www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Euthanasia as medicine

The inevitable consequence of allowing man to become the sole arbiter of when life begins is the court ordered murder of Terri Schiavo

What have we gotten since Roe v. Wade by sanitizing what is happening to babies in the womb who are not allowed a chance to live for no reason other than that they are unwanted? Answer - The acceptance of killing babies for specious reasons of "reproductive rights" on an unimaginable scale. What those who declare themselves "pro-choice" ignore is that, but for the Grace of God to their mothers, they would not be around to hypocritically deny the world the opportunity to see the brutal consequences of a �choice�, which they did not have to suffer. The body of a baby is fully formed at ten weeks. The latest research confirms that infants in utero feel pain.

I cannot believe that any rational individual could hold to such positions after seeing an abortion. It is an indescribably brutal procedure, as the world has been reminded with the Center for Bio-ethical Reform�s Genocide Awareness Project displays around the country, and films such as former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson's Silent Scream.

Of course, we must never tell the world of what really is happening to those little gifts from God in the womb. That would be offensive to our sensibilities. We must never remind the world of the utter cold-blooded brutality of what those, who have an inalienable right to life, are suffering because of man's inhumanity to man.

Have we learned nothing from history? Just as the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet gulags, and slavery needed to be made public to keep from anesthetizing man as to the gravity of what occurred, and is occurring today, given that slavery, in particular, is acceptable in many parts of the world, so must what is happening to generations of our children, who are not be allowed to see the light of day, an ongoing event where the number of innocent victims approaching fifty million have eclipsed the barbarity of the Nazis, Soviets, and slavery combined. Generations of individuals whose contributions to the world will never be known are gone. Has it not occurred to anyone that if this "legal" killing of our children had been the norm throughout human history, the world might never have seen many poets, artists, scientists, et al, who contributed to the common good, and especially saints, who reminded us that we are ultimately procreating for Heaven in cooperation with God's plan for creation, not just reproducing, as any animal would. How many such individuals have we lost since Roe v. Wade?

The primary function of the state is to secure the safety of its citizens in promoting the common good. To license out to citizens a "right" to deprive others of the right to safety is to call into question the very legitimacy of a state. A respected state, in fulfilling this safety obligation, does not encourage the promotion of destructive acts to its citizenry. This is not the pursuit of happiness as envisioned by the founding fathers. And what could be more destructive than abortion?

This may come as a shock to those who believe that there are a "million valid reasons for abortion" and that the Jewish holocaust and slavery are being exploited by reminding the world about man's inhumanity to man in regard to what is considered the "legal killing" of innocents in what should be their safest refuge, their mothers' wombs. The Nazis and the Soviets both held that what they were doing was "legal" - the Nazis for eugenics "purification of the race" purposes, the Soviets for the oppression of those who believed that man had a higher calling than to be slaves for the state. Moreover, slavery itself was "legal" in this country. So much for ignoring that there are higher laws than man's, which must be obeyed.

The "choice" that we are we talking about here leads to the case of a young Florida woman Terri Schiavo, whom the state deemed unfit for life despite considerable physical evidence to the contrary. And just who is the state to be having the final say on matters of the life and death of innocents, regardless of their physical condition? Do we live in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union? Did all who fought and died in this country's wars do so for nothing by allowing a judiciary gone mad to de facto put a swastika on our flag?

This is what happens when abortion, as pre-natal euthanasia, inevitably leads to euthanasia, as post-natal abortion. What goes around comes around. So if you advocate the killing of babies in the womb, as a function of man-made rights currently in vogue, in complete ignorance of universal moral absolutes, do not be surprised when someone advocates killing you, without caring for your opinion to the contrary one whit, using a similar set of "rights", which are subject to change at a moment's notice.

Remember, it happened before. It is the consequence of failing to protect life from conception to natural death, which is rooted in the contraceptive mentality of the age. For if man is the sole arbiter of when life begins, is it any wonder why man demands that he be the sole arbiter of when life ends? It is a logical progression. It is, first and foremost, not allowing God to be God. And it is killing innocents in and out of the womb!

"American justice" has become evil! It now promotes the death of innocents, and unnatural behavior as a civil right in an affirmative action sense. And some day, this country is going to be called to account by Almighty God for its sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance via its complete ignorance of universal moral absolutes in accord with Natural Law, a participation in God�s Divine Eternal Law, an ignorance which ultimately leads to anarchy and eternal perdition.

How can someone claim to be "pro-choice" when there is no choice allowed for those who must suffer the brutal consequences of man playing God?

Where are the courts when it comes to investigating the heinous crime committed against Terri Schiavo by those who would not even allow the slightest attempt on the part of people who love her to care for her? Moreover, where are the courts when it comes to the very suspicious nature of Terri Schiavo's condition, as documented in many news reports?

