...............................
A bill making its way through the Legislature - AB374 - would bring a version of Oregon's aid-in-dying law to the state. Opponents of the bill are conducting a media campaign to portray themselves as not just the traditional opponents of choice in dying - the Religious Right - but also representing diverse political and social movements. For example, in a recent article in the Mercury News (Another View, March 1), Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights, Education and Defense Fund claims that "while religious groups are in the mix" against AB374, "the opposition to assisted suicide is a broad coalition of left, right and center." Similarly, in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Wesley J. Smith claims that AB374 is opposed by "a broad and diverse political alliance" consisting of "civil rights activists," "medical, nursing and hospice professionals" and "advocates for the poor," with "disability rights advocates" at the vanguard. The truth, however, is that the leading opponents of the bill are among the same folks who brought us the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Let's have a close look at the "broad coalition." Take, for example, those "civil rights activists" whom Golden and Smith say oppose the measure. They mention only one relatively obscure group. On the other hand, support for it comes from major national civil rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (500,000 members), the National Organization for Women (500,000 members) and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Those "medical, nursing and hospice professionals" Golden and Smith mention are the California Medical Association and the American Medical Association, powerful groups representing doctors' interests. But many others support AB374, including the California Association of Physicians Groups (America's largest association representing physicians who practice in groups), the American Medical Students Association (68,000 members) and the American Medical Women's Association (10,000 members). Those "advocates for the poor?" Again, they list only one group - the Coalition of Concerned Medical Professionals, which Wikipedia describes as a "front group" for "a network of American political cults" which "pose as social welfare and advocacy organizations." Legitimate advocates for the poor and elderly that support the bill include the National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), the Congress of California Seniors and the Gray Panthers. As for those "disability rights advocates," the truth is that they do not represent the majority view of their own constituency on aid in dying. Two Harris Poll surveys indicate that about two-thirds of disabled persons support laws like AB374 - roughly the same as California's general population, as shown by a recent California Poll survey. The opponents are blowing smoke. Scratch the surface of their "broad coalition" and you'll find Terri Schiavo redux.
Aid-in-dying opponents represent narrow viewpoint
8mm
.................................
The mother says it's murder. The doctors call it mercy. Each claims that Catholic teachings on end-of-life care support their positions.
In the case of Emilio Gonzales, the 17-month-old boy with a terminal disease at Children's Hospital of Austin, the decision over whether to remove him from a respirator has been steeped in legal maneuverings and court rulings.
But because both Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, and the Seton Family of Hospitals rely on the Roman Catholic Church for guidance, theological questions on the boy's care have generated another layer of debate over Catholic doctrine that permits ending medical care for dying patients.
Gonzales brought her son to the Seton-run Children's Hospital with a collapsed lung on Dec. 27.
Emilio was put on life support in the pediatric intensive care unit the next day, then doctors told her that Emilio suffered from a rare, incurable disorder that causes the central nervous system to break down.
Since then Gonzales, doctors and hospital officials have clashed over how to care for Emilio, with Gonzales seeking more aggressive treatment and doctors recommending withdrawal of life support.
In trying to weigh the sanctity of life against the desire for a dignified death, Bishop Gregory Aymond supports the doctors' decision.
~Snip~
But he would not say that Catarina Gonzales is wrong to seek continued treatment, and he said he would like to meet with her to talk about the church's teachings...................
.........To tell her to shut up and accept the killing???
Medical guidance from the church In Gonzales case, church teachings are interpreted differently
8mm
We may infer that it is extremely important to the Left to develop a legal basis for killing people. At first, you wonder why they bother. But it comes back to that universal rule. It is inborn to the human creature. We all have to justify our actions by the same moral law, our Creator's law. Murder is against human law and God's commandments. In order to feign innocence, the leftist activists have to do an end run around the Moral Law. They do it with a swarm of deceitful legal rules and statutes that let them claim it is "legal" while they commit the murder. (For one example, the redefining of feeding tubes in 1999 to be withdrawable medical care was solely for the purpose of killing patients. It was, of course, used to murder Terri.)
This is why our visitors cite only law, and a tendentious, crabbed version of the law at that. They go no further than the relentlessly biased Greer Court legal rulings, which fit their agenda to perfection. They always, always, always flee questions of right and wrong. They condemn themselves thus as dishonest in mind, heart and soul. By their conniving and deceit, they disgrace human law even as they violate God's law.