Posted on 04/04/2010 12:30:51 PM PDT by wagglebee
The House of Commons is currently considering Bill C-384, a bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. This bill -- a private member's bill scheduled for further debate and a vote on first reading sometime in May -- should be rejected by every member of parliament.
Shortly before the passing of severely handicapped Terri Schiavo in Florida in 2005, whose death was hastened by a U.S. court order to remove her feeding tube, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote: "That there arose a national outcry at the execution of Schiavo -- so loud Congress and president Bush heard it and came to the rescue -- is a sign America is not morally dead ... yet. But a culture of death has taken deep root in America's soul."
The term "vegetative state," which was applied to the Schiavo case and her condition, indicates the condition of those patients whose "state" continues for over a year. Such people show no evident sign of being aware of themselves or their environment, and seem unable to interact with others or to react to specific stimuli. Although such patients remain prisoners of their condition for long periods of time and without needing technological support, it cannot be underestimated that there has been at least partial recovery in some of these cases.
Medical science, therefore, is unable to predict with exact certainty which patients in this condition will recover, and which will not.
Unfortunately, there are those who cast doubt on the persistence of the "human quality" of these patients, suggesting that the clinical term "vegetative" could or should be applied directly to the sick person as such, actually demeaning their value and personal dignity. The sick person in a vegetative state has the right to basic health care. The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.
The "quality of life," often imposed by economic, social and psychological pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person morally obliges one to respectfully abstain from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death.
Moreover, it is not possible to say that the withdrawal of a feeding tube will not be the source of considerable suffering for the sick person, even if we can see only the patient's reactions at the level of the autonomic nervous system or of gestures.
Our present culture tends to consider suffering the epitome of evil. In such a culture there is a great temptation to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable. True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.
The pleas of the gravely ill who sometimes request death should not be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan. It is a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one's neighbour and to society.
No one should be allowed to permit in any way the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
In the Netherlands, a policy originally encompassing only persistent requests for death from hopelessly suffering and dying patients has steadily expanded so that physicians have been allowed to kill patients who were physically healthy and handicapped children who never asked for death.
The Netherlands stands as a stark reminder of the slippery slope leading from supposedly limited killing to a broader culture of death.
There exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. What any sick person needs, besides medical care, is love -- the human and supernatural warmth provided by those close to him such as family, nurses and doctors.
Terri Schiavo's public "execution" is a strong reminder that euthanasia, understood as an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, is senseless and inhumane and should be opposed in all its forms.
Perfectly stated!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ping
Obama’s boss will be happy—he’s a big fan of assisted suicide.
http://joytiz.com/2010/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-soros/
Freepers, please be careful what you sign. The tentacles of our culture of death have even reached into doctors offices, hospital admitting offices, and retirement communities. The misnamed “Living Will” is being pushed by these and more, for instance, the attorney who drew up wills for my husband and me.
I remember calling every politician and clergyman I could to beg for help for Terri, but we couldn’t save her, partly because of the opposition’s claims that she didn’t want to live in a less than fully conscious state.
The ACE argument used by those who wanted Terri Schindler Schiavo dead was that she told them that she did not want to survive under certain circumstances, in other words, a verbal or written “Living Will.” When you are young and healthy, you cannot be expected to know all the twists and turns your life may take, so it’s a much better idea to choose one or two trusted people to make decisions in your stead if you can’t speak for yourself; remember, a document directing that you be given no resuscitation and no extraordinary measures might not express your wishes at a later time.
Sign a “Will to Live,” not a “Living Will.”
Fine, but “shortly before the passing” is a bit weasely to my eyes. I would have called it the extermination of Terri, or at least the death. Passing sounds a little too natural, when an innocent invalid is put to death by the govt.
I agree.
Xenocide under any other name.
“No one should be allowed to permit in any way the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying.”
Why then, is collateral damages during war, ok?
Collateral damage during war IS NOT okay.
It is EXCUSABLE if all reasonable precautions to avoid it are taken or if it can be demonstrated that the collateral damage prevents loss of life on a far larger scale (as was the case with the atomic bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
But thank you for bringing up war because we ARE at war with the culture of death, they are currently killing ONE MILLION innocent children EACH WEEK and the death toll from this war far surpasses the death tolls of ALL OTHER WARS IN HISTORY COMBINED.
Not ok but excusable to kill innocents...who gets to use that excuse, the good guys or the bad guys? Sounds relative to me.
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.