Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teacher Makes Students Decide Who Lives, Who Dies
Fox News ^ | October 10, 2013 | Todd Starnes

Posted on 10/10/2013 9:15:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

A classroom of 14 and 15-year-old Illinois high school students was assigned the task of deciding the fate of ten fictional characters in an exercise that critics called a lesson in death panels.

The assignment was part of a sociology unit for freshmen and sophomore students at St. Joseph-Ogden High School in St. Joseph, just east of Champaign. The story was first reported by Champion News.

The lesson involves 10 people who are in desperate need of kidney dialysis.

“Unless they receive this procedure, they will die,” the lesson states.

But there’s a problem. The local hospital only has enough machines to support six patients.

“That means four people are not going to live,” the assignment states. “You must decide from the information below which six will survive.”(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: chicago; deathpanel; deathpanels; democrat; democrats; healthcare; homeschoolingisgood; illinois; obamacare; publicschool; publicschools; teachersunion; thirdwave
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
She was right, again.
1 posted on 10/10/2013 9:15:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

These used to be called “Values clarification exercises” They have been around a long time in various forms.

15 people in a life boat and only enough food for 10 who gets pushed out?

The Earth is uninhabitable because of some natural disaster and you have a rocket that will take 25 of 60 people to a new planet, who gets to go and who dies?

Same old same old.

I did the last one as an undergraduate in a Sociology class and my group decided that nobody would go because we, as a group refused to put a hierarchical value on people’s lives. This upset the instructor somewhat. I guess he didn’t like how clear our values were.


2 posted on 10/10/2013 9:24:25 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sounds like a brilliant assignment.
3 posted on 10/10/2013 9:24:50 PM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The lesson involves 10 people who are in desperate need of kidney dialysis.

This teacher does realize that you only need to be hooked up to a dialysis machine every couple of days for a few hours? There is no need for anyone to die.

(I love doing this to teachers who don't know of what they babble)

But ignoring the absurdity of the scenario let us go on.

The local hospital only has enough machines to support six patients.

So why are you not getting on the horn to other hospitals trying to find space for them there?

Oh, that's right Obamacare shut down all the other hospitals.

4 posted on 10/10/2013 9:26:21 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Here you go. Pick ten:


5 posted on 10/10/2013 9:28:04 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The teacher should have been listed as one of the patients. Maybe the oldest and sickest?


6 posted on 10/10/2013 9:28:12 PM PDT by Exit148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Prepping for a new college class: Death Panels 101
7 posted on 10/10/2013 9:29:17 PM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
But there’s a problem. The local hospital only has enough machines to support six patients. “That means four people are not going to live,” the assignment states.

Right. How about locating four more machines? Or donating a kidney. False predicament. Seems more like conditioning for accepting a bureaucratic status quo (quota).

8 posted on 10/10/2013 9:30:05 PM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I remember a lesson plan like this in high school 30 years ago. This is nothing new.


9 posted on 10/10/2013 9:31:01 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

US schools have become just stupid factories. Clearing houses for socialist pap. If they have enough time to process this garbage they have enough to solve an equation or design a truss.


10 posted on 10/10/2013 9:31:11 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I remember when I came home one day from high school and told my mother that I wanted to join a club that was going to stop drug abuse. I explained to her that as part of joining the club that we were given the premise that so many people were on a lifeboat after a ship had gone down and we had begun to starve. The exercise asked us to determine which person on the lifeboat would be forced to die so that the others could live, since there was limited resources. Persons on the lifeboat included a newborn baby to a priest. When I told my mother about the exercise, she was LIVID! I couldn’t understand her reaction, but now I know that situational ethics is not a good policy to follow... no matter what the situation.


11 posted on 10/10/2013 9:31:18 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I remember when I came home one day from high school and told my mother that I wanted to join a club that was going to stop drug abuse. I explained to her that as part of joining the club that we were given the premise that so many people were on a lifeboat after a ship had gone down and we had begun to starve. The exercise asked us to determine which person on the lifeboat would be forced to die so that the others could live, since there was limited resources. Persons on the lifeboat included a newborn baby to a priest. When I told my mother about the exercise, she was LIVID! I couldn’t understand her reaction, but now I know that situational ethics is not a good policy to follow... no matter what the situation.


12 posted on 10/10/2013 9:31:18 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

The only one I’d save in that picture is George Washington.


13 posted on 10/10/2013 9:32:47 PM PDT by Gasshog (Welcome to the United States of Stupidos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

They have also hooked people up to Chimps instead of a dialysis is machine. I remember reading about that in the Fort Worth Star telegram years ago. It was an emergency procedure because of some malfunction or something but it did evidently keep the person alive long enough to fix the machine.

If this is an Urban Legend then forgive me. I read it in the paper so that probably means it isn’t true


14 posted on 10/10/2013 9:33:49 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Exit148
The teacher should have been listed as one of the patients. Maybe the oldest and sickest?

Lol. Or maybe just the meanest.

15 posted on 10/10/2013 9:34:30 PM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So now even the critics are acknowledging that death panels exist...


16 posted on 10/10/2013 9:35:22 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reddy

Good morning, class
Good morning, Mrs. Aryan
Today we’re going to play a game
Yeah

This game is called lifeboat, all together
Lifeboat
Good, lifeboat is a lesson in values clarification
Can you say values clarification?
No

Values clarification is where your little minds decide
Which lives are worth living and which lives are worth, not living
Now here’s how we play

A big ship just sank
There are five people on the lifeboat
But the lifeboat is only made for two

I’ll list the five people on the chalkboard
And you, class, will decide
Which three will be thrown overboard, are we ready?
Yes, Mrs. Aryan

Good, first, there’s an old, old crippled grandfather
Second, there’s a mentally handicapped person in a wheelchair
What’s mentally handicapped?
It means they can never be a productive members of society

Third, there’s an overweight woman on welfare
With a sniffling, whimpering baby
Is the baby on welfare, too?

