Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Michael Hichborn of American Life League, 1-540-226-9178
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, released the following statement concerning an order by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscockon to give guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, who wants to remove Lauren's feeding tube.
Lauren is 23 years of age and, due to a heroin overdose, is now in a persistent vegetative state. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting the birth of her baby and reports indicate that she was kept alive to allow her to give birth, which she did in February of last year. Her daughter is now about to celebrate her first birthday, but Lauren may never have another birthday.
Of interest is the fact that, during the pregnancy, Lauren relied on feeding tubes and a breathing machine to keep her alive. Today Lauren has a feeding tube only. But there is a struggle going on regarding whether or not Lauren will live or die.
Lauren's case is more than a sad commentary on the plight of a family battling over what each of the opponents believes would be in her best interest. Her story is a testimony to the growing philosophy in this country that some, because of their condition, are better off dead than alive.
Like Terri Schiavo before her, Lauren is not dying nor is she in a terminal condition. She has been diagnosed as someone in a persistent vegetative state, someone who is very much alive but locked in her body and unable to express her desires to anyone. The only thing Lauren is relying on is a feeding tube without which she will starve to death. Lauren's mother, who is Laurens guardian, wants the feeding tube removed while Lauren's father is fighting to keep Lauren alive.
This family is in our prayers. We hope that, in the interest of respecting Lauren's dignity as a human being whose future improvement or lack thereof is known only to God, the court will listen carefully to those who argue in favor of Lauren's right to life. It is a tragedy beyond description when any human beings fate rests solely on the subjective opinion of others, some of whom truly believe that patients like Lauren have no quality of life and therefore are better off dead.
First of all, nutrition and hydration ARE NOT artificial means of keeping someone alive.
Secondly, I NEVER said I agreed with government programs for medical treatment. I said that they already exist, we are already paying for them. YOU are advocating some sort of Malthusian system whereby the government will decide who lives and who dies. YOU are the one advocating more government involvement.
Lastly, as far as I can tell, neither parent has brought up the cost of keeping her alive. Therefore, the assumption must be that the cost of Lauren’s feeding tube (and these are relatively inexpensive to start with) is NOT a factor. YOU are using it as a red herring to justify killing her.
Again, that is a straw man argument. You are attempting to create a reason to kill a person without any consideration as to whether or not it is valid.
From the look of these pictures of Lauren growing up, I would say that there is a strong possibility that money is not a factor for her family:
http://www.lifeforlauren.org/photos.html
Well, I must admit after reading my up-thread posts I'm very confused about where I stand.
Perhaps if you can interpret for me what I said in post #45 things will become clearer.
Perhaps if you can interpret for me what I said in post #45 things will become clearer.
In post #45 you wrote:
They family SHOULD be allowed to just take her home and care for her.
However, in post #65 you wrote:
Many people would prefer to see her starve to death for her actions against the baby alone. Include me in that group.
You sit here and try to act like we are putting words in your mouth or sometimes misinterpreting you, but you fail to realize that your positions are all over the place.
Was that a long winded yes?
“The research I’ve done on feeding tubes indicates that the cost is only a few hundred dollars a day, this is very minimal by health care standards. Additionally, patients can usually be taken home and their families can do everything (a nurse just needs to check in a few times a month). “
You forgot the part about the caretaker possibly needing to work to keep that home. If I were the one in bad shape, my wife would be the one to take care of me, yet there’s no way she could stop working.
It’s generally not as simple as you make it sound.
“That is the dichotomy of the insane. If someone is brain dead then why the rush to free them from the situation?”
Brain dead means you’re dead with zero hope of recovery (which is not the case with Lauren). Machines are the only thing keeping you “alive.” Why continue spending thousands — maybe even tens of thousands — of dollars per day just to watch your loved one’s body decay and the organs fail? Why not make those organs available to somebody else while you can?
Three years ago I had to make this choice about somebody very precious to me. And I made the right choice.
Read the other posts I’ve made on this thread. Lauren’s family HAS NOT indicated the finances are a factor in their decision one way or another. Therefore, it is pointless to speculate on it.
Keep in mind that when Terri Schiavo was being murdered there were people coming forward not only offering to pay for her care, but also to pay her estranged husband to leave her alone.
It is a straw man argument to try to make a life and death issue about money when none of the interested parties have even brought it up.
Such a target rich post, where to begin?
Let’s start with the deliberate inducement of heroin to the baby. If we saw someone ‘doing heroin’ with a baby, my reaction would be clear. I would demand the death penalty for that person.
What would you do? Although you haven’t said as much, and so I’m speculating based on your posts thus far, it appears you would give the perpetrator a pass, perhaps even collect money for him to buy food and drink. Not a word from you about the baby.
I’m one of only two posters on this thread who have expressed any concern about the life of the baby. Not you, you have only defended the person whose deliberate act nearly killed the baby (a bazaar position to take on FR). I may be the only one to see the irony of this, but I’m the one who needs scripture quoted to? And I’m the one you called unChristian? Seesh, talk about projection.
As I’ve already said upthread if you want to believe I’m part of the culture of death, go ahead. I’m not, and I’m confident enough of my beliefs that your words don’t bother me.
Nor do I believe I’m God. If you don’t agree that she is receiving judgement from God for her act, that’s not a problem, as I can’t scientifically prove it is.
However, I’ve had a long enough relationship with him that I think and believe that the wisdom he’s given me helps me see things as they are.
“It is a straw man argument to try to make a life and death issue about money when none of the interested parties have even brought it up.”
I’m not the one who brought up the subject of money. I merely replied to one of your posts about money and what I thought was a pretty naive assumption that these folks can be cared for inexpensively at home (I didn’t even mention all the medical equipment you skipped over, the expertise needed by the caregiver, the fact that the caregiver has to be physically and psychologically capable of doing it, etc).
I know that people were offering to pay for Terri’s care, but that’s an extremely rare exception. Usually you either have the cash, you go on the public dole, or you simply don’t get the care you need. Generally speaking, you don’t have strangers rushing in to pick up the bill.
Uh, the bulk of it was reposting YOUR statements.
Let’s start with the deliberate inducement of heroin to the baby. If we saw someone ‘doing heroin’ with a baby, my reaction would be clear. I would demand the death penalty for that person.
This was covered yesterday, Lauren's baby was born full-term and NOT addicted. That makes this a moot point.
What would you do? Although you haven’t said as much, and so I’m speculating based on your posts thus far, it appears you would give the perpetrator a pass, perhaps even collect money for him to buy food and drink. Not a word from you about the baby.
If the authorities want to charge Lauren with a crime, I have no problem with that. Again, that will be tough when you consider that the baby is unharmed.
I’m one of only two posters on this thread who have expressed any concern about the life of the baby. Not you, you have only defended the person whose deliberate act nearly killed the baby (a bazaar position to take on FR). I may be the only one to see the irony of this, but I’m the one who needs scripture quoted to? And I’m the one you called unChristian? Seesh, talk about projection.
Ah yes, your ultimate red herring -- the baby. How's this, you are so "concerned" about the baby that you want to KILL THE BABY'S MOTHER.
Guess what? The baby's health IS NOT AT RISK. The baby is healthy. This issue is about whether Lauren lives or dies, you are trying to insert a topic that has nothing to do with it.
As I’ve already said upthread if you want to believe I’m part of the culture of death, go ahead. I’m not, and I’m confident enough of my beliefs that your words don’t bother me.
Well you sure seem to agree with most of the culture of death's agenda.
Nor do I believe I’m God. If you don’t agree that she is receiving judgement from God for her act, that’s not a problem, as I can’t scientifically prove it is.
She is facing the consequences of her actions, and to that extent I suppose that, yes this is ultimately a price she pays for sin. However, I am unfamiliar with that portion of Scripture which instructs people to ignore the sinner (remind me, was that covered when the Lord spoke of the Good Samaritan or was it somewhere else?).
You are using faulty logic, to illustrate:
Let's say you have a young child and you tell the child not to climb the tree in the backyard. But your child does it anyway and falls out of the tree and breaks their arm. Now, the child is effectively being "punished" for disobeying their parent and sinning. So, do you leave your child to receive their punishment from God (as you would Lauren) or do you take your child to the emergency room?
I apologize. I realize that it was not you who brought up the issue of money.
I was simply pointing out that if the only real care a person needs is a feeding tube, it is “relatively” inexpensive (the estimates I’ve seen put total in-home care at under $300 per day).
My comment about it being a straw man argument is based and the fact that money has not been brought up by Lauren’s family. It is quite possible that they can afford to pay for it themselves.
but it's never enough, is it?
Did the rescue of Haleigh Poutre break your heart?
If Javona Peters doesn't get starved and dehydrated to death, will you be able to face another day?
Would it really kill you to back off, and not demand the death of Lauren Richardson?
Your position does become a little clearer where you tie your disdain for this woman/situation to the idea that she is some kind of masthead in the making for the Pro-Life cause. I agree with wagglebee that, at least most of us here, are interested in her personal welfare as regards her specifically. The individual is really always the bottom line for any sincere Pro Lifer. The cause is only the means to secure the right to life in the face of governmental failure to do its Constitutional duty.
Unless I'm seated on a jury to determine guilt or innocence in a criminal matter with potential capital punishment then deciding who deserves to die for their actions is beyond my pay grade. Self defense would be another exception to that. I love hyperbole but I try not to use it where the ongoing conversation involves sincere concerns over matters of life and death. If we were talking of jihadis I would relax that standard a lot. But not my true bottomline regarding life. Context is everything.
------------------------
FWIW, wagglebee, IMHO Balding_Eagle kicked your butt, and all those who opposed him, on that other thread you brought up. My take is that you and others simply refused to acknowledge the point he was making. I don't see it helping you here. As I said; just MHO.
If the mom is so in favor of not feeding her own daughter, I think she should quit eating right along with her and die beside her if it is such a great idea. The mom is no more alive than her daughter. What’s good for the goose...
Does that help you pretend you're better than Lauren?
The attitude of the culture of death, in all of its manifestations throughout history, is that “this person” (the condemned) is a “lesser” person than we (the culture of death) are, therefore it is in everyone’s best interests to kill the “lesser” person.
Is that why they use inaccurate words like “vegetable?”
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.
