Post by: roo_ster on April 04, 2005, 07:39:19 AM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050411/11john.htm
It is quoted below with some commentary by me. All emphasis is my doing.
4/11/05
By John Leo
End of the Affair
Quote
Some final notes on the Terri Schiavo case. The behavior of conservatives: Uneven and sometimes awful, with lots of vituperation and extreme charges. (Jeb Bush does not remind me of Pontius Pilate; I don't think it's fair to circulate rumors that Michael Schiavo was a wife-beater.) Worse were the revolutionary suggestions that the courts be ignored or defied, perhaps by sending in the National Guard to reconnect the tube. This is "by any means necessary" rhetoric of the radical left, this time let loose by angry conservatives. Where does this rhetoric lead?
I think we saw some of this in the APS debate on this issue, with charges of "nazi death cultist" and "Pontius Pilate."Quote
The behavior of liberals: Mystifying. While conservative opinion was severely splintered, liberal opinion seemed monolithic: Let her die. Liberals usually rally to the side of vulnerable people, but not in this case. Democrats talked abstractly about procedures and rules, a reversal of familiar roles. I do not understand why liberal friends defined the issue almost solely in terms of government intruding into family matters. Liberals are famously willing to enter family affairs to defend individual rights, opposing parental-consent laws, for example. Why not here? Nonintervention is morally suspect when there is strong reason to wonder whether the decision-maker in the family has the helpless person's best interests at heart.
Here I disagree with Leo. I did not find liberal opinion mystifying. It is entirely in accord with the view that a baby/fetus in the womb is a mere lump of cells to be suctioned out if at all inconvenient. It is also in accord with the view that we ought to create embyos, etc. in order to destroy them for our pleasure or grow them to a certain point and "harvest" them.I think that silence or calls for "following procedure" was the wisest course of action for those in favor of the above. Outright cheerleading, with chants like:
"Pull the tube!"
let us shout
she's not human
just a brussell sprout!
HOORAAY!!!
might not go over well with most of America.
Quote
A few liberals broke ranks--10 members of the black caucus, for instance, plus Sen. Tom Harkin and Ralph Nader, who called the case "court-imposed homicide." But such voices were rare. My suspicion is that liberal opinion was guided by smoldering resentment toward President Bush and the rising contempt for religion in general and conservative Christians in particular. We seem headed for much more conflict between religious and secular Americans.
I saw plenty of contempt for religion in general & Christians in particular in the APS debate.Quote
The behavior of the news media: Terrible. "Pro-life" columnist Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice called it "the worst case of liberal media bias I've seen yet." Many stories and headlines were politically loaded. Small example of large disdain: On air, a CBS correspondent called the Florida rallies a "religious roadshow," a term unlikely to have been applied to Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights demonstrations or any other rallies meeting CBS's approval. More important, it was hard to find news that Michael Schiavo had provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife since 1994 and even blocked the use of antibiotics when Terri developed a urinary infection. And the big national newspapers claimed as a fact that Michael Schiavo's long-delayed recollection of Terri's wish to die, supported only by hearsay from Michael's brother and a sister-in-law, met the standard for "clear and convincing evidence" of consent. It did nothing of the sort, particularly with two of Terri's friends testifying the opposite. The media covered the intervention by Congress as narrowly political and unwarranted. They largely fudged the debates over whether Terri Schiavo was indeed in a persistent vegetative state and whether tube-feeding meant that Schiavo was on life support. In the Nancy Cruzan case, the Supreme Court said that tube-feeding is life support, but some ethicists and disability leaders strongly dispute that position.
When liberals or members of designated minority groups (DMG) use their churches to organize or their faith as justification for their views, their views are "informed by their faith. Non-DMG conservatives who do the same are "Christo-fascists."The MSM desperately sought to spin it as a "right to die" issue, when it was nothing of the sort. No serious commentator on the "pro-tube" side of the debate argued that an individual can not refuse life-saving treatment. The issue was the validity of Terri's desire to have the tube pulled, given her circumstances, and Michael Shaivo's fitness as her guardian to make such a decision.
Quote
Unsettled questions. Public opinion: Polls showed very strong opposition to the Republican intervention, but the likelihood is that those polled weren't primarily concerned with Terri Schiavo or Republican overreaching, if that's what it was. They were thinking about themselves and how to avoid being in Terri Schiavo's predicament. Many, too, have pulled the plug on family members and don't want these wrenching decisions second-guessed by the courts or the public.
I surely want the state to be as far away from such a decision as possible, other than to err on the side of life if someone ends up in such a state without any family to speak/act for them.Quote
If this is correct, it means the country has yet to make up its mind on the issue of personhood and whether it is moral and just to remove tube-supplied food and water from people with grave cognitive disabilities. The following candid exchange occurred on Court TV last month in a conversation between author Wesley Smith and bioethicist Bill Allen. Smith: ["Bill, do you think Terri is a person?" Allen: "No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." Fetuses, babies, and Alzheimer's patients are only minimally aware and might not fit this definition of personhood, and so would have no claim on our protections. Smith points out that other bioethicists narrow protection further, requiring rationality, the capacity to experience desire, or the ability to value one's own existence. Tighter definitions of personhood expand the number of humans who can be killed without blame or harvested for their organs while still alive. On Court TV, Allen argued that the family could have removed Terri's organs while she was alive, "just as we allow people to say what they want done with their assets." This issue has been hiding behind the Terri Schiavo case for years. Soon it will be out in the open.
I think this last bit bears repeating:Quote
Allen argued that the family could have removed Terri's organs while she was alive, "just as we allow people to say what they want done with their assets."
We have an inkling of where this issue will slide, given the happenings in the Netherlands and their practices of euthanasia of the terminally ill and newborns born with dificulties.
Post by: Sean Smith on April 04, 2005, 08:33:28 AM
Quote
We have an inkling of where this issue will slide, given the happenings in the Netherlands and their practices of euthanasia of the terminally ill and newborns born with dificulties.
Not so much.The court ruled that SHE had decided that SHE didn't want to live under conditions like the ones she was in. The court made no independent value judgement about her life whatsoever. It ruled that SHE had already made that judgement, and applied HER judgement about the matter. You can make a valid argument concerning if the "preponderance of the evidence" requirement was met or not, due to the conflicting testimony. But this B.S. about the case setting a precedent for mass euthanasia on demand (as some have claimed) is simply false.
As an issue of law the case was utterly straightforward. The only valid argument against the decision is that the evidence that a) Terri had a clearly expressed desire to not be sustained in a PVS, and b) that she was in a PVS, did not meet the burden of proof. And the only non-silly argument in that regard revolves around a), but the people arguing against the decision have wasted their time outright lying about b), crying about the "slippery slope" to Nazi-style death camps for the disabled, and so forth.
Actually reading the decisions of the various courts makes these sorts of statements look extremely silly. Right or wrong, the court decisions are very narrow and straightforward. They just say that in this instance, the evidence led them to conclude that a) she said she didn't want to be sustained under set of conditions X, and b) she was in set of conditions X, therefore c) she gets what she wants. There really isn't anything else to them; they don't create any rights out of whole cloth or any crap like that (unlike, say, Roe V. Wade, which invented a right to abortion pretty much out of whole cloth).
And am I the only person on the Earth who knows that the "slippery slope" by any other name is still a logical fallacy?
Post by: RealGun on April 04, 2005, 10:40:50 AM
Post by: Guest on April 05, 2005, 11:45:56 PM
Post by: telewinz on April 06, 2005, 12:15:56 AM
Post by: RevDisk on April 06, 2005, 12:16:33 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Here I disagree with Leo. I did not find liberal opinion mystifying. It is entirely in accord with the view that a baby/fetus in the womb is a mere lump of cells to be suctioned out if at all inconvenient. It is also in accord with the view that we ought to create embyos, etc. in order to destroy them for our pleasure or grow them to a certain point and "harvest" them.
You are assuming their motives. Most people thought the issue was the court trying to decide if Terri would want to remain in such a state or die. A good number of liberals did indeed think it was not the federal government's place to intervene in an affair between the family and the courts. Quote
I saw plenty of contempt for religion in general & Christians in particular in the APS debate.
Some of us believe that the seperation of church and state is a good thing. Even barring the seperation of church and state, every people is entitled to their own opinions of religion. What you saw as "contempt of Christianity in particular" was more likely disagreement over YOUR beliefs. Keep in mind, many Americans died to protect your beliefs and also protect the right of people to hold "contempt" and/or disagree for your beliefs.
Quote
We have an inkling of where this issue will slide, given the happenings in the Netherlands and their practices of euthanasia of the terminally ill and newborns born with dificulties.