Let’s not push Mrs. Aryan
Who else is in the boat?
A young, white doctor with blue eyes and perfect teeth and Joan Collins
Now, class, take five minutes to make your decision
Times up, well, class

Throw over grandpa ‘cause he’s getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we’ll all be catching it’s cold
Throw over fatty and we’ll see if she can float
Throw out the retard and they won’t be rockin’ the boat

Very good, that was fun, wasn’t it?
Yes, Mrs. Aryan
For our next lesson, we’re going to do an experiment
Yeah

We’re going to test the law of gravity, just like Galileo
By dropping two objects out the window
One heavy and one light
To test which one hits the sidewalk first

Now what shall we use for the lighter object?
I’m thinking of something small and square
An eraser?
Good, and what shall we use for the heavy object?
I’m thinking of something round and bouncy

Tommy, I haven’t given you permission to leave your seat
Class, class the bell has not rung
What are you, class, put me down, class, put me down this instant
What, what are you.....

Throw over teacher and we’ll see if she can bounce
We’ve learned our lesson, teacher says perfection’s what counts
She’s getting old and gray and wears an ugly coat
Throw over teacher and we’ll play another game of lifeboat

Throw over grandpa ‘cause he’s getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we’ll all be catching it’s cold
Throw over fatty and we’ll see if she can float
Throw out the retard and they won’t be rockin’ the boat, yeah
-Steve Taylor


17 posted on 10/10/2013 9:36:55 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gasshog

I would love to see the ghost of Abraham Lincoln kick Obama in the @$$.


18 posted on 10/10/2013 9:37:17 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Of course she was and still is


19 posted on 10/10/2013 9:39:31 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
I never heard about the chimps. I will look it up.

I do know that there are home hemodialysis machines that are portable. So just put out a call to your local medical equipment store to see if they have machines you can use.

Or see if anyone who has one will bring it in for you to use long enough to keep everyone alive.

20 posted on 10/10/2013 9:48:36 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

If you had thirty years to think about it how would you answer?


21 posted on 10/10/2013 9:50:46 PM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Making good little Marxist Nazis.

Pray America is Waking Up


22 posted on 10/10/2013 9:53:13 PM PDT by bray (Coming Jan 2014: The Republic of Texas 2022)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Inure them to the life-death
decisions Gubmint will make
for them due to Gubmint
control.


23 posted on 10/10/2013 9:53:38 PM PDT by WKTimpco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

Another variation is the “drowning man” exercise.

Would you try to save a drowning man if you had the skill and equipment to do so?
Would you try to save two drowning men? If so, who would you save first? Why him?
If there were a hundred drowning men, what would you do?

How a person answers these can be very revealing of that that person’s morals, honesty and logic.


24 posted on 10/10/2013 9:54:57 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
These used to be called “Values clarification exercises” They have been around a long time in various forms.

We called it situational ethics, but you are right, it has been around a long time.

25 posted on 10/10/2013 9:55:50 PM PDT by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Veteran, 70-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If this question was given without a political sociological context it is valid provided it was not given in an attempt to steer the students in a predeterimed politically sociological desired answer.

On the field of battle commanders face the same questions and decisions that they know without any doubt will spare the lives of some and sacrifice the lives of others.

I think this was a good exercise in critical thinking if done without a political sociological motive.

Life is a bitch and then you die, but with some wonderful and joyous interludes before the final fate.


26 posted on 10/10/2013 9:56:44 PM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

I was going to say the same thing.


27 posted on 10/10/2013 9:57:56 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We did this years (40) ago in high school with the lifeboat. Yes, it sounds extreme, especially with the health care nonsense, but some should consider it a learning experience and not take everything so darn seriously. Starting to sound like the libs and their PC.


28 posted on 10/10/2013 9:59:45 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

A Train full of Kidney Dialysis Machines leaves Grand Central Station in New York at 12:00 Noon. It travels an average 50 MPH on it’s way to Washington D.C.

Meanwhile, an Amtrak Train with Joe Biden filling in for the Engineer, is heading out of D.C. After ramming a School Bus full of Obama Union Thugs, it continues on with Joe asleep at the wheel on it’s way to New York.

Ti solve the equation, compute the moment in time when Obama Tees off the 18th Hole at Andrews. Show your work.


29 posted on 10/10/2013 10:02:46 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Due to the Federal Government Shutdown, the Tagline is closed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The teacher dies!


30 posted on 10/10/2013 10:15:33 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

There is a time and place for situational ethics. For example:
Q: Should people obey traffic laws like speed limits?
A; Yes

Q: Suppose your father suffered a heart attack late at night and you were taking him to the hospital at 3:00 AM and there was no traffic on the road. Would you still drive the speed limit and come to a complete stop at a 4 way stop if there was no other traffic?

That is a situational ethic. It is useful because it lets you know the intent and limits of the law in regulating moral behavior. If done right there is nothing wrong with thinking through that type of situation.

The problem with these exercises is that they are encouraging you to objectify humans by usefulness. They are not focused on personal choices but upon forcing those choices upon others. They always seem to fall back on some sort of Social Darwinism to derive an answer.


31 posted on 10/10/2013 10:23:17 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

I’m definitely with you on this one.

What are we, liberals who think there are no tough choices in life? That as a society we can provide a very comfortable lifestyle to all even if half the population decides not to be productive?

Many years ago I took an emergency childbirth course in which the instructor described a not terribly uncommon situation faced by remote midwives.

The mother of twins is in labor. The babies are locked into a position where neither can be born. It isn’t possible to get them to a hospital or get a doctor to them to perform a C-section.

There are two and only two alternatives. One of the babies must be sacrificed to (maybe) save the life of the mother and the other baby. The sacrifice is of a particularly gruesome nature.

So the midwife can pat herself on the back, like most of the posters on this thread, and refuse to make a choice, and three lives WILL be lost in extended agony.

Or she can make a terrible choice and have a chance of saving two.

What reasonable and ethical person would opt for Option A?


32 posted on 10/10/2013 10:29:39 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Dr. Obama has one question. Which patients contributed to Democrats and which ones are “teabaggers”?


33 posted on 10/10/2013 10:46:35 PM PDT by Rainier1789 (My Constitution has a 2nd and 10th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Wow-—evil diabolical people....all should be in prison or on the electric chair.


34 posted on 10/10/2013 11:31:16 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madison10

The people who were warning about this 40 years ago (I listened to them) appear to be vindicated as their vision of a darker more socialistic world being promoted by the game seems upon us now.


