Sam Fogal, a volunteer who spoke at the conference, described how he was “passionate about hastening death,” saying he was a “minister” for 40 years and witnessed many people suffer while dying. He had been involved with his first hastened death a few weeks previous and felt that it was the “right thing to do.”

This is sick. Have these people thought about alleviating suffering instead of hastening death? WTF?!

So it's okay to kill all the sick people and kill all the all the old people.

Where does the line stop. And who controls it?

And who controls it?

Self-righteous liberal creeps.

This expression: "hastening death" appalls me. It has to be some socialist invention.

I'm glad they went with choice, though-it's revealing. Choice to kill your baby or choice to kill yourself; it's all choice!

This is what happens when libertarian individualism gets taken to an extreme. "Freedom" and "choice" trump all other considerations. Euthanasia is an extreme example, but this imbalance of values is a microcosm of modern society as a whole.

How is euthanasia socialist?

The people who advocate it certainly seem to hail from that crowd, and their justifications (burden to society...blah blah blah) are from that playbook. The Nazis (motto: "We put the Zi in Socialist!") were big euthanists, and had tons of pamphlets and posters advocating it strenuously, in much the same language we hear today.

I've always said "kill the pain, not the patient."

That's not always possible under American drug laws.

On the other hand, morphine can hasten death, by few hours, in dying patients by relaxing the patient and allowing the body to accept the inevitable.

Because I don't see anyone other than socialists promoting it?

That's not always possible under American drug laws.

Then that's the part that needs to be changed. I think it's sickening that the medical community hesitates to prescribe strong enough drugs because of fear of addiction.

On the other hand, persons being executed are always swabbed with mercurochrome (or whatever they use on mass-murderers with thimerosal sensitivity.)

Good old Nazis. They can be either left-wing or right-wing when you want them to be.

I'm aware of Nazi euthanasia (especially of the disabled). Euthanasia is one of the Nazi policies that I'm against (along with the Holocaust and invading Poland), and it's a pity that euthanasia and eugenics are so closely intertwined in people's minds as a result of them. That could be said about so many things they advocated which are good, actually.

I always file the Nazis under "left wing", actually...I find it suspicious that leftists like to file the Nazis away under "right wing", as if to say "your side has extremists as well". I don't think so. Nazis are left, not right.

Having ranted on this before at a time when I was very angry over the Schiavo case, I might pause to reconsider now that tempers have cooled.

No, the "right to die" movement is still chock full of morons, not to mention scientologists and outright psychopaths. I recall how Kevorkian crudely removed a kidney from one of his victims and plopped it in a beer cooler, so it could be "donated". Was the Detroit Mengele really so stupid as to believe that a kidney removed in unsterile conditions could be used for anything? His sick, depraved admirers are apparently stupid enough, but all I see is a freak who likes to kill people and mutilate their bodies, and he's not the only one.

We've had this discussion before... but why are you all talking about euthanasia as if people are deliberately murdered by either the state or other people?

I don't know what the debate is like in the US, but euthanasia is mostly chosen, willfully and consciously, by people who lack the will to keep living due to sickness and pain, often terminal cancer. It has nothing to do with inconvenience to society, but with people's own choices. In the Netherlands, every year there is a handful of cases where newborn babies are euthanised, or killed if you like the word better, because of incurable diseases and disabilities. In these cases, the decision lies primarily with the parents, obviously there is no choice by the child itself.

There is no reason to compare this with nazi practices. I'm sure you can all imagine a relative so sick... he or she would rather die than suffer unimaginably for years to come. You wouldn't support their choice if they wanted assisted suicide? Where's the slippery slope? Of course, nonvolutary euthanasia is much more controversial... and also much, much less common. 'Pulling the plug' on a comatosed patient is part of this...

@ Fay #2
No it's not ok... and no one says it is. Where did you get the idea that a law such as the Dutch one will lead to this?

I've never been impressed with the "Right to Die" enthusiasm. If such a right exists, it is certainly the least impressive of all rights. I can't picture old Tom Paine rattling the rafters with an impassioned plea for suicide - or (more appropriately) for the right to inflict "suicide" on other people.

Glen, I couldn't have said it better. Fucking perfect.

In the Netherlands, every year there is a handful of cases where newborn babies are euthanised, or killed if you like the word better, because of incurable diseases and disabilities. In these cases, the decision lies primarily with the parents, obviously there is no choice by the child itself.

A handful?

I think you are underinformed.

