8mm
Posted on 05/27/2007 10:38:14 AM PDT by wagglebee
It's easy to look at the case of Emilio Gonzales and make assumptions from afar. Easy to make assumptions based upon what we think is transpiring and trumped by our own bias. After all, when we are safely sitting in our own homes, with our own loved ones and friends safe, it is easy to see Emilio and his family as not actually being "people" living this experience, but rather, characters in a movie or book/story scenario. Characters that we feel we are invited to love or hate and to blast, if we wish. How wrong!
I have read some very "below the belt" remarks made towards and about Emilio's Mom! Even knowing how cruel people can be, I was shocked. How and when did we get to this level of robotic insensitivity that we have seen in Emilio's case alone? But, let's not forget about Andrea Clark or Terri Schiavo. When did we decide it was simply okay to get rid of some, even if conscious and fighting to live? When did we decide that families fighting for their loved ones makes the families selfish, rather than loyal and being there as should be? I'm definitely a little lost on that one.
Choice is right and acceptable as long as choice leads to death?
Choice is wrong and unacceptable if it leads to fighting for life for self or a loved one?
So, it really isn't a matter of choice after all. We are actually with nearly both feet into "obligated death", aren't we? Tell me how that isn't so?
We are to worry more about how the nurses and doctors are affected by a patient's pain and suffering as they (the patient) fight for life, than the patient actually fighting for life? What if the patient doesn't mind the pain and suffering if it means they have a chance to live? Since it is their pain and suffering, shouldn't they -- the patient -- have a say in the matter and have their opinion be top on the list of things to consider?
People are starting to talk about money, money, money in regard to whether someone should have a chance to live or not.
What about burn patients? Doesn't that take a great deal of money to save them? But look at all the people that have been saved. Will we soon be saying that it takes too much money and resources to save and rehab them, so we just give up at the onset and let them go, rather than give them a chance to survive?
What about cancer? Will that be a death sentence, not because one can't be saved medically, but rather, because it costs too much money to do so? Besides, if someone got cancer -- they are defective, are they not?
Why waste money on anything not perfect? Let's build the perfect race that Hitler was striving for and get rid of all the defectives sucking up our resources. (Won't we be surprised if we find out we are next on the list of defective, useless creatures to be removed.)
People need to sit down and really get a grasp on what is transpiring and where we are headed, before it is too late. History books have a great deal of information on societies that destroyed self. They could be utilized for those who don't think the Bible or common sense have the credentials they can rely on.
Take a visit to the library and a look at the person you love most. Would it really feel right to you, if that person was next on the "obligated to die" list, when that very person wished to have a chance at life?
What would your assumption be then - especially if that person really might have a chance for a miracle or even just a chance to get well? Just a chance to get well... what a concept. How selfish. We must save resources, after all, and certainly can't upset our nurses and doctors who might have to care for someone wishing to fight for life. How inconsiderate would that be!?!?!?!
It is scary that so many are unaware of the dangerous path we are on.
Pro-Life Ping
Emilio Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I notice that the author here talks about "saving" burn victims, or cancer victims.
Unfortunately, this was a little baby who could not be "saved" under any circumstances. His genetic defects were so profound that his chances for survival were zero. All the doctors could do was prolong his death. In fact, the poor child died while still on a respirator, while all this wrangling was going on.
Basically all the doctors were being forced to do was keep the baby alive and suffering by artificial means, when the body was incapable of supporting itself in any way. The church does not demand that extraordinary means be used to prolong life.
We need to work on saving the folks who can survive with adequate nutrition, not prolonging death.
However, when there are laws that permit doctors and hospitals to determine that further care is “futile” we place ourselves on a very slippery slope. It effectively opens a “Pandora’s Box” that will be impossible to close in the future.
On the other hand, this was a baby whose dying was unconscionably prolonged. He suffered horribly, to the extent that he was capable of feeling pain - since his lungs were undeveloped and his nervous system had shut down. He had been blind and deaf since birth, and once the nervous system shut down he was completely brain dead. He had no reflexes at all (no respiration, no eye responses, and only the faintest response to pain.) In addition to a respirator he required horrendously painful and invasive procedures (catheters, treatment for severe constipation, collapsing lungs, etc.)
This is essentially keeping a corpse alive. Like I said, it's a bad, bad test case.
I'm afraid that cases where the parents are not facing reality (like this - where the mother claimed the baby was responding to her even though it was clear he wasn't) require intervention. A superior court judge would be a better bet than a hospital board with a financial interest in the case (then again, that didn't help much in Schiavo's case).
btt
However, the crux of Emilio’s case was that it pitted a TOTALLY UNITED FAMILY against the state.
So it may be just one person and an attorney rather than 'a united family'. Sisters, cousins, aunts, grandparents etc. don't normally have a say in these issues, only immediate family.
I'm not saying that the Texas law doesn't need revision - it does, badly. I think at the very least some judicial review is called for.
All I'm saying is that nothing in this case looks like it's a good vehicle for advocating change in the law. Quite the contrary, this case looks like an overwhelming justification for the law. You have a grieving mom insisting that she can see signs of life in a child who has essentially been brain dead since January, and a lawyer enabling her.
What do people expect after 49,000,000 babies are murdered?
.
True!
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.