35 posted on 10/10/2013 11:47:13 PM PDT by Nextrush (BALANCED BUDGET NOW, PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN,CHANGE I BELIEVE IN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Wow, frightening to see them all in one picture. Like a horror movie.


36 posted on 10/10/2013 11:55:35 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Interesting socialist dogma...This is being used in the “Common Core” agenda in Arkansas to third graders. After researching it last week after my 8 year old son came home from school troubled by such an exercise I came across the following article from Catholicculture.org:

Values Clarification Destroys Conscience

by Lisa Marie Contini

A systematic examination of values clarification techniques and their negative impact on moral formation and the development of conscience.
Larger Work:
Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Pages: 20-29
Publisher & Date:
Ignatius Press, 2515 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94118, November 2000

Despite the passage of twenty-some years and the enormous void of forgotten moments, memory has mysteriously preserved a seemingly odd high school lesson in what I thought was critical thinking. My English teacher distributed a single mimeographed page to each student. The heading briefly explained a challenging scenario. It went something like this:

One hour ago, Flight 13, miles off course, crashed in an extremely remote, completely unpopulated area. The aircraft’s emergency locator transmitter was destroyed. There are 17 survivors and it is highly unlikely that they will be discovered for at least several weeks. There is only enough food and liquids available for nine people for three weeks. Their location is a wasteland: no vegetation, no wild game, no lakes or streams. The survivors are solely dependent on the food stores in the wreckage. You are one of the survivors. You are to determine which nine people should be allowed to eat. The group has agreed to abide by your decision.

Underneath this paragraph and along the left margin was a list describing the remaining 16 survivors in brief. There was a 91-year-old woman, a three-year-old child and her mother, a basketball player, a 49-year-old priest with arthritic knees, a medical student and his kleptomaniac wife (inseparable), a prostitute, a scientist, a fashion model, a young lawyer on anti-depressants, a Hollywood starlet, a homosexual, and so on. Given about ten minutes to work individually, my classmates and I were to determine which eight unfortunate souls would have to starve to death. My teacher made it very clear that there were no right or wrong answers; the exercise was to make us think, or so I thought.

Moments later, a heated but cordial debate ensued. Who would live and who would die? Which lives were the most valuable? Which survivors could most contribute to the ongoing survival of the nine? Who were expendable? Some of the questions were extremely thought provoking. Would eight able-bodied people sentenced to starve to death passively endure their fate or would they have to be restrained? What would be done with their corpses? If rescue required more than three weeks, would the nine chosen to live consume the flesh of their deceased fellow travelers?

Yet no one asked the most pertinent question of all: Isn’t it morally wrong to force eight people to starve to death?

Years later I realized that the plane crash exercise was not about critical thinking. Rather, it was a typical values clarification classroom strategy. The lesson was designed to indoctrinate students with a very specific message: that some people have a fundamental right to choose life or death for others. Simply by participating in the exercise until its conclusion, students affirm the lesson’s personal choice agenda, and submit unsuspectingly to morally dangerous indoctrination.

What Is Values Clarification?

Values clarification teaches that behavior should be the result of free, uninfluenced, autonomous choice, based on personal analysis of a given situation coupled with the moment’s emotions and desires. The fundamentals of modern classroom values clarification techniques are based on the ideologies of Vermont born John Dewey (1859-1952), the philosopher and author credited to have written The Humanist Manifesto I, creed of the secular humanists. Dewey was convinced that education should be experienced-based rather than academic-based, and he advocated an approach in which “the child himself should pick and choose what he wanted to study.” He was convinced that education “must guide the child, so that through his participation in different types of experience, his creativity and autonomy will be cultivated rather than stifled.”1

Rather than adhere to established moral codes, Dewey encouraged a process of deliberation called “valuation” in which a given situation is appraised and various options or solutions explored2 Dewey’s valuation conflicts with the Church’s teaching of developing and responding to a well formed conscience. Dewey’s principles were further pioneered by Louis E. Raths who wrote extensively about meeting the emotional needs of children through education and about valuation.3

Application of valuation in the classroom was facilitated in the early 1970s by books written for schoolteachers, which clearly outlined the valuing process, and conveniently introduced dozens of different classroom designs.

The social climate in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s welcomed educational reform that promoted autonomy. This was the age of the flower children, “do your own thing,” and “free love.” Feminists were rapidly gaining recognition, homosexuals were coming out of the closet, women were experiencing reproductive freedom with the Pill. Abortion was available, though illegally. If values clarification could find its way into my small high school in a northern Illinois farming community, surely it could be found in classrooms throughout the country. And besides, teachers liked values clarification. Finally they could employ completely legitimate classroom exercises in which there were no right or wrong answers, no papers to grade, no tests to score, and which required very little preparation.

Values clarification is the so-called value-free teaching that is employed to some extent in virtually all schools today though the term values clarification is unfamiliar to some teachers. The ideology dismisses the possibility of absolute moral truths and asserts instead that people are free to make their own rules, to personally fashion their own unique code of morality, to choose whatever behavior pleases them most at a given time with little, if any, consideration of the common good.

“Value orientations from the past appear to be in a state of disintegration or collapse. Men question whether there are, or can be, any universal values.”4

Values clarification teaches that behavior is not morally good or evil, rather “wise or foolish actions that can vary according to time, place, and circumstance.”5 Since it denies the reality of good and evil values clarification by its nature, cannot contribute to the development of Christian conscience. “Moral conscience ... judges particular choices, approving of those that are good and denouncing those that are evil” (CCC, #1777). According to values clarification, a choice is good, healthy, or wise if its outcome is pleasing to the individual. A choice is bad, unhealthy, or unwise if it results in unfavorable consequences.

Values Clarification Turns A Deaf Ear To Sin

It should be noted that since values clarification intentionally denies morality, it also rejects the concept of personal sin. While values clarification encourages individuals to change or adjust their choices and behavior if not fulfilling or satisfying, it never so much as suggests repentance. Because of fear of consequences, some youth subjected to values clarification may be motivated to modify their behavior at least for a time, yet they are not told to acknowledge wrong-doing, to repent, or to confess their sins to a priest. This aspect of values clarification should strike all Catholics as repugnant because there is absolutely no concern for the souls of children, no regard for their prospect of Eternal Life.

