatment and die from natural causes, the right to have treatment withheld via an advance directive and the power to request treatment withdrawal for another via substituted judgment. All three of these "rights" exemplify how far we have already come down the path to acceptance of euthanasia in all forms. Currently, we are facing the possibility of taking the final leap from approval of passive euthanasia to legal sanctioning of active euthanasia. Challenges in federal courts to laws which ban (Washington State) and legalize (Oregon) assisted suicide could be crucial in determining if we are destined to follow in the Netherlands' footsteps where assisted suicide is tolerated.

1995- Hobbins vs. Attorney General, People v. Kevorkian

Three of the most significant decisions regarding euthanasia to date were the consolidated cases decided by the Michigan Supreme Court. Theresa Hobbins v. Attorney General (1994, Mich. Supreme Court), and two cases referred to as People of the State of Michigan vs. Jack Kevorkian, (1994, Mich. Supreme Court), challenged the constitutionality of Michigan's assisted suicide ban which made assisting in a suicide a felony punishable by a fine of $2,000 and four years in prison.

Theresa Hobbins and Ken Shapiro, two cancer patients, along with other health professionals claimed that the ban violated a constitutional (autonomy/privacy) right to death assistance. Kevorkian sought the same in separate but similar cases. This challenge suggests the first step to endorsement of active euthanasia.

In the initial ruling, the circuit court declared the law unconstitutional on technical grounds, but also "invented" a constitutional right to suicide. On appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals struck down the ban on a technicality. The court, however, reversed the finding that the Constitution supports the right to assisted suicide, adding that nowhere in the Constitution is the "right to die" or even more specifically, a right to assistance in suicide, granted.

Christine would wave her fingers when asked to say hello or smile when a joke was told. Yet the courts accepted the testimony of experts brought in who were unfamiliar with Christine and saw her for only short periods of time. The courts seemed inclined to authorize dehydration deaths for disabled persons who cannot speak for themselves.

The Court of Appeals decision also reinstated common-law murder charges against Kevorkian that had been inappropriately thrown out by two lower courts, finding the ban technically flawed, the Court of Appeals sustained the lower court but emphasized that common law prevailed, making assisting in a suicide murder. All of the decisions by the Court of Appeals were appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

In December 1994, the Michigan Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to pro-euthanasia forces, ruling that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. Furthermore, Michigan's temporary ban was found technically valid. Finally, common-law charges against Jack Kevorkian were upheld. Having lost all three decisions, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In April 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals brought by Hobbins and Kevorkian, allowing the Michigan Supreme Court decisions to stand.

1997- Lee v. Oregon

In November 1994, the citizens of Oregon narrowly approved Measure 16, allowing physicians to write lethal drug prescriptions for their "terminally ill" patients who request death assistance. To prevent the law from taking effect, a group of individuals brought a suit charging the law unconstitutionally removed legal protection from terminally ill patients. The law remained enjoined while appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals. In February 1997, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case finding that the plaintiffs did not have "standing" to bring the suit. The court said the plaintiffs were not in any immediate harm from the law, therefore, had no basis to challenge its constitutionality. While pro-lifers turned to preparing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, euthanasia proponents were filing legal motions to get the law put in place. By June 1997 the Oregon legislature voted to place Measure 16 on the November 1997 ballot for another vote of the people.

1997- Washington v. Glucksberg

While Hobbins and Kevorkian challenged Michigan's law, euthanasia advocates in 1994 challenged Washington State's assisted suicide ban in federal court. A district judge struck down the ban as an unconstitutional restriction on terminal patients' right to die. While the U.S. Supreme Court was turning back the Michigan appeal in April 1995, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals overturned the district judge in Compassion v. Washington, thereby upholding Washington's assisted suicide ban.

In June 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit, finding that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. The court found that the states have the authority to either regulate or ban assisted suicide, thus upholding Washington's law banning assisted suicide. In rejecting the constitutional right argument, the court avoided a Roe v. Wade type decision, which would have legalized assisted killing in every state. This monumental decision should remove the long-term battle over euthanasia from federal courts and into the state courts and legislatures (see McIver case on next page).

1997-Quill v. Vacco (New York)

In 1994, a group of physicians brought a nearly identical suit to the Washington case challenging New York State's ban on assisted suicide. The lead plaintiff in the case was Dr. Timothy Quill who wrote a story in the New England Journal of Medicine about how he assisted in one of his patient's suicide. In December 1994, a federal district judge upheld the law. The plaintiffs appealed and on April 2, 1996, the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in a 3-0 opinion struck down New York's assisted suicide ban. In conflict with the Ninth Circuit opinion in the Washington case, the Second Circuit ruled that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution because terminally ill person receiving life sustaining treatment could "hasten" their deaths by refusing that treatment, but terminally ill persons could not "hasten" their death via assisted suicide. Handed down jointly with Glucksberg, the Second Circuit was likewise overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. New York's ban on assisted suicide remains intact.

1997- Krischer v. McIver (Florida)

In July 1997, the Florida Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional right to suicide assistance protected in that state's constitution. In January 1997, a Florida district court judge ruled that a terminal AIDS patient had a right to receive lethal assistance from his physicians, Dr. Cecil McIver, and local prosecutors could not file charges against McIver if he helped in the suicide.

The Florida State constitution does contain a specific privacy clause, which had been broadly interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in the past to require abortion-on-demand. Given this and other interpretations of this privacy, there was a real potential that the Florida Supreme Court could find a right to assisted suicide. Like the national level Gluscksberg-Quill decisions, Florida's Supreme Court in rejecting a right to assisted suicide hopefully sets a trend that will take the issue out of the courts permanently.

The Bottom of the Slippery Slope

Though there has been pro-life victories in the past, they represent society's entertaining of the third stage of the progression to involuntary euthanasia. Before the final phase case be reached, euthanasia for "conscious, competent adults who are terminally ill" must be accepted by society. Once the "right" is granted to those who can ask for euthanasia, the final phase will come in two stages for those who cannot ask for it.

Those remaining two stages include: 1) the right of once-competent patients to be euthanized via "previously stated desires," and 2) the power for surrogates to request euthanasia for incompetent patients via substituted judgment. The identical logic, which has given us legalized passive euthanasia, will be followed by euthanasia advocates to accomplish their ultimate goal-legalized death on demand. Family members of an unconscious patient will come forward to claim that their loved one wanted to be euthanized. Likewise, the alleged autonomy of never competent persons. And the "compassion" of others will be combined to deny life for the mentally impaired, the disabled newborn and the elderly.

Terri Shiavo.

"Holland already allows seriously disabled children to be euthanized."

We allow healthy children to be euthanized. It is called abortion.

I agree with you 100%, or more!

I know someone who was diagnosed as being in much the same condition as Terry Schiavo. They said she would never sit up, walk, or talk, after she survived being aborted. This girl's adoptive mother didn't give up and today Gianna is a beautiful young woman! She walks, runs, talks, sings, plays guitar...

Gianna Jessen

Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.

My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.

"When the state pays the bills, the state will look after the state's interest. If you are sick enough, it will be in the state's interest to have you dead."

What if you just have a common cold but are not very popular with the State? Enough reason for euthanasia? That's why Hillary Clinton is so dangerous. She wants socialized medicine.

And I have heard and read a lot about her original HILLARY CARE and there is no treatmen for the elderly chronically ill, like a 70+ year old who needs dialysis. Of course SHE would receive it If SHE needed it.

I just noticed your tagline. Don't be too sure of it.

We have people in VA hospitals today who have neither face or limbs. Their bodies damaged beyond recognition, many badly burnt.

Because we had helicopter airlift, these former soldiers were "rescued" and "lived".

It would have been more humane to leave them on the battlefield of death than to have brought them back to years of Unspeakable anguish (since many cannot talk or communicate in any form).

Sympathy for these victims does not end their anguish. They await death but death comes slowly.

Those who sponsor their lives do not have to share their suffering.

Lieutenant Dan? Is that you?

The only non-self-inflicted "mercy killing" that should be countenanced.

When you are in a persistent paralyzed or vegetative state, which are exactly the circumstances that justify most mercy killing in the first place, how are you supposed to take care of it yourself?

Using modern medicine to inflict more pathetic, more drawn out, more painful deaths isn't being pro-life, it's being inhuman.

Whwn it comes to euthanasia, the bar may be lowered to the people who merely are born to those who disagree.