And yes, I much prefer the word "killed" in the case of babies. They don't even have the privilege of requesting their death; let's not sugar-coat it. They are killed. There's no eu in this thanatos.

I'm definitely not a socialist... Perhaps the lack or religious beliefs don't hinder me in supporting it?

zorkie and I are both atheists, and we both feel the same way about "euthanasia." I do not believe this is an exclusively religious issue.

That ain't no handful.

but Doctor Knows Best.

I think not. Please link me to the statistics you use...

Oh and please link me to an unbiased site... I don't care for columns.

It is intended to legitimize eugenic infanticide and move it from a crime tolerated by the, oh, so tolerant Dutch, to outright legality. In other words, the last vestige of protection left in the Netherlands against infanticide — that is, the technical illegality of killing babies in the Netherlands — is to be stripped away, including the protection against the killing of disabled infants not dependent on intensive care for survival.

This is outright stupid.

I've read multiple sources, especially during the extended brouhaha that ensued when the Groningen Protocol was revealed (which I blogged about quite a bit). I don't have anything immediately at hand-but that Weekly Standard link above in #20 is a good start. I doubt he made it up.

Since the author of that article made up pretty much everything in his column evariste, I wouldn't be surpised if he did. Did you notice btw that he uses figures supposedly from 1997? This either means he couldn't find more recent statistics because his research skills suck, or he didn't bother doing any research...

Wesley's Senate testimony: 8% of all infant deaths in the Netherlands were caused by doctors—80-90 babies a year.

OK, so in 1997 that was the number, and since then the Groningen Protocol has come into legal force and become more socially acceptable in Holland, and your argument is that therefore the frequency has declined? You're not really making sense here, Omnivore, to be perfectly honest. If 8% of infant deaths when it was still faintly disreputable were iatrogenic, they are killing at least that many today.

In any case, I'd like to see your statistics. Show me this "handful" of yours.

Not that a paucity of victims is in any way redemptive of the Dutch monstrosity...

Yes Glen, Dr. K. is a ghoul; I'll never forget watching part of the Thomas Youk video. It turned my stomach.

Kevorkian's videotape showed Youk reading a statement before his death that he had not been coerced into accepting three injections from Kevorkian, including potassium chloride, which stopped his heart. Youk said he was terrified by the idea of suffocating, a common symptom among victims of the disease, and sought permanent relief from Kevorkian.

When asked about Youk's last words, Kevorkian reportedly laughed and said, "I don't know. I never understood a thing he said."

Anyone in doubt should take a look at his "artwork".

OMG.

TY for linking Mr. Smith's testimony, ev. It is horrifying.

'Night gang.

Footnotes are always nice, and his testimony lacks any. It does have a whole lot of assumptions and opinions though. I'll look up statistics for you later...

Anyway, we actually enjoy killing people randomly. Our doctors don't study for many years to heal and cure, but to kill and maim. It's in our Dutch blood... we've always been like this. We've never heard of morals, and life to us is only worth anything if it earns us any money... During special ceremonies we even eat the newborn babies hearts after we've euthanised them, and with our population growing, we need more babies every year. Soon, we might even have to import them from the US...

Oh, Omnivore, you are so making all of that stuff up. Especially the part about your growing population.

Now if you told that you passed out in a hash bar once and woke up with a tulip bulb in your ass, I might believe that.

The Groningen Protocol — Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns

Eduard Verhagen, M.D., J.D., and Pieter J.J. Sauer, M.D., Ph.D.

Of the 200,000 children born in the Netherlands every year, about 1000 die during the first year of life. For approximately 600 of these infants, death is preceded by a medical decision regarding the end of life. Discussions about the initiation and continuation of treatment in newborns with serious medical conditions are one of the most difficult aspects of pediatric practice. Although technological developments have provided tools for dealing with many consequences of congenital anomalies and premature birth, decisions regarding when to start and when to withhold treatment in individual cases remain very difficult to make. Even more difficult are the decisions regarding newborns who have serious disorders or deformities associated with suffering that cannot be alleviated and for whom there is no hope of improvement.

Suffering is a subjective feeling that cannot be measured objectively, whether in adults or in infants. But we accept that adults can indicate when their suffering is unbearable. Infants cannot express their feelings through speech, but they do so through different types of crying, movements, and reactions to feeding. Pain scales for newborns, based on changes in vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing pattern) and observed behavior, may be used to determine the degree of discomfort and pain. Experienced caregivers and parents are able to evaluate the degree of suffering in a newborn, as well as the degree of relief afforded by medication or other measures. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for competent persons older than 16 years of age has been legally accepted since 1985. The question under consideration now is whether deliberate life-ending procedures are also acceptable for newborns and infants, despite the fact that these patients cannot express their own will. Or must infants with disorders associated with severe and sustained suffering be kept alive when their suffering cannot be adequately reduced?