This characteristic of values clarification is strikingly obvious in modern chastity/abstinence materials and in Catholic human sexuality programs that attempt to inculcate an appreciation for “waiting for marriage” by cultivating fear of earthly consequences: pregnancy, disease, and heartbreak. They mention only briefly (if at all) that premarital sex is sinful and they do not urge sinners to repent. Hence, the dilemma posed to youth by their teachers is no longer a question of morality. Rather, it is a health issue. “We can’t condone behavior that’s harmful.”6 By addressing disease and pregnancy as unhealthy outcomes of a potentially unwise choice, modern chastity/abstinence materials and Catholic human sexuality programs imply that if these consequences can be avoided or if repercussions seem insignificant to individual students, that choosing sex before marriage can still be a good choice.

Some classroom presentations attempt to combine a degree of moralizing, along with the values clarification; however, it cannot be said that this technique is sufficient to preserve or develop conscience.

Christians should note that Jesus never used values clarification. Jesus taught by moralizing. He clearly defined right, wrong and sin. Jesus described the Kingdom of God with clever analogies; creative parables containing references people could relate to. While his stories sometimes were confusing they never contained mixed messages that might put the listener in the occasion of sin. Jesus’ goal, while developing well-formed consciences in his followers, was to spawn love for God and to generate understanding for the necessity of total obedience to God.

Values clarification, on the other hand, works to slowly erode a child’s well-formed conscience and Christian values in favor of personal choice. “A person’s values are simply the personal standards or criteria he uses in decision making, and for that reason should not be dictated by another individual” (italics added).7 Values clarification teaches children to shun traditional morality and family rules. It is no wonder that even small children upon returning home from school are boldly telling their parents that they will run their own lives.

Vatican Condemns Values Clarification

In her infinite wisdom the Church teaches that it is God’s plan for parents to educate their children; that parents have a God-given right and responsibility as the primary educators of the young to inculcate in their offspring a sound understanding of their Catholic faith, a well-formed conscience, and traditional Christian morality (See Code of Canon Law 226.2, 774.2, 798). In short, parents are to teach their young how to live in a fashion that is pleasing to God, so they can get to heaven.

Values clarification counteracts the essential education that children are to receive in the home. Consistent with her role to guide the faithful and protect them from error, the Church has officially condemned values clarification in the 1995 document issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family (TMHS). This unequivocal warning should suffice to compel parents and educators to reject any educational materials that embrace values clarification:

Young people are encouraged to reflect upon, to clarify and to decide upon moral issues with the greatest degree of ‘autonomy’, ignoring the reality of the moral law in general and disregarding the formation of consciences on the specific Christian moral precepts, as affirmed by the Magisterium of the Church. Young people are given the idea that a moral code is something, which they create for themselves, as if man were the source and norm of morality.

“However, the values clarification method impedes the true freedom and autonomy of young people at an insecure stage of their development. In practice, not only is the opinion of the majority favoured, but complex moral situations are put before young people, far removed from the normal moral choices they face each day, in which good or evil are easily recognizable. This unacceptable method tends to be closely linked with moral relativism, and thus encourages indifference to moral law and permissiveness (italics added).”8

Free Will Vs. Free Choice

Youth subjected to values clarification in Catholic classrooms are frequently given the false impression that God’s gift of free will is the same thing as the social engineers’ gift of freedom of choice. This lie damages a child’s ability to develop a well-formed conscience. When God gave free will to Adam and Eve, he also made them responsible to obey him by revealing his divine law: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Gen. 2:16). Even today, our Father in Heaven blesses all his children with the gift of free will accompanied by the responsibility to obey him; responsibility revealed through the Ten Commandments, Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Unlike free choice, free will is never autonomous. Rather it is always interwoven with the responsibility to choose what pleases God, and, when used with a well-formed conscience, weaves the moral fibers of virtue to cloak and shield each child on his course to Eternal Life.

In grave contrast, freedom of choice gives students supreme authority over their decisions through assessment of worldly information while ignoring (or paying lip service to) moral absolutes. “I want to give you all the knowledge I have so that you can make an informed choice — because it’s going to be your decision.”9 Children are prompted to make decisions primarily based on information (and feelings); not based on moral law, on parental dictates, or on conscience. In fact, when children learn to fashion their own unique code of morality, conscience is destroyed.

Choice-jargon is an obvious characteristic of values clarification materials and should serve as a red flag to any parents, teachers or clergy examining Catholic or secular materials for possible classroom use. Social movements are frequently fueled by deceptive euphemisms — metaphoric newspeak — that obscure truth with the explicit intent of controlling public opinion and behavior. Look out for choice-speak! It will consistently disregard sin and skirt right and wrong. Introduced to even very young children, modern choice-speak serves to misdirect conscience and moral formation. In one Catholic text, for example, even the heinous abduction of Joseph by his eleven jealous brothers is described as a “bad choice” rather than as a seriously evil sin.10

The Teacher As Facilitator

In academic learning the teacher presents objective facts (times tables, phonics rules, proper spelling). There are specific right and wrong answers. In values clarification exercises, the instructor is no longer a teacher as the word is traditionally understood, but rather a facilitator who confronts students with dilemmas to resolve. The teacher is not supposed to indoctrinate students with any type of “prepackaged formulas and conclusions,” such as Christian morals truths or the teachings of the Magisterium, but rather is to “get the student to analyze, verbalize, and reflect upon the problems he faces” and to “motivate the young person to formulate a rationale for his behavior, one that will be meaningful to him.”11

Despite what the teacher is or is not supposed to do in a typical values clarification exercise, he obviously has a degree of control on the direction of the lesson. When a class is brainstorming, the teacher can introduce one-sided points causing a particular opinion to seem very appealing or very harsh. In my pre-Roe vs. Wade high school sophomore sex ed class, for instance, the teacher showed propaganda films about women being butchered during back ally abortions, yet she said nothing about the painful plight of the murdered babies. Despite the so-called value-free instruction, the goal of the films was to evoke enough compassion for the women to justify the crime of abortion. By listing only selected consequences or benefits of a specific behavior (certainly not the whole picture), the teacher can bend tender minds in any direction he desires.