The laws that are being "faithfully executed" in this country kill innocents within and outside of the womb. There are higher laws to which all man-made are subsidiary. Mankind is not obligated to obey unjust laws. And there cannot be laws that are any more unjust than those which have no regard for innocents having an inalienable right to life. What is happening in America is shameful beyond belief, making a mockery of the deaths of all who fought in this nation's wars throughout its history. And one day, those sitting judges, who have no regard whatsoever for that aforementioned important subsidiary relationship, will face a Judge Who does, and so will a country that allows such crimes to happen hypocritically in the name of "justice."

Euthanasia is not just changing medicine; it's replacing medicine.

Many questions arise pertaining to the application of physician-assisted suicide. In particular, "How do we strike a rational balance among all considerations and ensure approximate 'equal justice under the law,'"? Typically, advocates admit to "not having answers to these questions" but go on to offer some interesting "suggestions".

One such suggestion that I've observed deserves examination. "In the absence of a power of attorney the patient-doctor relationship should be the main focus on terminal decisions. If, however, medical personnel refuse to follow patients' wishes ... they should be subject to legal liability."

What do you do when someone in a fit of despair is heard to say, "I don't want to live any longer", and horror of horrors, a family member, neighbor, or "friendly" doctor just happens to take this literally? Is this carte blanche for the plug to be pulled on this individual's life when at some future date he finds himself incapacitated in a hospital? If so, the Hippocratic oath has become the "hypocritic" oath and no medical professional could ever be trusted which is the consequence of subjecting same to "legal liabilities" for keeping patients alive. Legal liabilities for keeping patients alive, is this what advocates call a "rational balance"? If something sounds wrong, more often than not, it is. The confusion is a primary example why there are no strictly legalistic answers to these questions.

According to a Dutch Commission report, 11,800 patients were euthanized in 1990 through active measures, most often by administering lethal drugs, and 5,941 of these were performed without the patient's consent. Only 400 patients opted for assisted suicide. An additional 13,506 patients were denied "nonfutile medical treatment with intention to terminate life," a practice the Dutch call "euthanasia by omission" because it denies lifesaving treatment. The great majority of these cases, 64%, involved persons who had given no prior consent to such a fate.

A Dutch physician, Richard Fenigsen, in the Journal of ISSUES AND LAW AND MEDICINE states, "Euthanasia is not just changing medicine; it is replacing medicine. This suppression of traditional medical thinking, medical working habits, and the medical way of reacting to events has an impact on both the emergency care and the long term care of patients," he writes.

Fenigsen describes several case studies. In one teaching hospital, anesthetists stopped providing anesthesia for cardiac surgery involving Down's syndrome patients. In other cases, hospitals and doctors refused to apply simple, lifesaving measures to patients whose lives they determined were "unlivable."

In one case, a physician did not administer insulin to a 6-year old, mildly retarded boy who developed juvenile diabetes, thereby causing his death. In another, a doctor persuaded an elderly woman to stop taking medicine needed to treat an enlarged heart because she was living a "limited life" - she depended on several medications, needed help cleaning her house, and could walk only a few blocks at a time.

In all, 65% of Dutch doctors believe that physicians may propose active euthanasia to patients who do not ask for it themselves, according to Dutch surveys.

A study recently published in the British medical journal Lancet involved patients who expressed a desire to end their own lives -- the sort of patients who would be most likely to seek a physician's help in committing suicide. Doctors at the Dana-Farber cancer institute found that 80 percent of such individuals were suffering primarily from clinical depression, rather than from unendurable pain. With the help of modern pain-killing medication, most terminal cancer patients can be spared from extreme suffering, the researchers point out.

Since clinical depression can be treated successfully through the use of medication and counseling, the Lancet report suggests that four out of five potential candidates for physician-assisted suicide may change their minds with appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment.

More to the point, if 80 percent of the people who opt for suicide are clinically depressed, it follows that an overwhelming majority of such individuals are not able to make clear and logical decisions. Thus, prudent lawmakers should protect these vulnerable patients from the potential consequences of a decision they might make under the influence of an emotional disturbance.

The movement to make assisting suicides legal was made virtually inevitable by the Supreme Court's creation of a right to abortion with abortion being nothing more than pre-natal euthanasia and euthansia being post-natal abortion.

Since we have made it legal to destroy human lives for the convenience of others via abortion, what's to stop us from terminating dear ole Mom and Dad when they become inconvenient? After all, isn't inconvenience, situated on the extreme ends of the bell curve of life, defined by those currently in power! Minus a moral compass rooted in recognizing universal truths, the answer is nothing.

As Judge Robert Bork has pointed out in SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH, "It is ironic that our supposed 'freedom' to choose death has made it far easier for others to choose our death as the autonomy is often theirs, not ours."

I know this is not funny, but...

Here you have an article on people taking the life of someone for whatever their selfish reason might be.

Then you have this...
SCIENTISTS have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation for humans. US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.

Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15739502-13762,00.html
~~~~

I mean come on, talk about contradicting self. Man wants to be a god. It depends on how much of the almighty dollar one has to which is preferred I guess. Rather disgusting isn't it.

God forgive us. We offer to you from what is your own Jesus, your pain and suffering and death upon the cross, in reparation for our sins. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on us.

Pani Rose

Pani Rose