Times sure have changed. I recall many years ago the case about a girl named Kathleen Quinlin. I think the family wanted to pull the plug but the courts would not allow it. The courts are now acting like God choosing death for people that are disabled. I think it use to be that unless someone specifically documented that they would prefer death that they were not allowed to be killed. This is a very slippery slope where judges in this country have way to much power. It needs to be stopped.
The thing I have learned is the Progession that is taking place. We started with genuine coma patients who were mostly unresponsive, then we went to Marcia Gray's, who were probably real PVS patients. Though caretakers thought she responded to them, she didn't really open her eyes or interact with people ( which does not mean she did not suffer and horribly, horribly, of all of these people this woman went through a living hell to die of dehydration).Maybe Hugh Finn comes next...
So now we move on to Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi. They were more responsive, definitely not coma and I don't think they were PVS either. We have people making video of Christine waving to them and it being shown on all the major news networks in St. Louis, in an attempt to stop her parents from killing her.
Both Nancy and Christine spoke, simple words, but clear enough, it seems. So they were killed anyway. Christine because her father said he didn't believe she wanted to live the rest of her life in a diaper.
Then you come to some victories. Michael Martin and Wendland, one is tooling around in his wheelchair, writing letters. Wendland died under mysterious circumstances but I think Martin is still alive and well.
Now we have Terri and this week to get through.
It was the idea of the doctors themselves, to kill them.
What this is, in reality, imo, is plain old simple discrimination. Against the mentally incompetent or lacking.
A baby with a very treatable defect is born, but because the infant also has Downs, the parents are allowed to starve it to death. Why? Because it would have a lesser quality of life as a Downs syndrome person.
If an infant without Downs had the defect, easily treatable with surgery, they would never think to ask the parents about forgoing treatment and allowing starvation. But it happened, and it was an initial opening to what we are seeing now.
You see how they are taking our stance on parental rights, so important to us as conservatives, and making them evil? At least I think so.
Now the courts are telling us what is "quality of life" that deserves to live, and if the family wants to eliminate them for a lesser ability, then so be it. Just like they began not too long ago, asking pregnant women about aborting infants when tests showed that the infant might have a defect. Remember when that was a novel thing?
It's a subtle creep into the same arianism of the nazis.
And to current guardian and serial husband, "bye, bye, bye." I think it's good to call the husband a SERIAL HUSBAND. Combined with the right slogan, SERIAL HUSBAND, SERIAL JUDGE. Beware! Something like that?
Can anyone tell I'm trying to be post #2000?