I doubt it. This ruling will not create death camps for the physically unacceptable. This case was a court ruling over a complicated "Do Not Resusitate" matter. DNR's have been around for a long time. Terri should have spelled out her desires in her will. I hope some good comes out of this case. If you have not done so, make up a will. Everyone should have one.
Post by: telewinz on April 06, 2005, 12:24:09 AM
Post by: TarpleyG on April 06, 2005, 02:26:13 AM
Greg
Post by: Ron on April 06, 2005, 03:24:12 AM
The godless religions of the "humanists" seem to be the ones with most of the blood on their hands in modern history.
As an aside and off topic, I have been surprised at the not so subtle attacks on Christianity on this board.
Post by: jamz on April 06, 2005, 05:09:34 AM
Love, James
Post by: griz on April 06, 2005, 07:20:47 AM
1. Right to die issue.
2. Arguments over who should have the final say over her life.
3. The definition of life support; is a feeding tube artificial.
4. The contradiction of the court ruling that a living breathing human could be starved to death while it would be illegal to execute her.
All of these are separate even though related. Peoples opinions were all over the place. Two people might agree on one issue but disagree on another. Note that several of these issues have been resolved in court, but clearly the decisions are far from unanimous. To me #3 was the one that bothered me the most. I think it is wrong to starve any mammal to death. I cant get over the fact that the court would prosecute you for forgetting to feed your cat for two weeks, but ordered her death by starvation/dehydration. Maybe her unfortunate fate will result in our laws catching up to modern medicine.
Ironically this case probably would not have been news if the parents and husband had been more civil to each other. I have no idea how it could have been resolved, but when the parents have to get permission from the husband to be with their dying daughter, something is seriously wrong. With minimal evidence, I feel the biggest tragedy is both parties used her to get press coverage for their side. RIP TS
Post by: Sean Smith on April 06, 2005, 09:44:44 AM
Quote
3. The definition of life support; is a feeding tube artificial.
Florida law is crystal clear on this point. You may not like it, but it is unequivocally the law.Quote
4. The contradiction of the court ruling that a living breathing human could be starved to death while it would be illegal to execute her.
That's not a contradiction. It is a distortion on your part of what actually happened. The court ruled that SHE said that SHE had determined in advance that SHE would want to be taken off the feeding tube under those conditions. Why is that so hard to grasp? The court enforced HER wishes (as far as it could determine them), it did not independently find her guilty of being handicapped/retarded and sentence her to death. It isn't even apples and oranges, it is apples and Cadillacs.
Quote
I think it is wrong to starve any mammal to death. I cant get over the fact that the court would prosecute you for forgetting to feed your cat for two weeks, but ordered her death by starvation/dehydration.
Another false analogy. The cat can't tell you to not feed it if it gets brain damaged. Terri Schiavo could, and according to the courts, did just that. Again, they may have made a factual or legal error. But there is no contradiction whatsoever in what they did.
Post by: wasrjoe on April 06, 2005, 04:01:32 PM
Quote
As an aside and off topic, I have been surprised at the not so subtle attacks on Christianity on this board.
We are now allowed to talk about religion, unlike on THR. It's not really surprising to me, at all. There have been a lot of not-so-subtle attacks on other beliefs, too. I believe that Mrs. Schiavo was a vegetable, and am therefore a "Nazi death-cultist" as a result.I suppose that my point is that when you are allowed to talk about religion, politics, and which sports team is the best, people are bound to offend you.
Post by: DustinD on April 06, 2005, 10:19:40 PM
Quote
I think it is wrong to starve any mammal to death.
I can kind of agree, but she wanted to be starved according to her husband. I would too in that situation. A morphine overdose would be better yet, much quicker. I doubt that in her state she is capable of being starved, as she is already dead.
Post by: griz on April 07, 2005, 02:02:41 AM
Sean, I've read it again and I must have missed what you are calling distortion. Please tell me where the distortion is in my statement:
4. The contradiction of the court ruling that a living breathing human could be starved to death while it would be illegal to execute her.
As for the courts crystal clear decision, I have already acknowledged that in my post. I'm just saying that a lot of people think the courts are wrong on that point.
Post by: possenti on April 07, 2005, 03:14:57 AM
When the day comes that judges "rule" against the Second Amendment, how many people will follow THOSE rulings?