In the Netherlands, as in all other countries, ending someone's life, except in extreme conditions, is considered murder. A life of suffering that cannot be alleviated by any means might be considered one of these extreme conditions. Legal control over euthanasia in newborns is based on physicians' own reports, followed by assessment by criminal prosecutors. To provide all the information needed for assessment and to prevent interrogations by police officers, we developed a protocol, known as the Groningen protocol, for cases in which a decision is made to actively end the life of a newborn. During the past few months, the international press has been full of blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings concerning this protocol.

Infants and newborns for whom such end-of-life decisions might be made can be divided into three categories.1 First, there are infants with no chance of survival. This group consists of infants who will die soon after birth, despite optimal care with the most current methods available locally. These infants have severe underlying disease, such as lung and kidney hypoplasia.

Infants in the second group have a very poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care. These patients may survive after a period of intensive treatment, but expectations regarding their future condition are very grim. They are infants with severe brain abnormalities or extensive organ damage caused by extreme hypoxemia. When these infants can survive beyond the period of intensive care, they have an extremely poor prognosis and a poor quality of life.

Finally, there are infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering. Although it is difficult to define in the abstract, this group includes patients who are not dependent on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted. For example, a child with the most serious form of spina bifida will have an extremely poor quality of life, even after many operations. This group also includes infants who have survived thanks to intensive care but for whom it becomes clear after intensive treatment has been completed that the quality of life will be very poor and for whom there is no hope of improvement.

Deciding not to initiate or to withdraw life-prolonging treatment in newborns with no chance of survival is considered good practice for physicians in Europe and is acceptable for physicians in the United States. Most such infants die immediately after treatment has been discontinued.

Neonatologists in the Netherlands and the majority of neonatologists in Europe are convinced that intensive care treatment is not a goal in itself. Its aim is not only survival of the infant, but also an acceptable quality of life. Forgoing or not initiating life-sustaining treatment in children in the second group is acceptable to these neonatologists if both the medical team and the parents are convinced that treatment is not in the best interest of the child because the outlook is extremely poor.

Confronted with a patient in the third category, it is vital for the medical team to have as accurate a prognosis as possible and to discuss it with the parents. All possible measures must be taken to alleviate severe pain and discomfort. There are, however, circumstances in which, despite all measures taken, suffering cannot be relieved and no improvement can be expected. When both the parents and the physicians are convinced that there is an extremely poor prognosis, they may concur that death would be more humane than continued life. Under similar conditions, a person in the Netherlands who is older than 16 years of age can ask for euthanasia. Newborns, however, cannot ask for euthanasia, and such a request by parents, acting as the representatives of their child, is invalid under Dutch law. Does this mean that euthanasia in a newborn is always prohibited? We are convinced that life-ending measures can be acceptable in these cases under very strict conditions: the parents must agree fully, on the basis of a thorough explanation of the condition and prognosis; a team of physicians, including at least one who is not directly involved in the care of the patient, must agree; and the condition and prognosis must be very well defined. After the decision has been made and the child has died, an outside legal body should determine whether the decision was justified and all necessary procedures have been followed.

A national survey of neonatologists in the Netherlands has shown that each year there are 15 to 20 cases of euthanasia in newborn infants who would be categorized in the third group.2 According to Dutch law, it is a doctor's duty to file a death certificate when a patient has died from natural causes. If a death is due to euthanasia, it cannot be certified as "natural." The doctor must inform the coroner, who inspects the body and, in turn, informs the district attorney, whose office reviews each case in light of the applicable laws or jurisprudence. The district attorney presents the case, together with his or her own opinion, to the College of Attorneys General, whose four members manage the national public prosecution department and provisionally decide whether or not to prosecute. The final decision is made by the minister of justice.

Two court cases, decided in the mid-1990s, regarding euthanasia in infants in the Netherlands provide some guidance for both judges and physicians. In the first case, a physician ended the life of a newborn who had an extreme form of spina bifida. In the second case, a physician ended the life of a newborn who had trisomy 13. Both cases involved a very limited life expectancy and extreme suffering that could not be alleviated. In their verdicts, the courts approved the procedures as meeting the requirements for good medical practice. Although these rulings have given some guidance, many organizations have repeatedly pleaded for clearer guidelines, arguing that a committee with multidisciplinary (medical, legal, and ethical) expertise would be more capable than judges of assessing such cases. Physicians would be expected to be much more willing to report procedures to such a committee than they are to report to a district attorney. The Dutch government, however, has neither created a committee nor offered other guidance, despite having promised repeatedly, since 1997, to do so.

Twenty-two cases of euthanasia in newborns have been reported to district attorneys' offices in the Netherlands during the past seven years. Recently, we were allowed to review these cases.3 They all involved infants with very severe forms of spina bifida. In most cases (17 of the 22), a multidisciplinary spina bifida team was consulted. In the remaining five cases, at least two other independent medical experts were consulted. The physicians based their decisions on the presence of severe suffering without hope of improvement (see Table 1). The decisions were always made in collaboration with, and were fully approved by, both parents. The prosecutor used four criteria to assess each case: the presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering and a very poor quality of life, parental consent, consultation with an independent physician and his or her agreement with the treating physicians, and the carrying out of the procedure in accordance with the accepted medical standard. The conclusion in all 22 cases was that the requirements of careful practice were fulfilled. None of the physicians were prosecuted.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. Considerations Used to Support the Decision to End the Life of a Newborn in 22 Cases.



Given that the national survey indicated that such procedures are performed in 15 to 20 newborns per year, the fact that an average of three cases were reported annually suggests that most cases are simply not being reported. We believe that all cases must be reported if the country is to prevent uncontrolled and unjustified euthanasia and if we are to discuss the issue publicly and thus further develop norms regarding euthanasia in newborns. With that aim, we developed a protocol in 2002, in close collaboration with a district attorney. The protocol contains general guidelines and specific requirements related to the decision about euthanasia and its implementation. Five medical requirements must be fulfilled; other criteria are supportive, designed to clarify the decision and facilitate assessment (see Table 2). Following the protocol does not guarantee that the physician will not be prosecuted. Since implementing this protocol, our group has reported four cases in which we performed a deliberate life-ending procedure in a newborn. None have resulted in prosecution.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 2. The Groningen Protocol for Euthanasia in Newborns.

Dilemmas regarding end-of-life decisions for newborns with a very poor quality of life and presumably unbearable suffering and no hope of improvement are shared by physicians throughout the world. In the Netherlands, obligatory reporting with the aid of a protocol and subsequent assessment of euthanasia in newborns help us to clarify the decision-making process. This approach suits our legal and social culture, but it is unclear to what extent it would be transferable to other countries.

Read what the fuck you are talking about you sanctimonious hysterical blowhard. This is the way a certain community of civilized people chose to deal with defective births.

Facile bomb throwing demagougery is your forte isn't it?

What are *you* talking about White House? What is the point of posting the whole article? If you were familiar with the topic, you would know that when Dr Verhagen uses the phrase, "medical decision regarding the end of life" he is employing the Dutch euthanists euphemistic term for ending life without the patient's permission. According to the Remmelink Report in 1996 over 20000 deaths were attributed to this form of euthanasia. All of the guidelines that were promised for the introduction of assisted suicide have been ignored and this practice of "ward clearing" of elderly patients and euthanizing of infants was the result. And please explain your term "defective births". Children with spinal bifida have been targeted. By that logic, we should also euthanize quad- and paraplegics from spinal cord injuries. Is that what you are advocating?

Omnivore, the scale of euthanasia in your country is so vast, I can't believe your ignorance is anything other than willful. Open your eyes.

Here's a little cautionary tale that says it all involving Universalist Unitarian minister and self appointed angel of death, Ralph Mero:

As the account continues, the doctor indicates that she would be willing to help, had recently helped another patient whom Louise knew, and said she would prescribe enough barbiturates to kill Louise. To avoid legal trouble, she would not be there when Louise committed suicide. They exchanged several hugs and Louise went home. The doctor called Compassion in Dying for advice. The reporter quotes the doctor as saying about contacting Mero, "I was ecstatic to find someone who’s doing what he’s doing…. I loved the fact that there were guidelines."

On the phone, Mero advises the doctor on the medication to prescribe and then visits Louise, suggesting that he is prepared to help Louise die before knowing or even meeting her or in any way determining whether she meets any guidelines. When he does meet Louise, she asks him at once if he will help her with her suicide and be there when she does it and she is almost tearfully grateful when he says yes. He repeats many times that it has to be her choice. Louise affirms that it is, saying that all she wants "these next few weeks is to live as peacefully as possible." Louise seems concerned with being close to others during her final time and with spending what is left of her life in an environment of loving leave-taking.

