Replies

I am standing in for T’wit, R.I.P on this issue. I won’t be arguing details as T’wit would have and will not answer anecdotal details by those of more precise vocabulary, but will regard such topics as truly ancillary, diversionary.

From the day Wampus SC brought the Texas Futile Care Law into the daylight with his first defense of Andrea Clark, we have seen a truth shine through, not yet to be refuted.

The Texas Futile Care Law was designed, we suppose, to serve the practical purpose of withdrawing useless, needless, or futile care from a patient when it no longer served any purpose. This ideal sounds so decent, it is hard to refute.

But.... the interpretation shifted. What we see is that authorities have shifted definitions. It is now interpreted not the care that is futile, but is the LIFE of the patient which is futile.

That is the core of my concern, that beneath all other brilliant explanations geared to distort the true aim of Pro-Lifers, the result is of this life cheapened in furtherance of the goals of the euthanasiasts. Hence, the resistance we see in Texas to reasoned change.

8mm