Posts Tagged ‘Euthanasia’

Don’t Let the Camel Near Your Tent

In Abortion, Euthanasia on September 30, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Camel's nose inside the tentMaddie Gillel

Have you ever heard the  phrase ”don’t let a camel get his nose under the tent”?  Apparently, once he does that, it will not be long before his whole body is inside the tent, and he will be wreaking all manner of camel-havoc.

Two subjects in the news lately.  

One is about California Governor Jerry Brown will sign a bill allowing non-physicians to perform first trimester abortions.  We have just gone back to the early 60’s and all the horror stories about backalley abortions, and we must legalize them, because women are dying from back-alley abortions!  This is starting all over with the statement that it will only be done in the first trimester.  Does that statement sound familiar?  It looks as if the camel is moving his nose under the tent.

The other subject is about euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Euthanasia began ‘innocently’ enough.  Wholesale death in our society always does, but incrementally and insidiously the numbers rise higher and higher for fewer and fewer restrictions, and some cases become so complex that it instills fear and confusion into the whole  culture.

It would just have been so much simpler to not let the camel within 25 feet of the tent.

Incremental and Insidious

In Abortion, Divorce, Euthanasia, Homosexuality, Pedophilia, Same-Sex Marriage on February 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm

Frog in PotMaddi Gillel

You’ve all heard the story of how to cook a frog?  First you put the frog in a pot of room temperature water, then you slowly, slowly turn up the heat, and before the frog figures it out and can jump out, he’s cooked.

Do you remember the uproar years and years ago when Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) said the ‘damn’ word at the end of the movie?  The public was outraged.  This was in 1939.   Now we would love to have the movie in which the only objectional word was ‘damn.’

Let’s review some history on the subjects of abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and euthanasia.

When Roe v. Wade became law in 1973, the abortion fight began in earnest in the U.S.  At that time, abortion was only allowable in the first trimester. Even as citizens who valued the life of the unborn fought valiantly to overturn Roe, the Supreme Court ruled on another case and abortion then became legal, in effect, through the entire nine months of pregnancy.  Not even the horrific procedure known as “partial birth” abortion (killing the baby as it is being born) is illegal in most states.  Abortion has become so common and accepted that many women use it as a form of birth control.  Incremental and Insidious.

Homosexuality has probably always existed to some degree.  In our modern times, however, it has evolved from something that occurred among a small, discreet, minority of the population to a behavior that is increasing accepted, normalized, validated and even given the stamp of approval by those who wish to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.  Those who participate in the behavior have commandeered the word “gay” (instead of the word “queer”) to describe their “lifestyle.”  Now the “gay” lifestyle is glamorized and promoted by TV shows, movies, and media with prominent Hollywood types, musicians, politicians and business rallying to the cause of “gay rights.”  While NAMBLA (North America Man/Boy Love Association) along with those who promote all types of “inter-generational sex” continue to gain respectability and endorsement inside the ivy halls of high-end academic institutionIncremental and Insidious.

Divorce began to be more common than ever around World War ll, but that was just the beginning.  There had to be some serious accusations against a spouse to have a divorce granted.  The Catholic Church was openly against divorce and forbade it.  Many couples stayed together until the children were raised only then would they divorce. But then came the push for divorce Laws to be relaxed with the legal world claiming that strict divorce laws served no purpose.  In 1970, California instituted ‘No Fault Divorce’ and by 1973 most states had followed suit.  This ushered in “unilateral divorce” where one party in the marriage (against the wishes of the other spouse) can ask for a divorce – no questions asked.   This opened the flood gate for disposable marriages.  You “fall out of love” you get a divorce – no matter what is does to your children or to the still-committed spouse.   No-Fault divorce makes it clear that adults needs supersede the needs of children.  Some 40 years later, the havoc that this has wreaked on society is still being analyzed and calculated, but one thing is clear – no one came out further ahead.  Incremental and Insidious. 

In all of these topics, would any of us who have seen the progression of these movements have realized how far it would go?  In fact, if someone would have told us where it was going, we would not have believed them and considered them to be  an alarmist.

INCREMENTAL – gradual, phased, piecemeal, step-by-step

INSIDIOUS – 1- awaiting a chance to entrap- treacherous 2- harmful but enticing  3- having a gradual and cumulative effect – subtle   4- developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

Now, euthanasia is more and more raising its ‘ugly’ head along with its many euphemisms: quality of life, compassion, death with dignity, right to die, choice.  All of this is based, of course, on the premise that it is the patient’s wish.  At what point, however, will it cross over into being against the patient’s wish?

In Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington (decided Mar 6, 1996) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt:

“Known as a slippery slope argument or what one commentator has called the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument, the opponents of assisted-suicide conjure up a parade of horribles  and insist that the only way to halt the downward spiral is to stop it before it starts . . .

The same nihilistic argument can be offered against any constitutionally-projected right or interest.  Both before and after women were found to have a right to have an abortion, critics contended than legalizing that medical procedure would lead to its widespread use as a substitute for other forms of birth control or as a means of racial genocide [blacks have more abortions than any other group]. Inflammatory contentions regarding ways in which the recognition of the right  would  lead to the ruination of the country did not, however, deter the Supreme Court from first recognizing and then two decades later reaffirming a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in terminating an unwanted pregnancy.  In fact, the Court has never refused to recognize a substantive due process liberty right or interest merely because there were difficulties in determining when and how to limit its exercise or because others might someday attempt to use it improperly.

Recognition of any right creates the possibility of abuse.  The slippery slope fears of Roe’s (Roe v Wade) opponents have, of course, not materialized.  The legalization of abortion has not undermined our commitment to life generally;       nor, as some predicted, has it led to widespread infanticide.  Similarly, there is no reason to believe that legalizing assisted suicide will lead to the horrific consequences its opponents suggest.”









Reader Poll: “Is Euthanasia going to be culturally and politically promoted as a solution to aging and overburdened social programs?”

In Euthanasia, Polls on August 18, 2011 at 8:46 pm

We asked our readers this question:

“Do you think that “‘duty to die” and euthanasia may eventually be culturally and politically promoted as a solution for the overburdened social programs caused by an abundance of aging baby boomers?”

Here’s how they responded:

Never Happen             7 Percent

Yes, it will happen       89 Percent

We sure hope that our readers are wrong, but we fear they are not going to be.  Demographic projections are quite clear – there aren’t enough children being born to continue to support the social programs currently in place for the aging population, particularly the large group of individuals commonly known as the “baby boom generation.”

Which brings us to another question:  United Families was contacted by a man who told us that the term “baby boomers” is derogatory and we shouldn’t ever be using that term.  We were quite surprised; we weren’t aware of a negative connotation associated with the term.  So we ask you:  “In your mind and experience, is the title “baby boom generation” a negative term?”   Respond and let us know!

Euthanasia: “A beautiful example”

In Euthanasia on April 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm

A warm British-accented voice intones:  “A funeral took place today of an elderly couple who decided to undergo euthanasia because they couldn’t imagine a life without the other…”

In a classic example of how euthanasia is being normalized and mainstreamed, this video regarding a Belgium couple gives many of the standard talking points used to promote euthanasia.

  • the ability to control not only your life, but your death
  • be involved in your funeral arrangements
  • no need to suffer unnecessarily
  • no need to draw other people into your problems

The academic who is interviewed points out that this couple ending their lives was “an important signal breaking taboo.  So that his can be viewed as a normal way of dying and viewed that way by the community at large.”  He also acknowledges that it is happening “more and more;” noting that “non-terminal partners also have the option” to end their lives.

He then chillingly states:  “This is just a beautiful example…”

He’s right.   It is a beautiful example of a culture of death as it seeps into a society.

The New Dr. Death’s Marketing Scheme

In Euthanasia, Sanctity of Life, Uncategorized on March 16, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Australian right-to-die advocate Dr. Philip Nitschke is holding a workshop on voluntary euthanasia in Britain. “Dr. Death,” a moniker known to many Australians, sells euthanasia kits through his organization, Exit International, but he claims that no profit is made. Ironically, the doctor denies promoting euthanasia, despite having assisted in four suicides in Australia’s Northern Territory.

Dr. Nitschke’s 10-day workshop period transpires as Britain deliberates on the issue of assisted suicide. Amid the heated euthanasia debate, the British Director of Public Prosecutions released guidelines which determine when prosecution is unlikely in suicide cases just last month. This includes instances when the victim’s decision is “voluntary, clear, settled and informed,” and the person assisting acts wholly and compassionately.”

But how can killing with intention, even if it is consensual on behalf of the victim, be defined as compassionate?

Nitschke, against British public policy, shows people how to die. According to the 1961 Suicide Act, it is illegal to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another person. Nonetheless, Nitschke persists in his suicide-peddling, leaving the opportunity for even those not of lucid mind to end their lives. Although he supports the choice for those who are suffering to die well, he is also enabling suicide for the masses.