I'm not going to argue anymore about Terri Shaivo. She's dead now. It's over.
I just want a simple answer from the people who supported the "rule of law", and insisted that the courts be "obeyed no matter what."
Will you comply when gun registration is ruled to be "constitutional"? What about confiscation? Or door-to-door no-knock searches? Will you follow along? People who passionately supported the courts on the Shaivo case did so because their personal feelings were compatible with the decision. What if it's a different situation someday?
Quote
The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian.
Yep. Them fanatic Christians are crashing planes into buildings everywhere, and they're lopping off heads of everyone they meet. I just saw one yesterday putting anthrax into a vat of baby formula.... Gimme a break...
Post by: mfree on April 07, 2005, 04:26:08 AM
As opposed to the completely subtle attacks on those who don't agree? I suppose I'm one of the Nazi death cultists, considering in my opinion TS died 15 years ago, and she's been "living dead" ever since. There are living breathing human beings, and there are breathing human beings, and she fell into the latter.
I an thoroughly convinced that she told her husband she didn't want to live this way. With that, I had no *choice* but to accept that the thing to do was let Mr. Schiavo pull the tube, regardless of what *I* wanted to see.
This is my final word on the issue.
Post by: PaulV on April 07, 2005, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: GoRon
As an aside and off topic, I have been surprised at the not so subtle attacks on Christianity on this board.
It shouldn't surprise you. It has been happening in various forums for over 2,000 years. There is a silver lining in that cloud though."Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Post by: DustinD on April 07, 2005, 12:21:07 PM
Back on topic. I doubt this will lead to euthanasia, if anything laws like the one in Texas(that I support) would be closer to causing it. Is it voluntery in the Netherlands? Do people choose to die, does the government kill people against their will, or do they just stop paying for the ones they can not save?
Sean Smith: I think the slippery slope is only a fallacy if you are having a logical discussion. Politics in this country is about incrementalism, both sides usually want everything, and have reasons for it that they do not discuss, such as in the case of moral issues. I think it slippery slopes apply some times.
Post by: Feanaro on April 07, 2005, 01:19:42 PM
Quote
When the day comes that judges "rule" against the Second Amendment, how many people will follow THOSE rulings?
Sounds like apples to oranges to me. There is a clear case for the government not being able to infringe on that right via the Second and Tenth Amendments. But there is nothing I can find in the BOR stating that you have the right not to have the plug pulled on you. There are good, logical arguements that can be made against the decision. Along the lines of "the evidence that Terri wanted to die is thin and the courts should err on the side of life." But comparing it to rulings against the SA sounds disparate to me.
Post by: possenti on April 07, 2005, 03:47:30 PM
Quote
But there is nothing I can find in the BOR stating that you have the right not to have the plug pulled on you.
Ever heard of the DoI?"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." (emphasis mine)
Of course, Jefferson was one of those right-wing radical guys... Not exactly a Christian, but a deist. He believed in a Supreme Being, but not necessarily the God of the Holy Bible.
How could that NOT be understood? Let's leave the religous argument out of it - At the least, the courts ruled against Terri on the basis of hearsay. Only her "husband" knew of her "wishes" to die. So we let her dehydrate/starve to death based on that?
Post by: RevDisk on April 07, 2005, 06:15:02 PM
Quote from: possenti
How could that NOT be understood? Let's leave the religous argument out of it - At the least, the courts ruled against Terri on the basis of hearsay. Only her "husband" knew of her "wishes" to die. So we let her dehydrate/starve to death based on that?
She did not have a will that stated in black and white her wishes. Thus, the decision passed to her husband. Who is to blame? Terri. She should have filled out a will, as all responsible adults should do. So, yes, the COURTS let her dehydrate/starve on the closest information they had on her wishes. If you have a problem with this, please fill out your will in a very clear manner and it won't ever be a problem for you.
Post by: Winston Smith on April 07, 2005, 09:52:59 PM
And that if the state shouldn't intervene, then I sure has hell shouldn't act like I should.
If that were me, I'd want to die. If that were one of my relatives, I'd pull the plug. But it's not, I have no say, and it's not my buisness anyway.
And trying to paint is as a liberal/democrat issue; or even worse, a christian/infidel issue ... well, dictionary.com says it better:
o·ver·sim·pli·fy: To simplify to the point of causing misrepresentation, misconception, or error.