Small group discussions are another typical values clarification approach to mold students’ beliefs. Small groups are typically assigned to appoint a spokesman and, after sharing, to report a single common conclusion with the class. Since the group is limited to report a solitary consensus, obviously some participants must acquiesce when differences arise in the group. In fact, some students are never able to express freely their position within the group because the opinions of more articulate students dominate.

It is impossible for an individual to hide in a small group. The group will be prompting him to participate. ... What he says becomes public knowledge and open to criticism. Although values clarification programs warn against being judgmental, human nature being what it is.... The student who has exposed himself to the others in the class must then, somehow, protect himself against the reactions of the others. The only way to do this is to go along with the group, that is, by going along with the feelings and beliefs discussed in the peer group. As long as he goes along with the group, the group will not chastise him for being different.12

Clearly, values clarification does not make students autonomous, rather it subjects them to greater peer pressure.

The Values Clarification Process

The valuing process focuses “on how people come to hold certain beliefs and establish certain behavior patterns” (italics added).13 While values clarification is most frequently utilized in secular and Catholic sex education programs, in the so-called chastity/abstinence materials, and in say “NO” to drugs programs, it is easily integrated into any part of the curriculum. Within a curriculum the entire seven-step valuing process can be used. In short presentations, in videos, or brochures, for example, only several of the steps may be employed. Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers and Students describes the seven sub-processes as follows:14

1. “Prizing and Cherishing.”

“Students must become aware of the beliefs and behaviors they prize.”15

Children learn to establish values through exercises in which they rank or compare items or opinions based on personal preference. To accustom students to reveal themselves, exercises generally begin with topics that are benign, such as arranging short lists of foods, sporting events, or vacations spots in order of preference. Ice breakers, typically used in (adult and student) retreats, in which participants must exchange benign personal information (who else wears glasses?, etc.) are a values clarification vehicle meant to accustom individuals to reveal themselves.

Once students are comfortable sharing their personal position, a barrage of moral dilemmas may be hurled at them, asking them if they agree strongly, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree strongly, and to forth. As the exercises progress, the points become more controversial and more personal: Should children have the right not to accompany their parents to church? Should homework be abolished? Should teens be free to engage in sex before marriage? Is euthanasia a good idea? Students whose ideas differ from the majority are subject to awkward public scrutiny and ultimately may be pressured to abandon their convictions and to join the crowd instead.

By sharing their personal views in the class, students divulge private information that classmates naturally will compare with their own lives. Johnny gets more allowance than Patty. Margaret’s parents take her to Disney Land every year, but Alice doesn’t get to go anywhere. When children sense that a peer has a more advantageous home life, they can become jealous of each other and covetous of possessions and privileges. In this respect, values clarification breeds discontent in students, discontent that they will bring home to their parents!

2. “Publicly Affirming.”

Students are compelled to state their positions, either in class discussions, in written exercises, or in personal journals.

Unfinished sentences and personal questions are popular values clarification strategies that help “the student reveal and explore some of his attitudes, beliefs, actions, convictions, interests, aspirations, likes, dislikes, goals and purposes.”16 While some unfinished sentences may be harmless, others can trouble students, act as temptation, and rouse discontent within families: “If I had a gun I would... People can hurt my feeling most by ... People who expect a lot from me make me feel.... If I saw someone shoplifting in a store, I would...” One Catholic text even asks fifth graders, “In what way is your sexuality a gift from God?”17 How can a ten or eleven-year-old child be expected to answer this question? How will peers respond to answers? How will the day’s class discussion embarrass and trouble students?

It is important to remember that values clarification encourages students to choose their behavior based in part on their feelings. The way a child feels about something is more important than actual realities. Calling attention to feelings when teaching the Catholic faith can have grave repercussions. One Catholic sex education program asks first graders, “to think of times when they felt especially close to God” (italics added).18 What about the child that never sensed feeling close to God? It is very possible that this approach can convince a child that God does not love him.

3. “Choosing From Alternatives.”

It is up to the teacher to provide information regarding the dilemma. This portion of the valuing process is frequently introduced as decision-making skills.

This is the area in which educators find justification in bombarding the students with all sorts of information, not necessarily good information, but lots and lots of it. Knowledge alone, is somehow supposed to magically help the students to make the right decisions... Drug education, for example, gives the children all sorts of information about various types of drugs. In the program one can find Coca-Cola and chocolate lumped together with cocaine in the same ‘stimulant’ category. Tobacco, because more is known about the ill effects of smoking, comes off looking far more harmful than marijuana or any other drug for that matter. Therefore, when decisions were to be made based on knowledge gained in the classroom, the students were less apprehensive about giving the illegal drugs a try, because after the long list of health hazards associated with smoking, other drugs seemed almost innocuous by comparison.”19

Sex education materials, including the so-called chastity and abstinence materials and Catholic human sexuality programs operate on the same premise: knowledge will lead children to sound decisions. Proponents ignore the influence of human weakness and concupiscence in decision-making. Sex information, whether hard-core pornography or clinical Planned Parenthood style reproductive biology, has an emotional impact on people. It can confuse, preoccupy and tempt those subjected to it. Geometry information, in contrast, tends not to make people think about sex, does not offend modesty, and will not rob a child of his innocence. Educators fail miserably in their task to enrich children and to prepare them for productive adulthood when they teach sex information. Specifically for these reasons, the Church has always forbidden classroom sex education.20

4. “Choosing After Consideration Of Consequences.”

After all the information has been explored, including the opinions of classmates, students are to reflect, and finally, to choose their own positions. They are supposed to base their choice primarily on the information they received in class (and on their feelings), rather than upon moral absolutes they learned at home or in church. Considering this process, it is easy to see how values clarification destroys conscience.

In Catholic or secular classroom sex education and in chastity/abstinence presentations, students are overrun with information about consequences: pregnancy, disease, heartbreak. According to the modern theory regarding decision-making skills, students will use the information to develop fear of the consequences, and will respond by “waiting for marriage.” But is this aspiration realistic? Using the same values clarification technique in a real life situation when consequences seem avoidable or unimportant, or when the risk seems worth it, a teen can just as easily justify choosing sexual immorality. In the classroom the teacher relies on teens’ emotions (fear) to steer them to the right choice. In the back seat of a car different emotions dominate, and the same values clarification decision-making skills easily facilitate serious sin.