Government To Decide Who Lives And Who Dies

In Canada, Euthanasia, Health Care, Parental Rights, Physician Assisted Suicide, Sanctity of Life on February 10, 2010 at 8:22 am

The worst nightmare for any parent is the thought of losing a child.  For Isaac and Rebecca May this nightmare has become a reality.  After complications with their son, Isaiah’s, birth the May family has experienced one trial after another.  For Isaiah’s grandmother and grandfather, Kathy and Bob Griffis, this nightmare began when Kathy received a phone call from her crying son who told her, “Mom, there are about ten doctors around his bed.  I don’t think he’s going to make it.”

Isaiah was born with his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck which depleted his oxygen supply long enough to cause serious brain damage.  The day after Isaiah’s traumatic entrance into the world, Kathy stood with her children as the doctors at the University of Alberta Hospital informed them that their son’s brain damage was severe.  Their diagnosis was that little Isaiah would never move or grow; that he was brain dead and would not survive.

All Isaiah’s family was looking for was hope.  The first sign of hope came when Isaac saw his son move for the first time, raising both his arms a few inches above his bed and extending his fingers.  Isaiah didn’t stop there. As time progressed, he continued to defy the odds, moving constantly.  His pupils began to dilate. He is growing measurably, responding to sounds, opening his eyelids, making occasional sounds, and even sporadically breathing over his intubation.  After all this progress, it was obviously a shock for the Mays when they received a letter from the hospital stating that because they did not believe Isaiah would survive, it was unethical to continue to keep him on life support.

After receiving a court injunction, the Mays have been given time by a judge to present medical experts who can testify to the progress Isaiah has made and his potential for continued progress.

United Families’ Stance

For the Mays, the main issue is to save the life of their little boy.  But this case now appears to have the potential to set a precedent which could affect millions of lives all over the world.  If the power to choose whether or not to remove baby Isaiah from life support is taken away from his parents and given to the government, the precedent would be set, granting government the ability to decide who should live and who should die.  In a legal context, the government is placing a monetary value on the life of a child and replacing the parent’s rights and responsibilities to care for and nurture him.  Government’s rationale for making these decisions would be vastly different from a set of caring parents. Costs of care, essentially placing a monetary value on life, become the ultimate interest of the bureaucracy.

Euthanasia is the act of denying treatment to, or putting someone to death through medical means.  Targeting the weak, infirm, and disabled, those with a limited ability to fight for their own lives, the practice of euthanasia is only legal in two countries worldwide – Belgium and the Netherlands.  But while advocates for the practice will argue that it is merciful, the truth shows us otherwise.

The practice of euthanasia distorts the relationship between doctors and patients.  It allocates too much power to doctors who cannot accurately diagnose when a patient will die, but still have the power to choose to end life-saving care, or even directly end a patient’s life.  In countries with socialized medical programs, it places even more power in the hands of government bureaucracies with budgetary and programmatic priorities to consider.

In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal for more than a decade, two government reports found that at least 26 percent of euthanasia cases where committed without the explicit consent of the patient and over 20 percent of those killed without consent were competent to make life and death decisions for themselves.

Escalating health care costs, coupled with growing elderly and disabled populations, set the stage for a culture of death eager to embrace alternatives to expensive, long-term medical care. The so-called “right to die” may soon become the “duty to die” as elderly, disabled, or depressed individuals are pressured or coerced into ending their lives. The move toward managed care also threatens to promote euthanasia as more and more doctors are offered financial incentives to decrease the number of health care dollars spent per patient. Belgium has considered legislation which would allow parents of children with incurable diseases to have a doctor kill their children.

If the authority to decide which lifesaving medical treatments are given is granted to corporations and governments, who value life based on dollars and cents rather intrinsic human value, and removed from parents, in consultation with medical experts who are trained to save and value life, then stories like that of baby Isaiah will become the norm of modern society.  The power to decide any child’s future should be the sole responsibility of the parents.

United Families International is working tirelessly to help ensure that not only the rights of parents, but also the right to life, are protected and respected worldwide.  Through educational and advocacy initiatives at the local, national, and international levels, UFI is fighting for families just like the Mays.  Isaac and Rebecca May have a fundamental right as parents to make important decisions for their son.  That right must not be taken by government fiat.  Likewise, Isaiah May, and everyone else on the planet today, has a fundamental right to life that must not be surrendered to the interests of the culture of death.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers