Skip to comments.Dr. Phil Show: “Mercy Kill” People with Disabilities
Posted on 04/16/2012 4:37:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
This week on the popular Dr. Phil Show, a mother named Annette Corriveau was featured. Shes special because she wants the right to be able to kill her children.
Thats right. She is the mother of two severely disabled adult children, and she feels that the moral thing to do would be to kill them by lethal injection, to end their suffering. Her children were diagnosed with Sanfilippo syndrome, causing them to lose motor function and be institutionalized. They cannot speak, and they have to be fed through feeding tubes. Any more information on their condition wasnt made clear probably because, as Annette admitted, she visits her children only once every two months. The people who actually work with her children every day, and see them on a regular basis, and could therefore give a better idea of what their lives are like, were not interviewed for the show. We had only Annettes point of view, which is that according to her if her children could choose, they would choose suicide.
She admits that she doesnt know if they are in pain. She doesnt know if theyre deaf or blind. She doesnt know if they recognize her or not, and she doesnt know what actions and activities, if any, are comforting to them. She doesnt know if they are able to communicate in any way. She says that theyve never left the facility theyre in over the past twenty years, but she also doesnt disclose if shes done anything to try to take her children out on trips although considering that she visits them only once every two months, my guess would be no.
Yet she feels that, because she is their mother, she should be allowed to end their lives because she doesnt think their quality of life is worth living for.
Also invited on the show? Attorney Geoffrey Fleiger, who defended the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian. As we all know, Dr. Kevorkian performed assisted suicides for his patients, and the argument being made is that this is the same thing: helping people put themselves out of their own misery.
Assisted suicide arguments aside, there is a glaring difference between what Dr. Kevorkian was doing and what Annette Corriveau is advocating: these children wouldnt be committing suicide. They wouldnt be calling Dr. Kevorkian themselves. They arent consciously making that decision. It is a choice being made for them, by the person who is supposed to love and protect them. No matter how sympathetic you try to make yourself seem, this is murder, plain and simple. Taking someones life and calling it merciful does not change the fact that you are taking someones life.
The most disturbing part of all? Dr. Phil offered a weak rebuttal to her argument, but he still went on calling this an act of mercy to her children. He then polled the audience to see how many of them agreed with this mother.
Almost every single member of the audience did.
The woman crying at the end of that video was the one person speaking out for those children. She was given all of a minute, tops, to make her case for why murdering people with severe disabilities is abhorrent and wrong. And in that minute, she was able to pretty much hit the nail on the head: that you cant kill your children just because its too much work for you to keep them alive.
This isnt the first time Annette Corriveau has spoken publicly about this issue. She was featured in a documentary, Taking Mercy, along with a father who actually did kill his disabled daughter in the name of mercy. (You can watch the video here its about fifteen minutes long.)
Robert Latimer, the other parent in Taking Mercy, murdered his daughter to end her suffering by putting her in the cab of his truck and letting her die of carbon monoxide poisoning. The affliction that meant that her life was not worth living? Cerebral palsy.
These two parents want to make it legal to murder your children if, as a parent, you feel that their lives arent worth living, because they are supposedly suffering too much. And what makes a life not worth living? Apparently, having a disability.
While you cant argue that Annette Corriveaus children are severely disabled, Robert Latimers daughter was nowhere near them in terms of disability. You can see her in videos, laughing and smiling. The reason he decided to kill her? She had to have surgery to repair her hip, another surgery in a long line of them, and he felt that her life was too painful to live. He says that after she died, he knew she was at peace. And of course, so was he.
What makes these people think they have the right to decide whether their child gets to live or die? Annette Corriveau repeatedly says that you cant judge her unless youve walked in her moccasins, but that is a load of nonsense. This has nothing to do with being judgmental, and everything to do with refusing to open the door to euthanasia.
Its repeatedly said that this should be between the parent and the physician, and no one else, but it isnt the parents choice to make. You dont get to decide whether someones life is worth living or not. You dont get to decide that its better to murder people than let to let them live.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this entire argument that mercy killing should be legalized is the potential for a deadly slippery slope. If they get their way, then who gets to decide what the marker for quality of life is? Who chooses when life is worth living for someone else? What disabilities deserve a death sentence? Sure, Annette Corriveaus children are severely disabled. But what about parents who feel that their child with, say, Down syndrome has poor quality of life and doesnt deserve to live? Multiple sclerosis? Muscular dystrophy? Cerebral palsy?
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the world living with disabilities, and Im sure they wouldnt want someone deciding for them that their lives arent worth living and that as such, theyll be murdered. The fact that this issue has been brought to prominence on The Dr. Phil Show and portrayed as a legitimate issue of compassion and mercy is horrifying; even worse is that so many of his viewers apparently feel that killing someone because of a disability is A-OK.
The reality here is that no one gets to play God and decide who lives and who dies, or whose life is worthwhile and whose isnt. Just because you brought your children into the world doesnt mean that you have the right to take them out of the world, whether its done in the name of mercy or not. Because no matter how you may try to paint the picture, there is absolutely nothing merciful or compassionate about murder.
LifeNews Note: Cassy Fiano is a twenty-something Florida native now living in Jacksonville, North Carolina who writes at a number of conservative web sites. She got her start in journalism at the Florida Times-Union. She is currently pregnant with her second son, who was recently diagnosed with Down Syndrome.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Virginia Ironside on why a loving mother will put a pillow over her child’s face.
I’d like to mercy kill everyone who’s ever been on the Jerry Springer show for starters...Then move on to the other day time talk shows.
40 years ago, we were “crazy” when we said accepting abortion would lead to euthanasia.
Evidently the parent and the doctor have no idea of the Commandments!
Why is that?
“Thou shalt not kill.”
Christ’s mercy isn’t about killing — it’s about loving.
Give the audience one side of the story and you can brainwash them, just like that one.
This is how the MSM operates.
How about the ones on welfare whose lives are so poor that they can't even bring themselves to leave the house for work? /s
Dr. Phil has gone over to the dark side.
According to recent liberal commentators, one of the worst disabilities in the US today is having dark skin, being descended from slaves, uneducated and delinquent. So far, though, liberals have limited their “mercy killing” of such individuals to those not yet born.
But while liberals are strongly opposed to executing such individuals who have been incarcerated, as punishment for heinous crimes, perhaps they will be more accepting of the notion that, since they are going to be detained for the rest of their natural lives, it “just makes sense” that they be “mercy killed”.
lunatics running asylum.
Those with disabilities will be next, but guess who has the greatest disability in the eyes of the liberal immoralist? The Christian.
This guy is the epitome of scumbag, ambulance chasing, slimeball attorneys........
Here in the metro Detoit area he constantly has ads running on the local news programs.......especially during "Black History Month"........
Isn’t liberalism a mental disability?
Yet at the same time, they are quite happy with faux-Christians, those who aren’t so Bible, faith, family, morality, sexuality, and who have core values-oriented.
You know, who call themselves Christian, but also worship Ba’al (Moloch), Mammon, and whatever other gods is trendy this week.
The continuing tension is whether to honor the sanctity of life or the convenience of caregivers. This woman has essentially abandoned her child.
By contrast, I know a woman who had a profoundly retarded son, kept him at home and took care of him his entire life well into his twenties. She never faltered, never complained.
The only thing she ever asked of others was that they collect store coupons for adult diapers so she could save a little money. Her faith was her rock. She was not intellectually sophisticated, would not have even comprehended this article.
All she knew was she loved her son and that was enough. I'd like to think some day that I was as good a person as this simple sweet woman. I doubt I'll make it though.
A friend of mine is a major league immunology researcher at a major university. She has been blind from birth (5% vision in her right eye, nothing in the left eye), and her mother had the gall to tell her that if it was Germany in the 1930’s, she would take her to one of the special hospitals to be “taken care of” (”euthanised”). So this person who was written off winds up getting her PhD in microbiology, some of her research papers before she got her PhD cited internationally, and is now on the research faculty (some interesting papers on the workings and vulnerabilities of cancer cells in peer review).
Needless to say, my friend is very much pro life. She asks the question “Who have we thrown away?” Einstein. Beethoven. Steven Hawking.
She is also one heck of a speed skater.
One doesn't have to wonder how the nazis committed their crimes in public. A bit of propaganda is all it takes to sway the dolts in this audience. They can't think for themselves. They're waiting for a dictator to tell them what to think.
"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."
Where’s the link?
They will get this “right” to kill the severely handicapped and progress on to the old and simply unwanted. It’s the natural progression of “logic” uninformed by a soul. Humanism has no ethical and moral limits. A humanist state with centralized power is a killing machine.
It looks like I forgot the post the link, I just alerted the mods.
People generally approve of the abortion of Down’s Syndrome infants, so they’ve already accepted the premise that handicapped children are better off dead.
This is the logical conclusion.
There is a poll on Dr. Phil’s website.
You can FReep the poll here:
And I say that we should start with anyone who watches the Dr. Phil Show ...
Whats the difference between the Democrat Party and the National Socialist German Workers' Party?
What makes these people think they have the right to decide whether their child gets to live or die?
Roe v Wade of course./ sarc
Not him or Oprah though. Hands off the elite.
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.