Post by: Sean Smith on April 08, 2005, 03:12:01 AM
Quote from: possenti
Only her "husband" knew of her "wishes" to die.
A lie. There were witnesses other than her husband who testified to that effect at the trial. You don't have to believe them, either, but let's at least be honest about what actually happened.http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
Post by: griz on April 08, 2005, 05:13:03 AM
Although the court disagrees with me, I found it noteworthy that Quinlin was unhooked from the machines keeping her alive, but not her feeding tube. Even though she lived for a lot longer than doctors expected, I would still call that nature taking its course.
In Terri's case, I simply think that cutting off her supply of food and water is the same as ordering her death. Yes I realize that the courts ruled that a feeding tube is medical treatment, but if the courts were infallible there would only be unanimous decisions. Still waiting for you explanation of my "distortion".
Post by: Sean Smith on April 08, 2005, 05:37:42 AM
Quote from: griz
Still waiting for you explanation of my "distortion".
Look up about a dozen or so posts. 
HINT: doing what a person said they wanted != sentencing them for committing a crime.
Post by: griz on April 08, 2005, 05:49:42 AM
Are you saying my distortion is the fact that I consider a feeding tube sustenance while the court considers it medical care? I've said several times I disagree with the court. But that doesn't make it a distortion, no matter how much you roll your eyes.
Post by: roo_ster on April 08, 2005, 09:07:59 AM
I had seen quite a few parallels between the larger debate carried out on the networks and the smaller debate carried out here, at APS: wild accusations by the pro-tubers and a visceral contempt for Christianity by the anti-tubers being some of the more noticable.
***********
RevDisk wrote:
Quote
You are assuming their motives....A good number of liberals did indeed think it was not the federal government's place to intervene in an affair between the family and the courts.
Given the left's general position WRT the gov't (federal or otherwise) meddling in family affairs by legislation or judicial fiat, I think most adults can dismiss this newfound reverence for Federalism and familial sovereignty on the part of the left as a convenient pose, not a principled position.Don't take my word for it, here's Reverend Al:
Quote
I am saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. I am also saddened by the blatant attempt by right wing extremists to use her condition and family disagreements to galvanize an anti-choice fervor in this country. I respectfully declined an invitation to come to Florida by the Schindler family because the situation was being used by the right wing to distort the issue of a person's right to make life choices.
The National Action Network and I offer our condolences to the entire family, but also remind the nation to critically view what was said by Congressman Tom DeLay, who tried to cynically manipulate public opinion against people's right to choose in this country.
FWIW, you might reference my opinion on such governmental meddling in an earlier thread, here:The National Action Network and I offer our condolences to the entire family, but also remind the nation to critically view what was said by Congressman Tom DeLay, who tried to cynically manipulate public opinion against people's right to choose in this country.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=3827#p3827
jfruser wrote:
Quote
I am quite ambivalent about this whole mess. I believe that the pro-life crowd (among which I number myself) is making a blunder by playing this case up. It is a tough case & tough cases make bad law. The pro-lifers are likely to see some court rulings that will likely undermine the pro-life position...or the authority for a spouse to act on their incapacitated spouse's behalf.
...
What do I think ought to be done? Let her husband determine what artificial means are to be taken to preserve her life.
To put it more succinctly, Fed.gov ought to leave most (if not all) family-law-type issue to State.gov....
What do I think ought to be done? Let her husband determine what artificial means are to be taken to preserve her life.
**********
RevDisk wrote:
Quote
What you saw as "contempt of Christianity in particular" was more likely disagreement over YOUR beliefs.
Doubtful, especially as my beliefs WRT TS are "let the hubby yank the tube, as it is his decision to make" (see above).Better TS starve to death than Congrees/FL Legislature undermine spousal primacy in these decisions. Better TS starve to death than the various black-robed tyrants-in-training continue to undermine the ethic biased in favor of life. Sometimes there is no good choice...just some that are less bad than others.
The (ill-timed) jibes about JPII, the "why don't Christians mass-suicide" comments and a few other choice, contemptuous, remarks in a few threads conveyed the message just fine. I noted the contempt as similar to what occurred in the MSM, but was not offended by the coments for two reasons:
1. I am not Catholic. I thought highly of JPII, but I do not share Catholic doctrine WRT the Bishop of Rome.
2. I think free speech is a wonderful thing, as it outs the ignorant by their own words.
[As an aside, I think you had the best post in this thread:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=4927#p4927
Quote
No, we death cultists say "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" just like any other Servant of Cthulu.
I just hope that nobody was freakish enough to work out the entire HPL-universe language, that way the Star Wars wierdos did with Kilngon.]**********
telewinz wrote:
Quote
The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian. I wonder which faith has the most blood on their hands?
GoRon had the scent when he wrote, "The godless religions of the 'humanists' seem to be the ones with most of the blood on their hands in modern history," except that I quibble with he term "modern." I would argue that the fanatic athiest body count of 100+ millions slaughtered in the 20th century makes them the winners of the "All-Time Megadeath Sweepstakes."WRT comments like, "The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian," I suppose it would be true if you think that a third party praying loudly/obnoxiously for your salvation on the street corner is a fate worse than Johnny Mohammed sending you to your next plane of existence by way of suicide bomber or hijacked airliner.
***********
mfree wrote:
Quote
I an thoroughly convinced that she told her husband she didn't want to live this way.
Just who is relying on faith, here?**********
DustinD wrote:
Quote
Is it voluntery in the Netherlands? Do people choose to die, does the government kill people against their will, or do they just stop paying for the ones they can not save?
Physician-assisted suicide is policy in the Netherlands. According to their law, the adultpatient must ask for it and need not be terminally ill. Those who have investigated the use of euthanasia have noticed an increasing tendency of medical staff to off even those who can not assent to the procedure.Additionally, a drive is underway to eutanize terminally ill children up to the age of twelve, under the auspices of the Groningen protocol.
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/9890729.htm
Quote
Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.
The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.
"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."
A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
(Bold text my doing, jfruser)The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.
"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."
A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
Most reports state for every case of reported infant euthanasia, five occur in the Netherlands.
I want to be very clear here: this is not the withdrawal of artificial repsiratation or other artificial aids. This is injecting a child up to the age of twelve with a lethal dose of drugs.
Yet another reason I want my health care and insurance in the private sector.
**********
Insta-Death-Camp/Mass Euthanasia Straw Man Logical Fallcy
RevDisk wrote:
Quote
This ruling will not create death camps for the physically unacceptable.
Sean Smith wrote:Quote
But this B.S. about the case setting a precedent for mass euthanasia on demand (as some have claimed) is simply false.
I made the error of using the word "slide" in the following sentence:Quote
We have an inkling of where this issue will slide, given the happenings in the Netherlands and their practices of euthanasia of the terminally ill and newborns born with dificulties.
My bad. I can't expect others to understand what I meant, rather than what I wrote.I am aware of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy...as well as the "Straw Man" logical fallacy.
Some of the hysterics did violate Godwin's law, among other unpleasant behaviors. I fail to see where I did in my first post. To respond to the first post with "this will not result in National Socialist death camps for gorks" is to not engage the observations/comments, but to erect a straw man to whack down.
Is it slippery slope (non)logic or merely applying the lessons of history when:
1. Historical and contemporary examples can be cited where a gradualist approach was taken and has resulted in a repugnant state of affairs, as can be seen in the Netherlands.
(Google "netherlands euthanasia" to find all sorts of interesting information)
2. We have folks in influential positions, like Peter Singer (tenured bioethics professor at Princeton University) actively campaigning for such a regimen:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200503300755.asp
Quote
Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all...Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=peter%20singer&userid=dK890iFBd3&cds2Pid=9463. Our rulers use the opinions & decisions generated in these other countries to trump both our Constitution and our cultural norms:
a. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/3/82551.shtml
Quote
The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification
b. Stephen Breyerhttp://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/1F2F7DC4757FD01E85256F890068E6E0?OpenDocument
Quote
So what I'm saying is that this world that we live in is a world where I think it's out of date for people to teach about foreign law in a course called "foreign law."
c. Sandra Day O'Connorhttp://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/news.jsp?key=310&t=
Quote
I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.
Social Science = Fuzzy ScienceIt is not as if you can take some social inputs, place them in a flat, featureless plane without contact to our world, shake it up and observe the effects on the output.
We can study history and do our best to apply what we know of human nature.
A couple quick examples:
Firearms Confiscation
Gun Controls > Gun Registration > Gun Confiscation
Authoritarian Takeovers
Popular Sentiment Stirred Up > Opposition Suppressed > Liberties Curtailed > Power Centralized
So...if we look to the UK, Australia, & other countries, see what happened there and apply those lessons learned to our RKBA struggle...are we a bunch of logic-impaired slippery-slopists?
How about if we look toward Venezuela? Are those warning of a creeping leftist authoritarianism a bunch of hysterics who care nothing for the finer points of logic?
Post by: RevDisk on April 08, 2005, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: jfruser
Given the left's general position WRT the gov't (federal or otherwise) meddling in family affairs by legislation or judicial fiat, I think most adults can dismiss this newfound reverence for Federalism and familial sovereignty on the part of the left as a convenient pose, not a principled position.
Erm. I'd have to slightly disagree. Gay marriage, for instance. I didn't care as much about the "morality" of being homosexual as much I did from the civil rights viewpoint. The right wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment stricting the rights of the few to appease the many. These few are not criminals before the law, they do not have a history of violence. I'm not gay, and I have no personal interest in the matter. It just worries me when the government says "We're denying you equal rights for our benefit."Quote
To put it more succinctly, Fed.gov ought to leave most (if not all) family-law-type issue to State.gov.
We completely agree.Quote
Doubtful, especially as my beliefs WRT TS are "let the hubby yank the tube, as it is his decision to make" (see above).
Better TS starve to death than Congrees/FL Legislature undermine spousal primacy in these decisions. Better TS starve to death than the various black-robed tyrants-in-training continue to undermine the ethic biased in favor of life. Sometimes there is no good choice...just some that are less bad than others.
Hmm, indeed. Reality sucks at times. Better TS starve to death than Congrees/FL Legislature undermine spousal primacy in these decisions. Better TS starve to death than the various black-robed tyrants-in-training continue to undermine the ethic biased in favor of life. Sometimes there is no good choice...just some that are less bad than others.
Quote
I just hope that nobody was freakish enough to work out the entire HPL-universe language, that way the Star Wars wierdos did with Kilngon.
Heh, no. Mere mortals are driven mad by the language of the Dark Elder Gods, especially Cthulu. So you just make up a bunch of glibberish in the same grammatical form and preserve your sanity.Quote
GoRon had the scent when he wrote, "The godless religions of the 'humanists' seem to be the ones with most of the blood on their hands in modern history," except that I quibble with he term "modern." I would argue that the fanatic athiest body count of 100+ millions slaughtered in the 20th century makes them the winners of the "All-Time Megadeath Sweepstakes."
WRT comments like, "The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian," I suppose it would be true if you think that a third party praying loudly/obnoxiously for your salvation on the street corner is a fate worse than Johnny Mohammed sending you to your next plane of existence by way of suicide bomber or hijacked airliner.
True zealots, fanatics and fundimentalists of all religions or creed are pretty much the same to me. Anyone that says "God/G-d/Allah/Marx/Mao says you have to kill this person/people" is the same in my book. A Christian that kills Muslims in the name of God is no better than a Muslim that kills Christians in the name of Allah. I've seen both. WRT comments like, "The only thing worse than a fanantic Moslem is a fanantic Christian," I suppose it would be true if you think that a third party praying loudly/obnoxiously for your salvation on the street corner is a fate worse than Johnny Mohammed sending you to your next plane of existence by way of suicide bomber or hijacked airliner.
I've seen Muslim kids shot while swimming. Ever seen what 7.62x39mm does to the face of a 14, 15 year old girl? It was done by a Christian fanatic. I've also seen repression of minority Christians in a majority Muslim area. Two wrongs do not equal a right.
Quote
Authoritarian Takeovers
Popular Sentiment Stirred Up > Opposition Suppressed > Liberties Curtailed > Power Centralized
So...if we look to the UK, Australia, & other countries, see what happened there and apply those lessons learned to our RKBA struggle...are we a bunch of logic-impaired slippery-slopists?
How about if we look toward Venezuela? Are those warning of a creeping leftist authoritarianism a bunch of hysterics who care nothing for the finer points of logic?
Out of mere curiousity, are you making the case for all warning against authoritarianism or just left-wing authoritarianism. Because no offense, but I have a hard time understanding how very well you detailed your argument behind the slippery slope to netherland ish euthanasia yet believe that "creeping leftist authoritarianism" is the only cause of concern. Careful not to vote yourself into slavery just to spite your opposition, my friend.
