Posted on 03/21/2005 4:05:17 PM PST by goldstategop
RUSH: Here's Gary in Champaign, Illinois. Gary, welcome to the program. It's nice to have you on with us.
CALLER: Thank you. Rush?
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: I'm a Republican. I voted for Bush, all that stuff like in your commercials, but I have to disagree with everybody on this one, and let me tell you why.
RUSH: All right.
CALLER: Six years ago my mother had a brain aneurysm, went through a surgery to repair it, had another operation, procedure and a few other things. Finally the neurosurgeon, the neurologist came and told us she was in a chronic or permanent vegetative state. And for nine months I convinced my five siblings to withdraw the tube feeding her and let her die naturally. We did not kill our mother, we let her die naturally. Now, I've seen film of this lady, I've seen the news reports, doctors have said she is in a chronic or permanent vegetative state. What that means is, you have very, very basic brain function. The part of your brain that makes you breathe still works, you may have some response to pain or other minor basic stimuli but they have absolutely zero cognitive function. That lady has no idea what's going on around her. She doesn't know the difference from night to day. She doesn't know who people are. She doesn't feel anything at all. The right thing for her to do is what her husband wants to do, and that is pull the plug on her and let her die a natural death.
RUSH: Okay. You've told a personal story.
CALLER: I've been there.
RUSH: Well, so have I. And I'm going to tell you a personal story.
CALLER: I do not think that I killed my mother. I let her die naturally.
RUSH: I know you don't want to think that. You let her die. You had the doctors remove the feeding tube so you didn't even do it. She died a natural death, starvation, on the basis that she couldn't feed herself, so she starved. I'm just going to go back to the first hour, and, you know, the New York Times ran a brilliant story on Sunday that starvation is painless, it's a very dignified way to go. We could rid the world of poverty by letting them all starve. They may not all be in a vegetative state, but they soon will end up in one after they don't eat or drink long enough. Just gonna let 'em die.
Let me tell you my own personal story. My grandmother, my maternal grandmother. To give you the short, down-and-dirty of this, she had a stroke and was sent to the hospital, and the doctors said, "We don't know how long she's going to live like this." She was not in a coma but she was not quite there. The doctors said, "We don't know how long she's going to live like this, but we're going to give you 48 hours, you've got to make up your mind what you want to do, pull the tube or send her to a nursing home and pay for it because we need the bed." So my mother, my father had passed away, my mother talked to my brother and I about it and she wanted to pull the tube. And I said, "Mother, you really want the burden of having killed your mother? You really want that?" Before the 48 hours had passed a decision had to be made, my grandmother had another stroke while nobody was there and passed away in the hospital. At least that was the story. I've always doubted it. Given that we were given 48 hours to move her out of there, I've often wondered. Nobody will ever know, so it's just speculation on my part. I don't know how many patients are actually killed already on the basis that they don't know what's going on, it's better for them, we need the bed, insurance isn't going to cover this, blah, blah, all these decisions.
Now, I know, Gary, that you don't want to think that you killed your mom, and this sort of thing, but the argument about this woman exists because I think your scenario of her circumstances doesn't jibe with what some family members are saying. Some family members are saying she does respond to stimuli, that she does know when her dad and mom walk in the room, this sort of thing. So I think that the way you have to understand this -- well, you, the audience, the way you, the audience, have to understand, because everybody -- well, 90% of the people on the phones waiting to talk to me disagree with me on this, and I think the culture of death is very seductive. We can tell ourselves that we're doing the best thing for the person that's going to die. And we do that to hide the fact that we don't want to be inconvenienced ourselves in some way, either financially or personally or a combination of the two or what have you. And individual case, okay, so Gary's mom died the way she did, that's not going to wreck society, a single instance, it's not going to, you know, sow the seed, fabric of destruction. However, when a culture of death overtakes a society, and we have one now, you know, we've gotten to a point where it's permissible and even heroic to abort babies.
In order to make that argument we've now started calling pregnancy a disease. Pregnancy is a disease, it's not a natural state for women say some abortion rights activists. Then on the tail end of the life spectrum we decide, "Well, this person wouldn't want to live this way." Even though they may never have said that they don't want to live this way we assume it for them because we project. We don't think we would want to live that way. "I don't want to see my family member suffer," or what have you. And I realize that each one of you that have been in this situation do not think that you have contributed anything but love and the goodness of your wishes to your family member in taking this action. But there are societal ramifications for all of these particularly as they accumulate and the cumulative effect of the culture of death is one of the things that takes us to where we are at now. And that is that we literally have divided up sides in this argument that perplex me, and they give me pause. There's an actual energized enthusiasm for this woman's death out there, and there's an actual energized enthusiasm to save her life. I can understand the energized effort and enthusiasm to save life. We're oriented toward that in so many areas of our society. Sadly, we're also oriented on the side of ending life, and there are a lot of people-- I hear all this talk, Democrats have all these accusations, Republicans have ideological attached to this. Let me tell you something, if you want to argue who's more ideologically at risk here by losing this, take a look at the left.
They've got two things they're going to lose on, if the judge here -- and he's a Clinton-appointed judge, and I have no idea what's going to happen in this case -- but if the left loses it, they lost twice. They're going to have lost because the Congress has exercised Article 3 and is exercising its authority over the judiciary. They can't stand that because that's going to send a bad signal over their filibuster of Bush judges. The second thing they're going to lose on is their base, the pro-abort, feminist base. I mean, they're as actively involved in this as -- "Well, Rush, this has nothing to do with abortion." -- no, it doesn't have anything to do with abortion. It has to do with the rights of individuals under the so-called declaration of privacy or what have you to terminate a life they'd rather not deal with. Which is what abortion is. That's all it is. I want to kill this baby, I don't want to deal with it. You come up with other excuses, "I don't want it born to poverty, oh, it's a sorry circumstances," da-da-da-da-da-da, but boil it down, that's what it is, and if they lose both of these -- and that's why they're panicked. They've got two ideological battles that they're fighting in this little battle here over Terri Schiavo, and they're afraid to lose both of them. But don't think they don't have an ideological stake here, either.
"...WITHHOLDING WATER AND FOOD FROM TERRI IS THE SAME AS WITHHOLDING FOOD AND WATER TO A BABY..."
This has got to be the best point made throughout this entire ordeal... wish the media would state this!!!!!
Great post... Thanks.
I can attest to the urging of death by hospice nurses, since my husband passed away with terminal brain cancer.
While hospice was "helping" him die, I was CONSTANTLY PRESSURED to make him wear a bracelet that said DNR!
I refused, so he wouldn't have to look at that bracelet everyday, reminding him he was on his way out.
They DIDNT WANT ME TO CALL AN AMBULANCE TO COST ANY $$$$$$
I also have a friend who was a caregiver to an elderly woman with terminal cancer who fell and broke her hip.(Extreme pain)
My friend was cussed out by hospice nurse for calling an ambulance, get it? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Their total goal (hidden agenda) is to save $$$, in spite of all the warm, mushy stories, some people just don't get it and follow their "orders" implicitly.
The government and the taxpayers will have an incentive to rid themselves of anyone who is a burden and the only people who will be safe will be those with close political connections or large personal fortunes. And as society's values change and "evolve", those with large personal fortunes might be the most vulnerable to charges of being a burden, or living a life not worth living.
He is right about this, big time right, and it crosses religious, political, economic lines. I think the energy is an energy of rationalization and justification. He's right, those who have 'let their folk go' have without doubt done so while considering inconveience and expense, it has not been done for the old folks good, it's been done for their own personal good, in many cases, IMO.
But if you point this out, people become enraged. Just like bigots and anti-semites do when you point out that you understand what motivates them.
Thank you for asking that. I have seen so many posters say, unequivocally, that Terri's cerebral cortex has been destroyed, is "liquified", etc. I haven't posted anything for over 24 hours so that I would have time to read everything I could find, on both sides, of this issue. I am a lawyer with over 15 years experience. Based on my research into the evidence that has been presented, the most you can say about this is that there is conflicting evidence and that further testing needs to be done before this can be confirmed or ruled out.
My husband and I talked a lot about this over the weekend.
I think I have come to the conclusion that I would want to be on the feeding tube if insurance covered it. I would not want my husband paying to keep me alive because I would rather him spend our money on our kids.
I've also decided that it is time to have a living will.
If she is not aware then what difference does it make if her parents continued to take care of her?
Seems to be a no-lose situation. If she is aware, she should stay alive. If she is not, then what harm does it do?
Thanks. Bless you, too.
ping
my mother also had a brain aneurysm. First they told us to prepare for her death. Then they told us she would be severely disabled. Then they talked to us like she wasn't there.
My mother made a 99% recovery.
I don't expect Terri to make a 99% recovery, or even a 25% recovery. It's been too long. But I do know that doctors sometimes don't know what the hell they are talking about. They don't know what is INSIDE someone's head.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. When he was seven, a pediatric neurologist heard him make jokes, discourse about the solar system and solar fusion, and then the good doctor told me my son was just repeating stuff by rote; no original thoughts; and when he reached fourth grade he would hit a wall and stop progressing intellectually. My son is now sixteen and he has his difficulties, but he is both brilliant and original.
The whole PVS thing is garbage. A brain-damaged person can laugh, cry, groan, flinch, focus, even utter isolated words, and it is all reflex, no awareness. There is no way the brain-damaged person with intermittant awareness and inconsistant responses could ever prove anything to these know-it-alls.
When my son was 2 weeks old, I knew something was wrong. Took the doctors two years to see it. So when Terri's parents look at her and see response, I'm going to trust them and not the doctors.
There it is, folks: the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of the matter!
Food and water are not artificial. And, keep in mind, that in ordering the tube removed, the judge also ordered that no one attempt to feed her by mouth. Not even a damp cloth to wet the tongue. That is beyond the pale.
Also many people are getting on the husband because he has another woman etc. How many of you on this site are divorced and left your wife/husband for a better one but are hammering Mike Sciavo for doing the same thing.
If the husband wanted to get on with his life, and form a family, then he has the right to make that decision. He should at that point have returned Terry Schindler to the care of her parents.
Statistically, a fair percentage of readers will be in a second or third marriage. But despite some temptation, probably few of them will have murdered their previous mate.
That is why I said appears. Your are right, I do not know that.
Beware of hospice! Do not believe the line that they are there for warm, fuzzy "palliative care." They are death mongers.
Not much else to say from my view.
If the Republicans wanted terri's feeding tube removed Rush would be for that. I guarantee you Rush does not believe 100% what he says all the time. There are politics involved in much of what he says.
And you know this because?
Quote: Food and water are not artificial.
A feeding tube IS artificial.
"They" will tell you lots of things. "You" can tell them they're crazy and go ahead doing what you know is right. People need to know this.
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.