Skip to comments.
BREAKING: Feeding tube restored to immigrant woman unable to pay Jesuit hospital
LifeSiteNews ^
| 3/11/11
| Peter Smith
Posted on 03/11/2011 3:23:18 PM PST by wagglebee
Rachel Nyirahabiyambere and one of her grandchildren.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) A Rwandan immigrant woman and survivor of the horrors of the 1994 genocide who had her feeding tube removed because a U.S. Catholic-affiliated hospital deemed her care too expensive, apparently will not die of starvation and dehydration thanks to a court order and the efforts of her children.
Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, a 58-year-old grandmother and refugee from war-torn Rwanda, had been denied food and water since Feb. 19 after her feeding tube was removed by order of her court-appointed guardian. Now 21 days later and still alive, another court has ordered Rachels feeding tube reinserted at the request of her familys new legal counsel.
Rachels family has sought legal assistance from the Alliance Defense Fund, which has intervened in the case, against Rachels court-appointed guardian, who was appointed at the behest of Georgetown University Hospital.
The New York Times first broke the plight of Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, a Rwandan grandmother, who once had to survive in the jungle in order to escape the genocide and later the violence in the refugee camps. Rachels sons immigrated to the United States as refugees, where they worked their way up from menial jobs to obtain masters degrees.
Rachels sons brought her to the United States, where she found work that gave her health care benefits, but she lost those benefits by leaving her job to follow her oldest son to Virginia and help take care of his grandchildren. Generally, U.S. health insurance is employer-based, and not portable for an individual that switches jobs.
Rachel was thus without insurance when suffered a severely disabling stroke. She was cared for by Georgetown University Hospital without remuneration for eight months, until the hospital convinced a court in December to remove guardianship from the family to a lawyer recommended by the hospitals attorney.
Andrea Sloan took over as Rachels guardian, and removed Rachel to a nursing home in Millersville, Maryland. The Times reported that the hospital then offered to pay for Rachels nursing home care, but had never extended this offer to Rachels family before Sloan took over as guardian.
Sloan then decided to remove Rachels feeding tube on the basis that Rachel was consuming too many health care resources to stay alive.
She explained her reasoning for having the feeding tube removed to the Times in an e-mail: Generically speaking, what gives any one family or person the right to control so many scarce health care resources in a situation where the prognosis is poor, and to the detriment of others who may actually benefit from them?
Developing
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; concerntrolls; euthanasia; feedingtube; immigration; moralabsolutes; nyirahabiyambere; onlyforaliens; prolife; refugees; rwanda; terrischiavo; terryschivo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 321-333 next last
To: little jeremiah
In this case it seems oddly appropriate.
161
posted on
03/12/2011 2:49:10 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: wagglebee
“Unbelievable, I never thought I would see someone who claimed to be a conservative, or even a libertarian, suggesting that CHARITY should be limited.”
What in my post suggested it should be limited? I asked the question. I’m fascinated that nobody wants to answer it.
To: trisham
” Devil’s advocate? How many times have we seen this method used to advance an agenda?”
I don’t know what method to which you refer? I asked a question that nobody will answer directly.
To: little jeremiah
“Maybe 0h0m0 should appoint a Limits to Charity Czar, sounds like you’re the man for the job.”
Fascinating group. I posited no answer to the question to lead you to this conclusion, yet you and others can only attack me personally without attempting to answer the question.
To: trisham
I never want to be a devil’s advocate, people often say it proudly as though it’s a good thing, I don’t get it!
165
posted on
03/12/2011 3:21:44 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: RFEngineer; wagglebee; BykrBayb; little jeremiah; DJ MacWoW; RnMomof7
What in my post suggested it should be limited? I asked the question. Im fascinated that nobody wants to answer it.*********************************
Why don't you answer it? It's your question. Don't you have a point of view?
166
posted on
03/12/2011 3:21:47 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: BykrBayb
“I see you have a new ally. An admirer actually. It shares your appreciation for honesty and your priorities on the value of life. “
Again, you attack me personally without answering the question - yet you have absolutely no basis for claiming I value life less than you do, only some mistaken memory from years ago......
I don’t think you should be smack-talking about honesty, given your record on this thread.
I don’t mind your surly attacks, but your intellectual dishonesty has transcended annoying and plunged into amusing.
You could simply answer the question, rather than repeatedly claiming that you did, which seems to take a lot more effort.
Fascinating that nobody will provide an answer - preferring to attack me for asking it - which again, seems a lot more effort than just answering a simple question.
To: RFEngineer; wagglebee; BykrBayb; little jeremiah; DJ MacWoW
I dont know what method to which you refer? I asked a question that nobody will answer directly.********************************
Devil's advocate
From Wikipedia:
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer (less commonly) to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a more conventional stance.
*********************************
It's not uncommon for those who are antagonistic to assume the role of "Devil's Advocate". This allows them to appear to be merely interested in debate, while in fact they are attempting to advance their agenda. In this case, the pro-death agenda.
168
posted on
03/12/2011 3:29:09 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: RFEngineer; trisham; wagglebee; Lesforlife; BykrBayb; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Markos33
I dont know what method to which you refer? I asked a question that nobody will answer directly. No, you are not merely *asking a question*. You are trolling and everyone can see it despite your protestations.
Conservatives on FR have had plenty of experience dealing with trolls who push an agenda by simply *asking questions*. It's a common tactic.
Nor has anyone asked you to be our conscience, or to help us think through situations, or to answer to you, or any plethora of excuses people who set themselves up as some kind of moral guidepost or authority seem to think they're appointed to.
Questions like that are baiting, plain and simple, for the purpose of attempting to turn the debate around and attack the conservatives or get us at each other's throats. Or to set the stage for moral relativism.
It's just a red herring set up by someone to get the attention off themselves and their agenda.
Been there, seen that. Not buying it again.
169
posted on
03/12/2011 3:29:09 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom
170
posted on
03/12/2011 3:30:40 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: metmom
Excellent post!
171
posted on
03/12/2011 3:34:10 PM PST
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: trisham
“Why don’t you answer it? It’s your question. Don’t you have a point of view?”
Of course I do. I’d be happy to provide my answer but at the moment I’m rather amused that nobody seems to want to answer - and instead attack me for asking!
I think I know why nobody wants to answer, but I suppose that doesn’t matter at this point.
None of you who criticize me for asking a reasonable question should assume that I have one position or another on this specific case, other than the one I’ve already expressed.
To: metmom
“You are trolling and everyone can see it despite your protestations.”
What is my supposed agenda? I assure you that I am not “trolling”. I posited the question seriously, intending to discuss the very real issues around this case.
My question makes you uncomfortable. That’s the real problem, isn’t it?
To: RFEngineer
Amused?
Why should there ever be any limits to anyone’s personal charity? Anyone who wants to give to any cause should never have external limits imposed by others.
Up to each person, family or private charity what they want to do with their own money or funds.
Until you post otherwise, it certainly sounds as though you don’t share this POV.
174
posted on
03/12/2011 3:40:27 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: RFEngineer; BykrBayb; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; Markos33
Are there limits to charity? Should there be? The fact that anyone would even THINK to ask such a question tells us all that we need to know about the questioner.
I can't imagine that it would even cross the mind of someone with a shred of humanity or decency to even think to ask the question in the first place.
If it occurred to you to ask it, then I'd have to say, yes, BB is morally superior to you.
175
posted on
03/12/2011 3:44:19 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: RFEngineer
What makes me uncomfortable is:
1. Your dishonesty
2. Your attempts to insinuate (something) and manipulate others
3. Your offensive and fetid stench of “I’m the smartest person in the room” sense of superiority
4. Your complete lack of any compassion for suffering people
5. Your attitude that this whole discussion is some kind of intellectual debate and your aim is to “win” it by being intellectually superior, all the while hiding and obfuscating your real points of view.
Perhaps if I read more of your comments I’ll come up with some other reasons why your word jugglery makes me uncomfortable. Uncomfortable meaning disgusted.
176
posted on
03/12/2011 3:44:52 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: RFEngineer
My question makes you uncomfortable. Thats the real problem, isnt it? In a word.
No.
Projecting is also revealing of a person's character.
177
posted on
03/12/2011 3:46:28 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: RFEngineer
I'll answer with my thoughts, and probably get crap, as well.
I am a Christian. I believe God is still God. I do not think we should do things that keep people ARTIFICIALLY alive, and have a "living will" that agrees with that sentiment.I wonder at thoseon this board who so viciously attack those who disagree (and they do get VICIOUS!). They're reacting with emotion and intellect, not a belief in the supernatural power of His Spirit to provide life. It is a reflection of a profound lack of faith, in my mind. It especially makes little sense whether Charity is or is not an issue. In my Bible, Charity is another term for love. In Jesus name, anything can happen, but God must be allowed to do it HIS way!!!
Lazarus was DEAD when Jesus called him out of the TOMB! I see a bunch of people who love their loved ones (+ strangers who they think need those thoughts) and want to fight against the WILL OF GOD, and rely on medical science instead of faith! That is not a sign of faith in GOD, but in man (or woman, if the shoe fits).
Just my two pennies worth!
Luke 7:2-9 (New International Version, ©2011)
2 There a centurions servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue. 6 So Jesus went with them.
He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: Lord, dont trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, Go, and he goes; and that one, Come, and he comes. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it.
9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. ...
178
posted on
03/12/2011 3:47:53 PM PST
by
WVKayaker
("When Sarah Palin speaks, people listen!" - EF Hutton)
To: metmom
“Nor has anyone asked you to be our conscience, or to help us think through situations, or to answer to you, or any plethora of excuses people who set themselves up as some kind of moral guidepost or authority seem to think they’re appointed to.”
Who said I wanted to be anyone’s conscience. I expressed an opinion on the woman’s situation - which I’m guessing you never read (we probably agree), and then asked a question that is relevant to the case.
I acknowledged the question contains a moral quandary from the beginning did I not?
It was no set up. It was a question that I expected someone to have an answer to, or perhaps a philosophical twist to. However, I received personal vitriol rather than any attempt at reason.
That is of interest to me.
“Questions like that are baiting, plain and simple, for the purpose of attempting to turn the debate around and attack the conservatives or get us at each other’s throats. Or to set the stage for moral relativism.”
So I’m not conservative for asking a question? What does that make you for not answering it - and instead of ignoring it - attacking me just for asking?
To: RFEngineer
Id be happy to provide my answer but at the moment Im rather amused that nobody seems to want to answer - and instead attack me for asking!**********************************
Your post is a classic trolling technique.
180
posted on
03/12/2011 3:51:27 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 321-333 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson