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.
Again, you are still trying to justify Lauren’s death based on an issue that DOES NOT EXIST.
I’m so sorry to hear of the loss of your niece. I hope you will accept my sincere condolences.
You’ll have to be more explicit. What’s your point?
Removing a feeding tube is murder, period, unless the person on the feeding tube has clearly expressed their intent to go without it. How much it costs to treat someone has nothing to do with whether it's murder or not.
Here is another "point":
The cost of an in-home feeding tube is just over $30,000 per year. As Randy Richardson HAS NOT indicated an inability to provide for Lauren's medical care, then we must assume that it will not be a problem.
Moreover, NO PARTY to this case has indicated that the cost of Lauren's care is a factor. Therefore, it's not even a matter before the court.
Unfortunately, there are members of the culture of death who CONSTANTLY bring up "costs" as a reason to kill people. This is IDENTICAL to what the Nazis did. If society allows this, it will only be a matter of time where EVERY person will be subject to execution based on some arbitrary formula to determine whether or not their life is "worth living" from a financial point of view.
8mm
...............................
As we watch and wait in the media silence for the battle to begin, we note an update filled with "hope" for "change".
Our Position: Hope
And we find this...
And we remember another in a similar strait whose supposed loved one wanted him dead. But his family fought furiously. We don't hear much about it these days as they have won and have gone about putting back the pieces. It is a moving story for those who are not familiar or need reminding. His family pulled out all stops and shouted to all who listened and it worked.
Scott Thomas
8mm
"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest."
Are you saying that every life is worth saving, no matter the cost?
YES.
In contrast, YOU are saying that life is extinguishable based on cost.
When we have these mine disasters, do you support the efforts to save trapped miners?
When the Twin Towers collapsed did you support efforts to search for survivors?
When a sailor goes overboard do you support the Navy's efforts to hunt for them?
Please explain why YOU think cost should be important when NONE of the parties to the case have even brought it up.
Yeah, if I were in your position, I would use deflection rather than answer easy questions too.
An hidden agenda might make it’s appearance.
You asked a question, I answered it with an unequivocal YES. How you or anyone else can construe that to be "deflection" is beyond me.
An hidden agenda might make it’s appearance.
Don't kid yourself, the culture of death has done a horrible job hiding its agenda.
You’re right, you did answer with a YES, it was further down the page and I didn’t see it.
That’s good.
I have a heart condition, our medical insurance tops out at $1,000,000.
If I should suffer an ‘episode’, and the limit on coverage is reached, and our own resources are tapped out, how much money can I count on you to provide?
Was this the thread on which we lowered the boom on the blue apple? I can’t remember, it all blurs together, so many in recent times bot flies bit the dust or speck. No, it was another where he kept trying to hound pro-lifers.
Okay! I understand what you are trying to say, your position can be bust summed up as:
"The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species."
Why didn't you just say so?
No, it was here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1984711/posts?page=180#180
But blue apple also advocated the theory that I quoted in post #177 on this thread.
You know, one of the big differences between you and me is that I am confident enough of my position that I don't need to try and force words into my opponents mouth.
I didn't say that, you know that. Yet, because of your own uncertainly of your position, you must 'force' me that say something that I don't believe and would never say.
My arguments can stand on their own truth, and without resorting to lies.
Putting people to death are "easy questions" for you are they?
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.