Many Catholic and secular chastity/abstinence materials try to scare teens into purity by depicting teen parenthood as a horror. A teen mother, according to them, loses everything: her friends, her social life, her prospect for higher education and career. She is imposing hardship on her parents, on her own body, perhaps on the father of the child, and of course on the baby. This dialog is supposed to keep girls chaste, but how can it? All this stance can possibly do is lead teen girls to using artificial birth control and subsequently to abortion mills should preventive measures fail.

Marriage will not change the care required by a baby. A married woman will have to sacrifice just as much for her baby—time with friends, her opportunity to pursue education and career—as a single mother. While they perhaps do not realize it, many of today’s chastity/abstinence educators are depicting babies as fundamental evils. These educators are cultivating fear of pregnancy, fear of babies, and fear of parenthood in today’s youth. They are encouraging teens to look forward to childless marriages.

Today’s young people do not live in a vacuum. They know plenty about how pregnancy occurs, about birth control (after all, most of their parents use it), about AIDS and disease, and about heartbreak, long before they hear it in the classroom. If by now, real life has not succeeded to generate enough fear to keep kids from illicit behavior, classroom presentations will not do any better. Rather, all the details about venereal warts and HIV can easily serve to desensitize youth. By overemphasizing consequences, educators make their presupposition—that adolescents will succumb to premarital sex—very clear.

5. “Choosing Freely.”

Feeling good about choices is essential to the values clarification process. The worst imaginable scenario in a classroom values clarification exercise would be for one student to accuse another of moral transgression. This is one reason why classroom sex education and self-esteem programs insist on teaching universal respect for people who are different.

Teachers can cultivate mutual respect among students while avoiding confrontations in class by promoting non-judgmental, empathetic, effective listening skills. Conditioned to remain calm, kind, and accepting no matter what comes up in class, students patiently hear out opposing viewpoints. Youth are discouraged from stating their convictions or from leaving a conversation should it prove to be an occasion of sin or offensive to modesty. Rather, students should suspend their “own value judgments so as to understand the speaker’s thoughts and feelings as he himself experiences them.”21 Students then consider the new information in light of their existing beliefs, and decide if their values should be adjusted. In this way, a motivated speaker can oftentimes easily influence youth to embrace immoral concepts.

Unfortunately these lessons about respect and listening are not balanced with Ten Commandments. Children are not warned that some people can hurt them or lead them to sin. No mention is made of avoiding these people. In reality these lessons encourage children to interact with pedophiles, drug pushers, and gang members, just as they would with virtuous people.

6. “Acting.”

Students are prompted to demonstrate their beliefs. Within the confines of school activities, this may be as simple as writing a letter to the mayor, participating in a food drive for the poor, or planting trees in a city park. Students may be encouraged to take part in a boycott or in some movement to change society. Many schoolteachers and counselors condone and even encourage sexual immorality and abortion among teen students simply because of their fundamental right to choose. Obviously, “acting” can be morally good or bad depending on the value expressed.

7. “Acting With A Pattern, Consistency And Repetition.”

Students are taught that their behavior and choices should consistently reflect their values. Thus, a young woman can easily justify repeat abortions because her personal choice to end a child’s life is valued over the physical and emotional consequences that follow abortion. In contrast, if a particular student were to find it difficult or unconscionable to repeat an act, then the student would be encouraged to re-evaluate the value in terms of benefits and consequences as pertinent to his personal circumstances and goals and to adjust his behavior accordingly in pursuit of self-fulfillment.

Education In Despair

Values clarification ideology insists that values are sometimes best established when examined in light of the individual’s whole life. Students are invited to sketch a diagram or a map of their entire life’s achievements including their goals for the future.22 These exercises can be emotionally taxing for those students who feel that they have accomplished little of value throughout their whole life. Looking at their drawings can push them deeper into feelings of worthlessness, despair or even depression.

One typical values clarification means of examining life as a whole is to focus upon death. Students may be required to design their own tombstone or to write their own obituary. Certainly, these exercises can be emotionally detrimental for a child who suffers depression or whose self-esteem is already wounded. Considering the high incidence of teen suicide it would seem unconscionable to introduce such lessons into any classroom.

Values Clarification Today

A prime example of values clarification insidiously at work in our modern culture is President Bill Clinton’s response to proposed legislation to outlaw partial-birth abortions. The elevation of autonomous, personal choice above traditional morality pervades every facet of American life. Values clarification decisions have become commonplace if not dominant in today’s society. Now, children can sue their parents for frivolities because society values certain personal freedoms more than God-given parental authority. Catholics can condone every form of disobedience to the Church from dissent to Humanae Vitae, to irreverence before the tabernacle, because of their personal feelings on these matters. Thanks to choice, students can rush into classrooms firearms in hand, and, much like the plane crash episode at the beginning of this article, they can simply choose who will live and who will die.

Endnotes

1 Paul Edwards, ed, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1967), p. 384.

2 Ibid.

3 Louis E. Raths, Values and Teaching (Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966).

4 Carl R. Rogers, “Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person” in Readings in Values Clarification, Sidney B. Simon and Howard Kirschenbaum, (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1973), p.75.

5 Floyd D. Rees, “Teaching the Valuing Process in Sex Education”, in Readings in Values Clarification, p. 217.

6 Molly Kelly, Teens and Chastity: A Talk with Molly Kelly (TVR Productions and Monitor Communications, 1988), video.

7 Ibid., p. 218.

8 The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family, promulgated by the Pontifical Council for the Family, Vatican City, December 8,1995.

9 Kelly, video.

10 Keith Bower ed-in-chief, The New Corinthians Curriculum, (Cincinnati, OH: Foundation for the Family, Inc., 1977), p. 99.

11 Rees in Readings in Values Clarification, Sidney B. Simon and Howard Kirschenbaum, (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1973), pp. 220,221.

12 Judith Ammenhauser, “The Values Clarification Process,” (Montgomery Village, MD: Mother’s Watch, n.d.), p. 5.

13 Ibid., p. 19.

14 Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. Howe, and Howard Kirschenbaum, Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers and Students (New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1972) p. 19.

15 Ibid., p. 20.

16 Simon, Howe, Kirschenbaum, p. 241.

17 Benzinger Family Life Program, (Mission Hills, CA: Benzinger Publishing Company, 1988) Grade 5, p. 51.

18 Keith Bower ed-in-chief, The New Corinthians Curriculum, (Cincinnati, OH: Foundation for the Family, Inc., 1997), p. 37.

19 Ammenhauser, p. 5.

20 See Christian Education of Youth, promulgated by Pope Pius XI, Vatican City: December 1929; and The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (footnote 8).

21 Simon, Howe, Kirschenbaum, pg. 295. The listening skills described here are based on the teachings of Dr. Carl Rogers.

22 Benzinger, 1995, Grade 6, p. 21.

Mrs. Lisa Marie Contini, wife and homeschool mother of three children, is a pro-life leader in her community and a vocal opponent of classroom sex education. She addresses teens about abortion, chastity and family values. Mrs. Contini’s articles have appeared in various Catholic and pro-life periodicals. She operates Aletheia Press (P.O. Box 577; Massena, NY 13662), featuring pamphlets faithful to Catholic teachings designed for teens and young adults about morality. She may also be contacted by e-mail aletheia@slic.com. Her web site is at www.aletheiapress.com. This is her third article in HPR.

© The Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 86 Riverside Dr., New York, N.Y. 10024, (212) 799-2600.

end quote***
by the way my son elected for me to be left behind because he believed dad could find his own way to survive. This may be the best compliment I have ever received.


37 posted on 10/10/2013 11:56:19 PM PDT by Huddled Masses ("There you go again...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; 2ndDivisionVet

This teacher does realize that you only need to be hooked up to a dialysis machine every couple of days for a few hours? There is no need for anyone to die.

* * *

A number of these scenarios don’t necessarily require people to die. For instance, food for people in the lifeboat: How can they know how long they’ll be adrift? What if they shove five people off the lifeboat ... and rescue comes the very next day? Or what about if the people on the lifeboat have string and a paperclip, make an impromptu fishing pole, and subsist on the fish? Even if they are short of water (more dire than food), maybe someone in the group has a bowl or similar, someone else has some plastic, and they distill fresh water from the seawater?

There are sometimes scenarios that require a choice to be made. (Anyone read “The Cold Equations” lately?) More often, creative thinking can get you out of a jam. The schools should be teaching creative thinking, as well as ethics.


38 posted on 10/11/2013 12:02:19 AM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (FUBO, and the useful idiots you rode in on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ezekiel

yup, reject the premise.

this is why teaching today isjust indoctrination, they only want you to pick from a list of answers they compile, you can’t deviate. and their questions/assignments, like this, are just so unrealistic and assume assinine things.


39 posted on 10/11/2013 12:15:01 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
According to the worksheet I received, the student opted to spare the doctor, lawyer, housewife, teacher, cop and Lutheran minister.

The others weren’t so lucky.

Among those unceremoniously dispatched to the hereafter were an ex-convict, a prostitute, college student and a disabled person.

While the whole exercise is a bit trying, I would have probably opted for the six who would have had the longest projected life expectancy with proper treatment. So, for example, if the lawyer was 97, I'd rather save the prostitute who was 41 but had a longer potential life span.

Of course, with ObamaCare death panels, the decisions will be made based on voting history and contributions to the Democrat Party.

40 posted on 10/11/2013 2:13:58 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Howdy to all you government agents spying on me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They are being taught obamacare and the deathpanel.


41 posted on 10/11/2013 3:02:53 AM PDT by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
Heh, I wrote a fictional dialogue about this on FR a couple of years back:

I see THESE kinds of "discussions" going on: Here is what will happen first:

"...I'm sorry sir...we cannot schedule that appointment for you in November 2010 to have that melanoma removed because you have not undergone your mandatory annual counseling after age 65...oh, of course you are right. I know you are only 62, but they did move the age down again this year...we have an opening in three months with the counselors office...would you like that?"

This above conversation is fully expected, but It will not be the people you will be FORCED to talk to in order to receive your care, nor the intentional delays in care that will be the most insidiously evil facets of this. It will be the conversations like this one below that will become commonplace that ONLY BEGIN to illustrate what it is all about:

FRIEND OF "JANICE" DISCUSSING "END OF LIFE COUNSELING" IN OBAMACARE : "Hi Jan, how are you? I heard your father is resisting counseling. It must be difficult, I know. There just seems to be so much of that lately. I know I am only 40 years old, but I don't understand why people like your father are so opposed to this.

I went with my mother to her counseling session, and while she was angry because she was supposed to have another five years before she had to go but they moved the age down again, she went anyway. I thought she was really rude to the counseling agent, who was just a young woman only doing her job. Hm.

Someone told me they are only hiring young women as counselors now, because the men who were doing it just got angry too easily and shouted at people to just "sign the damned papers". Hm. I tried to tell my mom why they have to do this, but she said they do it just to get rid of old people to save money.

The counseling agent gave my mom a copy of the book "Death is Joy". I read it, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, when I was going to school, we didn't have to read it, but now they have required classes they take every year beginning in first grade.

Suzie is in third grade and is taking the course this year that deals with the chapter on keeping birth rates down, and Tommy is in his senior year where they cover the financial aspects of care for the elderly. He was so excited, he said that since they have implemented this national care program, the number of elderly people has dropped dramatically, so they can spend more money on programs such as monthly equality checks for the economically disadvantaged and reparations for the descendants of slaves. I think it is wonderful.

He asked me why so many elderly people are so selfish and refuse to accept counseling...I didn't really have an answer for him. Hm. Now, don't be defensive, I am not criticizing your parents.

I am just saying, it is a problem.

They had an hour-long program on PBS about this the other night, and they were saying how the people who are being selfish about this and refusing to take advantage of early exit programs that pay cash to their children are being so self-centered because they grew up in a time where everyone was self-centered and were interested only in money. You know, they showed films from the days of the capitalists where there were people who had what they called 'gas-guzzlers", and they used to make so much more money than they needed to live comfortably, so many people were going without health care because they were taking all the money..."

Then, just wait until they pass legislation for a "Death Benefit" that will be paid to the families of elderly people. That will be the icing on the cake. It will be presented as a compassionate gesture to help the families with their grief, and will put at ease those people slated for "end of life" counseling. I can see the conversation on this as well:

COUNSELOR: Thank you for coming in today, sir. Now, let's see...you have high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis but more importantly, positive genetic tags for vascular/heart disease, Alzheimer's, matricular degeneration and three types of cancer, prostate, esophageal and colon. Prostate and colon are very high. We see one of these two expressing itself in the next three years.

ME: Er...really?

COUNSELOR: Yes. This is all very scientifically based, and the results are incontrovertible. There is no mistake.

ME: Ahhh...could I speak to a doctor about this?

COUNSELOR: I am afraid not, sir. The rules are physicians are for direct care only, and nothing else. Federal Statue HCR23.1771-b mandates that I communicate this information to you, and inform you of the various options.

ME: But you don't know anything about medicine! You are a clerk, nothing more! How can I discuss this issue with you?

COUNSELOR: Sir, I have taken all the courses coming through High School, and attended the Life Counseling University courses offered by the government. I graduated in the top half of my class. I do understand the issues here.

ME: But...but...

COUNSELOR: Look, sir. You are getting old, and are soon going to be a burden on society. You don't have cancer right now, and can still think and get around, but for how long? You need to think about your children and their children. We offer a special financial compensation package that will help them bear the grief of your passing, to be paid out upon your death. With your approval, we emailed them an official forms packet before this meeting.

ME: I approved that?

COUNSELOR: Well, yes sir. The electronic copy is right here with your esignature (TURNS SCREEN TO FACE ME).

ME: I never signed that!

COUNSELOR: Sir, didn't you read the codocil that was automatically added at the bottom of your government supplied Will and Last Testament session that we finished up your first End of Life session you had with us last year? You did click the button that said "I approve all the changes" and you did use your voice authentication to say "I do approve".

ME: What! What is going on here? I...

COUNSELOR: Your two sons and your daughter who came in with you today have been in communication with our department on this. (Smiles) I think it is great that the government approves time-off pay for employees to attend these End of Life meetings for their parents. I'll call them in...

ME: Hey! I am not finished discus...

(DOOR OPENS, CHILDREN ENTER)

SON 1: Dad, I am so glad you signed up for the Early Exit Death Benefit. I was really behind on my tax payments for last year, and that will put me over the top...

ME: You...what?

SON 2: Yeah, dad. Billy is graduating from high school, and we want to send him to a quality college, but we could never afford it. But now we might...thanks to you.

Daughter: Oh, Daddy (tears in her eyes) I know none of us live forever, and I will miss you so much, but this money will allow me to pay th license fees to the government so I can open my dream business! Without you...

ME: HEY! WTF is going on here? I am not "ready to die", I feel pretty good, I could live for another twenty years! I didn't sign that damned thing, they just threw all this stuff in front of me! This is effing stupid! (TURNS TO COUNSELOR) Look, I don't know what kind of crap you set in motion, but undo it. I didn't sign up for this.

COUNSELOR: (PRIGGISH, TIGHT LIPPED LOOK ON HIS FACE) Sir...you have already been scheduled for next year, and your family has been paid that benefit in advance as the law allows. We cannot undo it. See the text that you signed (TURNS SCREEN) states explicitly that this if final and cannot be remanded...

ME: (SMASHES SREEN WITH HAND) LOOK! I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF YOU HAVE TO BURROW THROUGH THE WIRES BACK TO THE CENTRAL COMPUTER SYSTEM YOURSELF, USING YOUR SLIMEY PENCIL NECK AS A LEG TO DO IT SO YOU CAN UNDO THIS ROYAL F*CKUP ON YOUR PART...

COUNSELOR: (HAND CUPPED OVER SPEAKER, EYES ON ME, WHISPERING) We have a 22-22 in here...get in here right away...

DAUGHTER: (WAILS) How could you be so selfish?

SON 1: Great. I might as well go down to the Tax Police right now to get fitted for the volunteer industry uniform...

COUNSELOR: How am I going to tell Billy he can't go to the Barack Obama University? How?

DOOR OPENS, BURLY UNION GUYS IN BLACK COVERALLS RUN UP TO ME AND TASE ME. ALL GOES BLACK

42 posted on 10/11/2013 3:13:48 AM PDT by rlmorel ("A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral." A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Mine was an exercise in a post nuclear war. A bunker had supplies for 20 people for 9 months. The problem, 25 people showed up.

Each person in the class, 25 of us, was given one of the identities. The class took 10 minutes to decide.

I volunteered to go... Who needs a musician in a post apocalyptic world right?

The teacher was floored that we did it so fast without fighting about who stayed & who went. All the woman stayed of course.

43 posted on 10/11/2013 4:55:38 AM PDT by Freeport (The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
the student opted to spare the doctor, lawyer, housewife, teacher, cop and Lutheran minister.

I was fine with it until right there.

44 posted on 10/11/2013 5:39:43 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi tio es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
A number of these scenarios don’t necessarily require people to die.

Yep. I used to delight in finding ways to save everybody and since I read every thing I could get my hands on I was pretty good at coming up with ways to do it.

That really annoyed teachers for some reason.

Values clarification? My values were clear from very young. It is never right to deliberately kill an innocent.

45 posted on 10/11/2013 6:11:12 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Doesn’t that happen every weekend in Chicago??


46 posted on 10/11/2013 6:12:29 AM PDT by Farnsworth ("The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huddled Masses
Their location is a wasteland: no vegetation, no wild game, no lakes or streams.

Where did they land, Mars?

And the answer is that you go to quarter rations. If there is enough for nine people then there is enough for 17. At quarter rations you can keep 17 people fed for six weeks. People can survive with very little food for a long time.

47 posted on 10/11/2013 6:22:03 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ezekiel
Right. How about locating four more machines? Or donating a kidney.

ObamaCare.

You've got what you've got, and be damned thankful for it. You're lucky we didn't take one away and sell the kidney to a Registered Liberal with a drug habit!

48 posted on 10/11/2013 6:27:58 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
She was right, again.

That's such a good line, that I fear people will steal it from you, and turn it into another "Bush's fault".

49 posted on 10/11/2013 7:02:16 AM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

Just sick! Why is there only one hospital in existence?


50 posted on 10/11/2013 7:34:42 AM PDT by smilebig1 (Just one opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson