….and this will probably be the last time I ever address it,” he said. “It should be decided by the families — the federal government and the state government too, except for the court system, ought to stay out of those matters as far as I am concerned.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/us/politics/23thompson.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
Well. That statement helped me decide whether or not I would want
Thompson for my president. I definitely won't vote for anyone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
1. It should be decided by the families. [Your daughter died. The Schindlers' daughter was publicly executed. You decided. The Schindlers were denied any right to be involved in the decision making part of their daughter's death.]
2. state and federal government "except for the court system" ought to stay out of end of life matters.
Thompson's statement brings to mind an article I just read about a presentation in which
Ellis[no kin] and
Center] focused their presentation on the cases they had been involved in and how the criminal justice system and ethics committees interplayed. In their presentationthey emphasized the fact that "despite the reality that the courts are a poor place to resolve most complex ethical dilemmas in a health care setting, the use of courts is inevitable and a uniquely American response to this kind of conflict."
I have to wonder what else
Thompson has in common with those in the US Pro-Death Movement?
1)Those in the pro-death movement believe that anyone diagnosed as being in a permanentvegetative stateshould be recognized under the law as being 'legally dead'for the purpose of harvesting their organs and body parts. [Where do you stand on this
To me this is a scary thought. Especially, considering how little science knows about the human brain .
Those in the pro-death movement call themselves 'bio' ethicists. That term didn't exist until the 1970s.
About 1970, Van Rensselaer Potter coined the term bioethicsto bring under one heading broad questions of human survival,environment, and biology. In 1971,
Potter outlined a statementof principles that linked the ethics of the biological scienceswith the ethics of environmental concern. Regrettably, the fieldthat adopted his rubric bioethics immediately diverged fromPotter's interests. Bioethics has become for the most part identifiedwith medical ethics or health care ethics and in so doing hasdeveloped few ethical principles and analyses in relationshipto environmental ethics. http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/314
Interesting, that a term coined for thoseseekinganswers toquestions about 'human survival' in connection to the 'environment, and 'biology' has been perverted todefine those dealing in 'the survival of the fittest'.
I am 58 years old. I cannot remember a time before 1970 that any family was denied by law their right to make end of life decisions for a dying family member.
Bio-ethics is not about preserving a family's rights in end of life matters. There was nothing about the
Schiavo case that even hinted thatthose seeking her death even considered giving the 'bio' logical family any kind of say in the matter of starving and dehydrating their daughter to death. No, indeed! Because if they had allowed her family to have a say the outcome may not have been to their liking.
We are at war. But this war is not fought with guns. Thiswar is being fought with ideas.And like other wars of ideas the American people have had to fight in our country's short life span[231 years], the outcome depends on whether or not Americans are willing to sacrifice a weaker class of Americans to satisfy the deranged part of our society who are well educated in everything but human compassion.
I, personally, am waiting to see which presidential candidate has the guts to take a public stand against starving and dehydrating disabled Americans to death,before I jump on anyone's bandwagon.
Sorry, about your daughter,
Fred. But your excuse for jumping on the pro-death bandwagon is a crop out. You are old enough to knowthat the thing that has always made
America strong is not the selfish minority but the majority of the Americans who were/and are willing to give up some of their rights if it willbenefit the majority.
That's where the saying comes from: AnAmericanis in boththe minority andthe majority.
When we can no longer see wrong in killing the weakest among us [for the benefit of the few]then we have reached the bottom of the slippery slope.
by Janice Sanford