Thread by Kaslin.
Recently in a Washington Times radio interview, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was expressing his concerns regarding health care reform. He commented that the GOP’s handling of my sister Terri Schiavo is an example of what he fears, stating, “It is inserting itself into the very fabric of the decisions that you make, have to make every single day. It’ll make the Terri Schiavo case look like a walk in the park.”
I understand the point that Michael Steele was trying to make. He was using Terri as an example of what it would mean if the government was to get involved in the decisions of healthcare. However, not only was it a badly chosen comparison, but as a proclaimed pro-lifer, Mr. Steele should be ardently supportive of the actions taken by Congress—Democrats and Republicans—in their attempt to save Terri’s Life.
Perhaps Mr. Steele has fallen victim, along with so many others, to the same media spin that implies Congress was intruding on a “private” matter, rather than applauding them for stepping in to protect a disabled woman who was in the very process of being dehydrated to death.
The act by Congress granted Terri a federal and civil rights claim to be heard in federal court. In fact, these are the same rights we give to those on death row—who die far less brutal and painful deaths. If Ted Bundy or Scott Peterson had a guaranteed federal court review after their cases have been gone through the state courts, then why shouldn’t an innocent disabled woman like Terri be given that same chance?
That is what I find so ironic about Mr. Steele’s remarks and his concern regarding a government-controlled health care system. What happened to Terri is a perfect example of what he and Republicans are now trying to prevent from happening and what so many health care experts are warning us will happen if President Obama gets his way and establishes a system of health care rationing that would inevitable lead to countless premature deaths. . .
have been doing a little reading about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the head bioethicist at the NIH and brother of the president’s chief of staff. He is a supporter of health care rationing, which is relevant to the current health care debate. In a Lancet article earlier this year, he suggested that age be a proper method of allocating scarce resources, and indeed, stated that age based allocation is not invidious discrimination. . .
______________________________________________________________
The Medicare “mandatory counseling” controversy in the Obamacare debate laid bare a realistic fear that compensated counseling under Medicare could easily become subtle (or not so subtle) persuasion to refuse treatment–particularly since the primary point of the clause is to cut costs.
Here is an example of why I believe that the fear is realistic. The Center for Practical Bioethics has published a “Caring Conversations” workbook, in which intimate issues and details of life, death, and end of life options are raised. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, of course. It all depends on how it is done. . .
When she was dying my anger caused a brain aneursym. I spent 34 days in neuro intensive care. I came out of the event with a greater understanding, don’t allow anger to cloud you mental focus.
It was a miracle that I survived much less have no headaches or seizures. I realize that we have the mental focus to fight and win if we get rid of our fears.
My heart goes out to those that fought for her life, but I realize that she is in a much better place than we are and for that she is a peace. It is us that are stuck with the useless politicians that are leading so many toward destruction.