You just don't understand the important work being done, and how it benefits the folk. Read New Folk. 
Posted on 05/23/2010 10:11:46 AM PDT by wagglebee
Revisionist history has been released to an impressionable public in the HBO Movie “You Don’t Know Jack.” Contrary to Al Pacino’s portrayal of Jack Kevorkian that makes him the compassionate defender of patients’ rights, physician-assisted suicide enters a world of potential mixed motives and moral chaos.
By any standard, assisted suicide (or active euthanasia) is quite different from simply allowing nature to take its unimpeded course. It is popularly called “mercy killing.” Both morally and practically, this is easily distinguishable from simply permitting the death of a hopelessly ill woman or man (i.e., passive euthanasia). It should be opposed by ethically sensitive people.
Physician-assisted suicide is in direct conflict with our tradition of upholding the sanctity of human life. Whether preserved in the Ten Commandments or the Hippocratic Oath, that tradition says we are to affirm, nurture and give aid to people in pain.
For active euthanasia and assisted suicide will communicate the message that persons who are terminally ill have a duty to get out of the way of the living.
For example, suppose a cancer patient for whom treatment has been ineffective tells his or her family, “I know I’m a terrible burden to you, and I wonder if I shouldn’t just end my own life!”
I can imagine two responses.
“What do you mean!” says one family. “You are central to our lives. We love you, and you could never be a burden to us!” That answer communicates a relationship that inspires a will to live for the patient.
“Perhaps we should think about that,” replies another family member. “You might suffer toward the end, and we’re not really rich enough to hire nurses so you can be cared for while we stay at our jobs.” With such openness to the idea of dying, what feelings are likely to go through the mind of that patient?
Studies show that treatment for depression moves the vast majority of sufferers to think of active euthanasia as unacceptable for themselves. The alternative to making suicide easier and more acceptable is effective palliative care — which includes treatment for depression as well as degenerative disease or injury — and loving concern from family and friends.
In the Netherlands, where active euthanasia by medical personnel has been practiced for some time now, the issue quickly ceased to be assistance to persons requesting it and initiated debates over euthanizing some who had not.
“I don’t care about the law,” Kevorkian once said. “I have never cared about anything but the welfare of the patient in front of me.” What a strange claim from a pathologist who has no experience in the clinical treatment of patients! But most of us do care about the law. We care about law grounded in serious ethical reflection that affirms human worth in ways that affirm people rather than eliminate them when they need us most. Our call is not to become gentle executioners. Instead, it is to provide effective and morally responsible care to the suffering.
Rubel Shelly is president of Rochester College and professor of philosophy and religion at the college.
As a result, I'm putting together a conference on euthanasia that is scheduled for July 22/23, 2010 in Washington DC. Archbishop Burke is confirmed as keynote speaker, but I don't have any further details at present.
Fr. Gerard Ream's Story - The death of a faithful priest by involuntary euthanasia
I first met Fr. Gerard Ream in 1998 while doing a house call for his mother, Dorothy. A brief initial conversation with them revealed that he was living in a small apartment only a block from my Podiatry practice, and that we shared many common traditional Catholic and pro-life interests. Dorothy later told me that after several years of marriage, she and her husband thought they could not have children, and they prayed to St. Gerard Majella for a child. After several years, Fr. Ream was born, and was named after St. Gerard. A first class relic of St. Gerard was one of Fr. Ream's prized possessions, and Dorothy maintained a deep devotion to St. Gerard until her death at age 101.
Fr. Ream soon became a close friend, and we met frequently for meals. I assisted him with various tasks around his apartment, and he called me frequently for fellowship. He got to know my wife and children well and relied on us for help, as his only brother lived in West Virginia. Fr. Ream eventually developed Parkinson's disease. We offered to take him into our home, but he declined, and entered a nursing home. We continued to visit him often and took him out to dine at his favorite restaurants.
In late 2007 and early 2008, Fr. Ream's health declined rapidly. He left a voice message on my cell phone late on a Wednesday in April 2008, asking me to stop to visit. By the time I was able to visit him two days later, he had been admitted to a local hospital for aspiration pneumonia, and had been diagnosed as "terminal" by the treating physician. He was transferred to the palliative care unit and the treating physician and Fr. Ream's brother, citing his Living Will, insisted that Fr. Ream wanted no extraordinary care to prolong his life.
I was shocked that he was receiving no water, no food, no IV, only Morphine. His Parkinson's was advancing and the aspiration pneumonia was a crisis, but neither were imminently terminal. We were permitted to wet a sponge to moisten his lips, and he would try to suck all the moisture from the sponge, but we were forbidden to give him a drink of water, ostensibly because of the risk of further aspiration pneumonia. Fr. Ream had shared with me his opposition to euthanasia in the past, and he was trying to talk to me, but he had become so dehydrated that he could not form any words.
When the attending physician made rounds, I told him my concern that Fr. Ream was receiving no food or water. The physician asserted that their hospice rules forbid IVs as it only "prolonged the process." A Catholic father of six himself, this doctor then stated, "The public has a misconception that death by dehydration is torturous, but that's not true. Its the most humane way to do this, with the least discomfort. We'll control any discomfort with the Morphine. That's what we're going to do." And with that he looked me in the eye defiantly, turned on his heel and left.
I was speechless. I pleaded with Fr. Ream's brother that he would never have consented to euthanasia by dehydration, to no avail.
I have always been pro-life. I had even attended pro-life conferences about euthanasia and I sat on the medical ethics committees of two hospitals in the mid 1990's. I had staff privileges at the hospital in question. But in April 2008, in Fr. Ream's specific case, I simply did not know what to do. I called four good pro-life priests locally, begging for advice.
They all agreed that "You have to do something, Brian!" but none could offer any specific advice, and none could personally intervene to help save their fellow priest. Another priest I consulted recommended I request a medical ethics committee consultation.
Late on a Thursday evening, eight days after Fr. Ream had left the voice message on my cell phone, I spoke with a physicians assistant who was on call for the ethics committee. I told her that he was a good priest and a faithful son of the Church who would never agree to being euthanized, and I discussed with her the relevant documents from Rome and the USCCB and Pennsylvania bishops. She asked me to enter these documents in Fr. Ream's chart, and the medical ethics committee would be happy to review the case Friday morning during rounds.
Relieved that there was something I could finally do for this good priest, I went to the hospital Friday morning at 7:00am, asked the unit clerk to formally enter the documents into his chart for the ethics committee consultation, and headed down the hall to visit him.
His room was already empty. Fr. Ream had died of dehydration several hours earlier.
The culture of death has become so insidious that many people who are pro-life do not actually recognize the risks.
Dr. Brian Kopp wrote:
I wrote the following over a year ago. Fr. Ream died two years ago last month. Not long after, I had a heart attack and triple bypass surgery. This episode effected me in a way I still can’t describe.
As a result, I’m putting together a conference on euthanasia that is scheduled for July 22/23, 2010 in Washington DC. Archbishop Burke is confirmed as keynote speaker, but I don’t have any further details at present.
Fr. Gerard Ream’s Story - The death of a faithful priest by involuntary euthanasia
I first met Fr. Gerard Ream in 1998 while doing a house call for his mother, Dorothy. A brief initial conversation with them revealed that he was living in a small apartment only a block from my Podiatry practice, and that we shared many common traditional Catholic and pro-life interests. Dorothy later told me that after several years of marriage, she and her husband thought they could not have children, and they prayed to St. Gerard Majella for a child. After several years, Fr. Ream was born, and was named after St. Gerard. A first class relic of St. Gerard was one of Fr. Ream’s prized possessions, and Dorothy maintained a deep devotion to St. Gerard until her death at age 101.
Fr. Ream soon became a close friend, and we met frequently for meals. I assisted him with various tasks around his apartment, and he called me frequently for fellowship. He got to know my wife and children well and relied on us for help, as his only brother lived in West Virginia. Fr. Ream eventually developed Parkinson’s disease. We offered to take him into our home, but he declined, and entered a nursing home. We continued to visit him often and took him out to dine at his favorite restaurants.
In late 2007 and early 2008, Fr. Ream’s health declined rapidly. He left a voice message on my cell phone late on a Wednesday in April 2008, asking me to stop to visit. By the time I was able to visit him two days later, he had been admitted to a local hospital for aspiration pneumonia, and had been diagnosed as “terminal” by the treating physician. He was transferred to the palliative care unit and the treating physician and Fr. Ream’s brother, citing his Living Will, insisted that Fr. Ream wanted no extraordinary care to prolong his life.
I was shocked that he was receiving no water, no food, no IV, only Morphine. His Parkinson’s was advancing and the aspiration pneumonia was a crisis, but neither were imminently terminal. We were permitted to wet a sponge to moisten his lips, and he would try to suck all the moisture from the sponge, but we were forbidden to give him a drink of water, ostensibly because of the risk of further aspiration pneumonia. Fr. Ream had shared with me his opposition to euthanasia in the past, and he was trying to talk to me, but he had become so dehydrated that he could not form any words.
When the attending physician made rounds, I told him my concern that Fr. Ream was receiving no food or water. The physician asserted that their hospice rules forbid IVs as it only “prolonged the process.” A Catholic father of six himself, this doctor then stated, “The public has a misconception that death by dehydration is torturous, but that’s not true. Its the most humane way to do this, with the least discomfort. We’ll control any discomfort with the Morphine. That’s what we’re going to do.” And with that he looked me in the eye defiantly, turned on his heel and left.
I was speechless. I pleaded with Fr. Ream’s brother that he would never have consented to euthanasia by dehydration, to no avail.
I have always been pro-life. I had even attended pro-life conferences about euthanasia and I sat on the medical ethics committees of two hospitals in the mid 1990’s. I had staff privileges at the hospital in question. But in April 2008, in Fr. Ream’s specific case, I simply did not know what to do. I called four good pro-life priests locally, begging for advice.
They all agreed that “You have to do something, Brian!” but none could offer any specific advice, and none could personally intervene to help save their fellow priest. Another priest I consulted recommended I request a medical ethics committee consultation.
Late on a Thursday evening, eight days after Fr. Ream had left the voice message on my cell phone, I spoke with a physicians assistant who was on call for the ethics committee. I told her that he was a good priest and a faithful son of the Church who would never agree to being euthanized, and I discussed with her the relevant documents from Rome and the USCCB and Pennsylvania bishops. She asked me to enter these documents in Fr. Ream’s chart, and the medical ethics committee would be happy to review the case Friday morning during rounds.
Relieved that there was something I could finally do for this good priest, I went to the hospital Friday morning at 7:00am, asked the unit clerk to formally enter the documents into his chart for the ethics committee consultation, and headed down the hall to visit him.
His room was already empty. Fr. Ream had died of dehydration several hours earlier.
There seem to be two concepts that you folks can’t grasp: 1.) healthcare resources are limited and 2.) everybody has to die eventually. The example I used was a symbolic example to illustrate those points. FYI, I’m an RN and guess what? I don’t care which of the patients you are, you would both get the same level of care from me regardless of what color you are, how much money you made in your life, which god you worshipped or didn’t worship, or which political party you were in, whether you had insurance or whether you were receiving care on the taxpayers dime or whether you were a US citizen or not because all life is equally sacred, right?
To transfer a patient you must have an accepting doctor and a bed available. That’s fine, but what if you are the biggest hospital in the area? If you are full, the other hospitals are too. In fact, they are bugging you for a bed for their sick patients.
Once we had a full ICU, ICU holds in the recovery room, and 2 patients on the floor that needed to go to the ICU NOW! Like I said if people really knew what happens, you would not want to get sick. People think beds and ventilators and nurses just pop out of thin air. Things have been like this for a long time. We’re only just now talking about it because now we have to.
Exactly! All finite resources are rationed one way or another even if we don’t realize it. We need to find a way to manage healthcare in a way that respects life. Personally I believe we all should have a right to self-determination. The problem is the system we currently have encourages us to make whatever choices we want, but damn if anyone will pay for any of it.
Another thing I find amusing is people who are pro-life, but have no problem pulling a plug on some they don’t consider “worthy”.
Wrong in your ASSumptions.
What you don't seem to grasp is that we see what you're up to. Situational ethics is liberal playbook tactics.
Where have I heard that before? Could you repeat it, in German?
You haven’t made an argument yet, you’ve only made accusations, laughable ones at that. You lose.
Oh, so what you’re saying is that there’s an infinite amount of healthcare resources and people don’t have to die? oh, and I’m a nazi for saying otherwise? is that your argument? LOL at you.
Just as there is a big difference between abortion and a miscarriage...
IF you are suggesting that accidental death is assisted suicide or euthanasia OR that one (accidental death) justifies assisted death THEN your argument is illegitimate and morally relative...
WHY you bring up such a strawman argument on this thread about euthanasia suggest you lack cognitive abilities or your intent is leftist in nature...
Thank you for the ping.
I am saddened beyond words that the world has come to such a pass that a such good and faithful man was not even given water to drink. I am horrified and digusted that the doctors delude themselves into thinking that death by dehydration is not murder, and not painful. And that other priests did not have the courage to stop it. I think civil disobedience will have to occur to stop this.
Killing someone even one day before their natural death is still murder. It is up to God when we enter this world and when we depart. Any attempt to snatch His control away from Him is, IMO, nothing short of demoniac.
Death is not a tragedy, as every soul must go through that door. The tragedy is dying without remembering and taking shelter of God, and a tragedy that supposedly well-meaning people consider it kindness to murder people in the name of alleviating suffering. Natural death is meant to assist each soul in their journey Home. Murder is a crime and euthanasia is a cruel crime, an affront to Nature and Nature’s God, because it is prettified up as “mercy”.
That such pious and faithful souls should have to suffer this torment is further offense. I can only cry in sympathy and pray that this evil is stopped.
Excerpts from Alfred Binding and Karl Hoche: Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens. Ihr Maß und ihre Form, [Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Existence. Its Extent and Form.] Leipzig 1920.
"Are there lives that have forfeited their individual legal protection because their continued existence has permanently lost all value for the person himself, and for society as well? Simply posing this question brings up an uneasy feeling in anyone who has become accustomed to evaluating the value of a particular life to both the individual concerned and to society.... If one simultaneously thinks about a battlefield covered with thousands of dead young men, or a mine where a violent thunderstorm has buried alive hundreds of diligent workers, and compares it to an institution for imbeciles with its care for its living inmates, one is deeply shocked by the blatant dissonance between the sacrifice of the greatest treasure of humankind on one hand, and on the other, the greatest care being given to existences that are not only absolutely worthless, but that drag other worthy beings down negative existences ..." (page 27)"There are two main categories ... of individuals that may be considered for killing as well as an intermediate group:
1. ... incurables dying from disease or injury, who, fully understanding their situation, urgently wish to be released and have given some sign of this ... (page 29);
2. The second group consists of congenital idiots, whether they were born this way or have become much like those in the last stages of a paralyzing disease. They have the will neither to live nor die. Thus they cannot consent to their killing; on the other hand, there is no will to live that would have to be broken ... (page 31);
3. I spoke of an intermediate group, which I define as those who, while mentally intact, have lost consciousness due to some event, such as a very grave, unquestionably mortal wound, and who, if they should regain consciousness, would awaken to an unspeakable misery ..." (page 33).
Great post!
This thread is about the DELIBERATE KILLING of human beings. What are your feelings on that.
The example I used was a symbolic example to illustrate those points.
So, the shortage of ventilators is actually a type of "boogie man" that the Obamacare crowd has invented and even though it doesn't exist you want to organize a health care system that assumes it does?
FYI, I’m an RN and guess what?
I'm guessing that you've been seduced by the culture of death and either don't realize or do realize it but think the pro-life crowd is too ignorant to figure it out.
It's just like disability insurance. Most every one apparently wants cover short to medium term disability, which I always felt I could handle that situation myself. I was interested in insuring against a long term disability. It was difficult to even find a policy. My employer didn't even offer such a thing in the menu of fringe benefits (for which we had to share premiums).
The Nazi nurses didn’t take their own tribunal seriously because they assumed everyone knew they were right, and it was just a show trial. When they finally realized we were serious, they thought we were too stupid to understand how right they were. I see some of their arrogance in this troll.
WOW!!! What you said....
You just don't understand the important work being done, and how it benefits the folk. Read New Folk.
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.