This is one posting I never thought I'd be writing, but looking back to 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision, a discussion of legalized euthanasia was inevitable.
In 1979 Dr. C. Everett Koop and the late Francis A. Schaeffer collaborated on a 5-part film series called "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?" The series documented in graphic detail the rapid cheapening of human life, since abortion on demand had been legalized in the United States. Koop and Shaeffer opined that infanticide and euthanasia would not be far behind. I wonder if they realized just how prophetic their opinions were?
At the time this series was produced the abortion ruling was just 6 years old, and approximately 4 million babies had met an untimely demise. 32 years later some 46 million unborn children have been killed through abortion, a brain-damaged woman was slowly and horribly starved to death, and now the United States Supreme Court is poised to rule on Oregon's Physician Assisted Suicide Law.
What causes me the most concern is the cavalier approach we have taken towards human life and human dignity. For example, African-Americans were once classified as "non-persons," who could be bought, sold and owned like a piece of property. The unborn has been declared as "non-persons" courtesy of a pronouncement of our Supreme Court. Finally, the handicapped, infirmed and the elderly are being said to have lives not worthy to be lived, thereby placing them under a certain sentence of death. Amazing isn't it, how that which was unthinkable 40 or 50 years ago is not only thinkable in our society but is widely accepted and even encouraged? How little have we learned from past history?
If I remember, we saw such atrocities during another time in our world's history. It's frightening how little things have changed over the years. The people involved certainly change, but the story remains the same.
Medical science have brought about many great advances in technology by which we care for the sick, injured, handicapped and our elderly. But along with those advances comes the incumbent responsibility that those charged with caring for these individuals will do so morally and ethically. Unfortunately following the debacle of the Terri Schiavo case we are seeing that morality and ethics have been replaced with that which is expedient.
If we as a soceity and a culture believe that all life was created by God then there is no way possible that the we can support or condone the atrocities that have been discussed in this commentary. However, I am sorry to say that this is just one of many examples of how life, not only in America, but in the world overall has been degraded and devalued. It is truly a sad thing to say the least. One has to wonder how long Our Heavenly Father will wait before He puts an end to this monstrous evil.
Oct 7, 2005
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE--THE FINAL DOMINO IS ABOUT TO FALL!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Extreme examples do not make a solid case, but nevertheless there is a the occassion when death is certain and inevitable, where even the Christian has a decision to make and ultimately allows nature to take its course. Pain can be controlled with medication. This will help to preserve the individual's dignity at the end of his/her life. The Christian believes, although I assume that you do not, that we are created in God's image and having said that our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit, therefore our lives are not our own they belong to God.
I find it hard to believe that even you would disagree that human life has been cheapened and devalued, when you see the absolute evil that is in the world today. Whether you believe in God or not, you cannot deny what is right in front of you--or can you?
Actually squirrel, I'm just a Deacon, and quite frankly I'm not telling anyone anything, all I'm doing is relaying God's Words as taught in Holy Scipture. What you or anyone else choose to do with this information is between YOU & GOD!
I beg to differ--but it is obvious that continuing this exercise in futility would be pointless--HAVE A GREAT LIFE!
Mr. Currie: Let's look at the criteria under the Oregon Statute, then I will offer my thoughts: THE PERSON MUST:
1. Be terminally ill
2. Have 6 months or less to live
3. Have made two oral requests for assistance in dying.
4. Have made one written request for assistance.
5. Convince two physicians that he/she is sincere and not acting on a whim and that the decision was voluntary.
6. Not have been influenced by DEPRESSION.
7. Be informed of feasable alternatives including but not limited to: comfort care, hospice care, pain control, etc.
This all sounds way too bureaucratic to even begin to ally my concerns about this Statute or the concept of Physician Assisted Suicide overall. A person can make all the oral, written or even electronically recorded requests for assistance in dying, but human nature being what it is all this is subject to change regardless of how many doctors you supposedly convince that you want assistance to die.
Furthermore, one doesn't have to be terminally ill to be influenced by depression. Again this is human nature and you aren't going to change that just because a Law says so. That is just insulting.
These aren't safeguards they are loopholes and bad ones at that.
Mr. Currie: Here are a few more questions for you to ponder:
1. What if the "terminally ill" person is a minor and has no family i.e., parents to make a "decision"
2. What if the patient is comotose and has no written directives establishing their wishes?
3. What if the person is suffering from some form of mental incapacity?
I think you can see that there are more questions than answers here. In my judgment if the door is opened to permit PAS it will never be closed, and the possibilities are absolutely frightening!
You know, squirrel, sleeping on your comments was probably a good thing for me to do, because it kept my anger out of this reply. The lack of compassion that you accuse me of is more appropriately directed at our so-called society overall, because it is WE who allowed human life and human dignity to be cheapened and devalued to a point where it is possible to kill someone for any or NO reason at all. PAS is just another way of saying "active euthanasia." FYI there are two forms of this practice--"passive" and "active." This was the one of the major points stressed in the series I alluded to in my posting. I would encourage you to obtain a copy of that series and watch it, but please understand that it is 5 hours in total length and the information and material contained in it may be somewhat disturbing. You can direct whatever anger and hostility toward me you want, but that doesn't change the grim reality of this situation.
People do have the right to make "end of life" decisions. I never questioned that. My concern, and it is a justifiable one, is who makes those decisions when the patient can't and there is NO clear statement of the individual's wishes? I think even you can see the dangerous situation presented here. The criteria in the Oregon Statute is dangerously open-ended to a point where the so-called safeguards are meaningless and can be circumvented very easily. I will be anxiously waiting to see just what the Supreme Court does with this case.
Post a Comment