Posted on 09/21/2003 12:13:53 PM PDT by pc93
Many say that, additionally, we have to consider the culture. There was a book written before Hitler's time, but apparently when he was a teen, which had a profound effect on him and the culture in Germany. You can read some about it here.
Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding wrote "Permitting the Destruction of Life not Worthy of Life".
Another interesting thought I have been mulling is the idea of attachment. Attachment theory is about infants and children trusting their parents. We studied it in depth and saw an attachment counselor for several years after the first adoption to our family of an older child with severe attachment issues. But what I recall from the early work done on attachment is that it was highly biased by culture, and guess which country stood out in the studies, time after time? Germany. Apparently in Germany they favor autonomy so highly that they tend to push their young ones toward it at much earlier ages than most other cultures, discouraging reliance on parents emotionally, etc.
The last cultural influence that seems to boost euthanasia in countries is that of limited resources.
So if you put a strong favoring of autonomy, with limited resources, and add in a medical profession which has been geared toward eugenics thinking by a very popular book, bingo. I wonder if that gives us some avenues to fight back, besides the most effective, prayer.
I will check out all of your links over the next few days.
Some of the MD's are very frightening to read. I was just noting yesterday in one letter that the good doctor who testifies in so many of these cases is proposing that life expectancy is irrelevant, it is *irreversibility* that he believes is important.
This is a chilling statement if you look at it closely enough. Because every person who is disabled is probably permanently disabled, to some degree.
It is effectively saying that all damage to the human body which cannot be reversed renders that person not worthy of life. Which would include any person with an auto-immune disease for starters.
As it should be.
I can only hope and pray that no one overturns my decision that I not be kept alive if I cannot participate in life.
Case in point, to my post on the other thread.
From the Independent Women's Forum website...
"I'm Not Dead Yet!" [Excerpts]
Danielle Crittenden on our eagerness to dispatch with the sick and dying
There was just one snag. My father, [who had MS] despite all the cords and monitors and IV bags dangling around him, was still very much conscious. And he indicated that he had a strong desire to live.As Mike Schiavo's story shows, eagerness to use "mercy killing" on a patient can be an indication of extreme selfishness, rather than of "love."This fact did not faze the doctors. They still came to us in that little purgatory of a waiting room, wondering whether or not we wished to go ahead and sign the order anyway. They implied - in that way doctors have of speaking, like the anointed, in tongues - that my father could not know what was in his best interest; that he was the victim of deluded deathbed thinking. Of course they did not advocate that we cut off all support systems directly, not yet. They spoke in the hypothetical: "If he has a heart attack," "If his liver fails," etc. They reminded us again of his negligible "quality of life." And when we declined to sign, the doctors accepted our directions, but not without conveying mild disapproval. [snip]
There was a general sense of repugnance [among my friends] toward my father's condition. In his state, they avowed, they would rather be dead.[snip]
My father demonstrated that, even when the body is circumscribed, the mind can still be a vast and luxurious place. What observer, no matter how sound his medical training, can judge what "quality of life" goes on inside it? To my father, the sight of the lilies and twilight, the pleasure he took in his memories and thoughts, were infinitely preferable to the alternative, the nothingness of death. To him what was important was the "quantity of life." He clung to every shred granted him.
If the right-to-diers are seeking another landmark case to make their "point" with the public and the justice system, they should distance themselves from any case involving Schiavo or Felos or Greer.
Terri's case has too many landmines and too much distasteful baggage.
That said, many of them are quite prejudiced in the direction of people signing. Of course, they want to make the choice, not leave it up to these ignorant non-medical people.
I am trying to find out how they feel about slavs in general as some countries are rather anti-slavic, and they are after all so close to Germany. Germany was a country I did not find enjoyable to visit.
I thought that this is why it was set to be removed 10/15--to give her a chance. Forgive me for not scrolling down for the answer in the comments, but I don't have the time today.
Well, we shouldn't be surprised so much is swept under the rug. It would be interesting to see how much the Right toDie people have contributed to the coffers of the relevant politicians.
Then the precedent will be set for any and all that reside in FL (and beyond).
And JBush by his inaction is making it ALL POSSIBLE!!! His hands are not tied.
All Living Will directives, regardless of state or source, say something like this: "If the time comes when I can no longer participate in my health care decisions, and I have an incurable or irreversible condition with no reasonable hope of recovery, and my death is imminent, do not use heroic or artificial means to prolong my life."
Imagine that you are considering signing a Living Will. Do you understand what its terms and stipulations mean? Take this quiz to discover how much you do or don't know about these legal documents.
1. The attending physician interprets the meaning of a Living Will and makes a number of critical decisions for a person (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") who has signed a Living Will. An attending physician is:
a) A trusted family physician who knows the patient well.
b) A hospital emergency room physician.
c) Any one of a number of unfamiliar physicians (including residents and specialists) who examine or treat the patient in a hospital.
d) Any physician participating in the patient's HMO or group health plan.
e) Any or all of the above.
2. "When I can no longer participate in my health care decisions" is usually determined by the attending physician. Such a determination may be made when the patient is:
a) Diagnosed to be permanently unconscious or mentally incapacitated.
b) Mildly senile.
c) Affected by medication or depression.
d) Hearing impaired or unable to speak English well enough to understand the physician or clearly communicate medical decisions.
e) Any or all of the above.
3. An "incurable or irreversible condition" is:
a) An illness likely to cause death within a few weeks.
b) A medically manageable condition such as diabetes.
c) Permanent paralysis due to a stroke or accident.
d) A persistent unconscious, unresponsive or semiconscious state.
e) Any or all of the above.
4. "No reasonable hope of recovery" may be interpreted to mean that:
a) The patient's condition is "hopeless."
b) The patient is not expected to completely recover his former strength, abilities or independence after an illness or injury.
c) The patient is not expected to regain consciousness, but, given basic care, may live for many years.
d) The patient is experiencing the normal aging process and will never regain the vigor of youth.
e) Any or all of the above.
5. What does "death is imminent" mean legally?
a) The last minutes or hours when it is clear that the patient is dying and loved ones are called to the bedside.
b) A life expectancy of 30 days or less.
c) The patient could live for a long time with appropriate medical treatment, but would die quickly if medical treatment was withheld or withdrawn.
d) A life expectancy of six months to one year or more.
e) Any or all of the above.
6. By refusing "heroic or artificial means to prolong life" a patient may be saying no (knowingly or not) to:
a) Treatments that are gravely burdensome, not effective, or do not relieve symptoms when the patient is near death.
b) Medication upon which the patient is dependent, such as insulin or heart medications.
c) Antibiotics.
d) Food and water.
e) Any or all of the above.
The correct answer to all of the questions is choice "e".
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.