Popular Sentiment Stirred Up > Opposition Suppressed > Liberties Curtailed > Power Centralized
So...if we look to the UK, Australia, & other countries, see what happened there and apply those lessons learned to our RKBA struggle...are we a bunch of logic-impaired slippery-slopists?
How about if we look toward Venezuela? Are those warning of a creeping leftist authoritarianism a bunch of hysterics who care nothing for the finer points of logic?
Post by: telewinz on April 08, 2005, 02:33:09 PM
"It happens all of the time, you just don't hear about it," said Amanda Engler,
director of communications for the Texas Hospital Association. Engler said thousands of patients are removed
from life support in Texas each year, either as a result of decisions reached by family members
and doctors or because of the patients'own advanced directives or living wills.
Its not an uncommon occurrence, said Jon Radulovic, vice president of communications for the
National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (search). Radulovic said that anecdotal evidence culled from doctors, families and other health care professionals confirms that thousands and thousands of patients are removed from life support each year.
You very much run into privacy issues, said Tom Burke, director of public affairs for the American Health Care association, a professional association for nursing homes. Burke said his group tries to track legal issues and litigation associated with right-to-die issues but must rely on anecdotal reports from facilities. When we try to talk to someone at a nursing home, the administrators are very reluctant, he said. These are private matters.
Medically, people do not die from life-support removal, they die from heart disease or cancer. Death certificates do not list "Removal from life support," or "car accident" or "drug overdose" as official causes of death. Death certificates say "heart failure" or "cardiac arrest."
When the Florida Legislature and Congress enacted emergency legislation in response to the Schiavo case
legislation in effect to save the life of a single person without knowing how many individuals and families they would be affecting, lawmakers had no way of assessing the ramifications and consequences of the legislation.
Post by: Guest on April 08, 2005, 07:54:51 PM
Quote
lawmakers had no way of assessing the ramifications and consequences of the legislation.
Of course they knew, or could have known by simply asking one single doctor or picking up a medical journal, they just didnt care.
Post by: telewinz on April 08, 2005, 09:36:30 PM
Post by: griz on April 09, 2005, 09:26:37 AM
Quote from: Tom Burke
Medically, people do not die from life-support removal, they die from heart disease or cancer. Death certificates do not list "Removal from life support," or "car accident" or "drug overdose" as official causes of death. Death certificates say "heart failure" or "cardiac arrest."
May I assume from this that doctors routinely stop food and water to patients who are not in a PVS, but consious paitents suffering from cancer or heart disease? If so, I wonder if they still claim it is a blissful pain free death?
Post by: roo_ster on April 10, 2005, 03:40:40 AM
I think we'll have to disagree. The right is not pure as the driven snow in this aspect, but is much more hands-off than the left.
RevDisk wrote:
Quote
True zealots, fanatics and fundimentalists of all religions or creed are pretty much the same to me. Anyone that says "God/G-d/Allah/Marx/Mao says you have to kill this person/people" is the same in my book. A Christian that kills Muslims in the name of God is no better than a Muslim that kills Christians in the name of Allah. I've seen both.
Agreed: fanaticism which seeks out the "other" to murder merely for being "other" is a Bad Thing.Given the above, a person/country/whatever must use common sense when allocating finite resources. The last bout of murderous, organized, international, Christian fanaticism ended in 1801, when the last victim of the Inquisition was burned at the stake. [FWIW, the number killed by the Inquisition was (by my admittedly imperfect recollection) fewer than the number killed on 11SEP2001.] It makes little sense for the West to obsess over a small number of Christian fanatics who erect a "compound" in the middle of nowhere, make failed predictions of the end of the world, and interpret the Bible as allowing their charismatic leader to marry any number of female co-fanatics.
RevDisk wrote:
Quote
Out of mere curiousity, are you making the case for all warning against authoritarianism or just left-wing authoritarianism. Because no offense, but I have a hard time understanding how very well you detailed your argument behind the slippery slope to netherland ish euthanasia yet believe that "creeping leftist authoritarianism" is the only cause of concern. Careful not to vote yourself into slavery just to spite your opposition, my friend.
Venezuela just happens to be the place in the Western Hemisphere where authoritatrianism is moving fastest and most visibly & could serve as an example most would recognize. This is not to discount any other sort of authoritarianism or any other social/political/cultural/whatever goins-on that might be worrisome. (I think that ought to cover all the bases.)