Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Michael Hichborn of American Life League, 1-540-226-9178
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, released the following statement concerning an order by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscockon to give guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, who wants to remove Lauren's feeding tube.
Lauren is 23 years of age and, due to a heroin overdose, is now in a persistent vegetative state. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting the birth of her baby and reports indicate that she was kept alive to allow her to give birth, which she did in February of last year. Her daughter is now about to celebrate her first birthday, but Lauren may never have another birthday.
Of interest is the fact that, during the pregnancy, Lauren relied on feeding tubes and a breathing machine to keep her alive. Today Lauren has a feeding tube only. But there is a struggle going on regarding whether or not Lauren will live or die.
Lauren's case is more than a sad commentary on the plight of a family battling over what each of the opponents believes would be in her best interest. Her story is a testimony to the growing philosophy in this country that some, because of their condition, are better off dead than alive.
Like Terri Schiavo before her, Lauren is not dying nor is she in a terminal condition. She has been diagnosed as someone in a persistent vegetative state, someone who is very much alive but locked in her body and unable to express her desires to anyone. The only thing Lauren is relying on is a feeding tube without which she will starve to death. Lauren's mother, who is Laurens guardian, wants the feeding tube removed while Lauren's father is fighting to keep Lauren alive.
This family is in our prayers. We hope that, in the interest of respecting Lauren's dignity as a human being whose future improvement or lack thereof is known only to God, the court will listen carefully to those who argue in favor of Lauren's right to life. It is a tragedy beyond description when any human beings fate rests solely on the subjective opinion of others, some of whom truly believe that patients like Lauren have no quality of life and therefore are better off dead.
Yep, “vegetable,” “brain dead,” etc. I think they know better than to actually use the terms “subhuman” or “worthless eater,” but’ I have a feeling that they are thinking it.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
The only context here is what has been posted on this thread. Sorry if it grated on you that I said the exact same thing you did. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for you to snap to that.
This isn’t going to help my case, or me, one bit.
In going back and reading my post 45, and then going down stream from that, I see I was challenged to actually read the article. I did so, and saw the bit about the heroin.
That changed my mind about my otherwise assumed innocence of this woman.
I stand by what I’ve said up thread and by my conviction that she is receiving justice even as I type this.
The question here isn't really about her actions it's about what actions are appropriate for others to take in regards to her. Believing in both the sanctity of life and the Constitutional rule of law I can't find anything appropriate about starving her to death.
I would sure rather have the karma of her poorly thought out actions than the karma of the very deliberative and intentional act of killing her.
I stand by what I’ve said up thread and by my conviction that she is receiving justice even as I type this.
In post #98 you wrote:
I don't disagree that the idea that someone can 'pull the plug' is a dangerous one, and needs to be fought.
You can't even keep your story straight from day to day.
Just for everyone who is concerned about the “cost” of keeping Lauren alive, I’ve done some research.
I am sorry to report that the previous figure I had used of a few hundred dollars per day was wrong. I apologize for this. The actual cost is much LOWER. In fact, the estimate to have a feeding tube (including the nutrition/hydration, tube placement and medical care and antibiotics) is about $31,000 per year, a cost that is quite possibly well within the means of Lauren’s family. It is not unreasonable to think that the combined money her parents will spend on attorneys would, if conservatively invested, provide enough annual income to pay for Lauren’s feeding tube for the rest of her natural life.
http://www.vitalstim.com/pdf/VitalStim%20Fact%20Sheet%20(4601C).pdf
http://www.compassionandsupport.org/pdfs/research/NH_PEG_Dementia_Poster_AGS_2007.pdf
http://www.compassionandsupport.org/pdfs/research/AGS_PEG_Handout_2007.pdf
http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic798.htm
It is kind of unnerving how pro-death advocates think, especially when they are sure they can outvote God. If they are considering from my perspective, I guess they figure with their concepts of democracy God only has three votes. I also find interesting the straw man floated about cost. It must come from people who hold money higher than life, in other words liberals at heart regardless of who they say they are. From my own experience I can’t grasp even holding costs up as a factor in consideration, simply a possible obstacle to overcome.
I am glad you are bringing out these facts and arguments as sound reminders.
But that straw man is a dog-eared mantra scraped from the used mantra pile, with the same relevance as “Give peace a chance...” or “jobs, peace, justice.”
Yes, cost can be a lesser or greater obstacle to surmount, but certainly, does not play as a factor on whether one lives or dies. The argument says bundles about its own champions.
Has there been one shred of documentation that Lauren’s family or her insurance would be unable to provide for $30K per year in care without government assistance?
Again, you are looking for an excuse to kill someone and your excuse is predicated upon an assumption that is quite probably invalid.
NOBODY is being asked to pay for Lauren’s care. Again, you are creating a reason to end someone’s life based upon your erroneous assumption.
As you said before though; cost is not really the issue here. It is a problem that needs to be addressed without a doubt but it's not directly a Pro-Life issue. Yet. The more government gains control of health care budgets the more it will become a Pro-Life ethics issue.
Ahh, the popular "eff you" response. It is informative in it's own right. ; )
Since Lauren’s parents have not brought up the issue of money (and they seem to have money to spend on attorneys, etc.), we must assume that it is not a factor for them. I posted a link to pictures (some of which the judge has now ordered Mr. Richardson to remove) that show her in front of what appears to be a fairly nice home with a show-quality classic sports car.
Many upper middle class families have the means to spend $31,000 per year without any government help (though they would certainly receive a portion of it back as a medical expense on their tax return). It might mean a less extravagant lifestyle, but it can be done.
I agree with your previous bottom line. Money is not a moral or ethical issue here unless someone makes it that. You and I haven't done that. We haven't said that anyone owes them the expenses in order to preserve her life.
The issue is can someone petition the government to end her life and will the gov support that petition on the basis that her life isn't of value?
Correct.
The ONLY people who have brought up money are the ones who are in favor of killing her.
Well, I guess some people have been trained all their lives to make simple choices seem complicated. Perhaps we all have been. It’s not easy to un-train the mind from those habitual ways of seeing things. Just keep cutting to the bottom line and you will see some who will awaken to what you’re saying.
You're concerned? Pay part of it.
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.