Note that this is before Oregon's Death with Dignity law was passed, and that the doctor alludes to guidelines long after they should have been applied. What Rev. Mero has in fact done is relieve the doctor of any consequences or accountability. And why is a minister advising a doctor on the deadly dose to prescribe? It get even more grotesque as the day draws near:

The doctor is concerned that Louise’s judgment might soon become impaired: "The question is, at what point is her will going to be affected, and, if suicide is what she wants, does she have the right to do it when she still has the will?" The doctor, like Mero, says she does not want to influence the patient, but worries that Louise might not act in time. "If she loses her mind and doesn’t do this, she’s going into the hospital. But the last thing I want to do is pressure her to do this."

Yet the closeness before dying that Louise seemed to want is lost in the flurry of activity and planning for her death as each of those involved with her dying pursues his or her own requirements. At a subsequent meeting of Mero and Louise, with Louise’s mother and her doctor also present, Mero gives Louise a checklist in which he reviews steps to be taken during the suicide from the food to be eaten to how the doctor would call the medical examiner.

The doctor indicates she will be out of town for the next week, but that she has told her partner of Louise’s plans. "You don’t have to wait for me to get back," she tells Louise, hinting, the reporter tells us, that it might be a good idea not to wait. The doctor was more direct when alone with Louise’s mother, telling her that she was afraid Louise might not be coherent enough to act if she waited past the coming weekend.

The doctor and Mero discuss how pointed they can be with Louise, wanting her to make an informed decision without frightening her into acting sooner than she was ready. They hoped, "she would read between the lines." Mero assures the reporter that he always wants to err on the side of caution. Nonetheless, a few days after the meeting, Mero called the reporter in New York, asking her to come to Seattle as soon as possible. He knew she was planning to come the following week, but he warned her not to wait that long.

The reporter leaves immediately for Seattle and finds Louise in a debilitated condition. She is in pain, getting weaker, and speaks of wanting to end her life while she can still be in control. She says she is almost ready, but not quite. She needs about a week, mainly to relax and be with her mother.

What Louise didn't count on was that once she put herself into Rev. Mero's care, the timetable was not her own. After a full court press by nearly all of the players involved, Louise finally accedes to her suicide. And in her final scene we see a glimpse of the true face of Rev Mero's ministry of death:

Over the next days she speaks with Mero by phone, but he tells the reporter he kept the conversations short because he was uncomfortable with her growing dependence on his opinion. Nevertheless, after a few such conversations, the contents of which are not revealed, Louise indicated she was ready; that evening Mero came and the assisted suicide was performed. A detailed description of the death scene provides the beginning, the end, and the drama of the published story. Louise did not die immediately but lingered for seven hours. Had she not died from the pills, Mero subsequently implied to the reporter, he would have used a plastic bag to suffocate her, although this violates the Compassion in Dying guidelines.

Rev Mero shows himself to be a skilled orchestrator of the simple and true goal of physician-assisted suicide: a corpse to be delivered to the medical examiner. In the end all the talk of a better end of life that the right-to-die movement touts as its mission gives way to a merciless timetable that is more rigorous than the disease itself. The tragic part is that Louise was never offered the kind of quality end-of-life care that would have addressed her fears and given her the time she so desperately needed. The poignancy of how Rev. Mero's agenda failed to address that is seen in Louise last attempt to express her longing for love and comfort:

The reporter blurted out, "Your doctor feels that if you don’t act by this weekend you may not be able to." Her words are met with a "wrenching silence" and Louise, looking sharply at her mother, indicates that she hadn’t been told that. Her mother says gently that is what the doctor had told her. Louise looks terrified and her mother tells her its OK to be afraid. "I’m not afraid. I just feel as if everyone is ganging up on me, pressuring me," Louise said, "I just want some time."

Louise’s mother was growing less certain that Louise would actually take her own life. When she tried to ask her directly, Louise replied, "I feel like it’s all we ever talk about."

This was taken from a 1994 Time magazine that was supposed to show the compassionate aspect of physician assisted suicide. If this is PAS at it's best...

I know babies with severe spina bifida are often paralyzed- I'm curious, is their intellectual development severely affected?

In one sense I guess it doesn't matter, on the other hand, killing babies of normal or near normal intellectual ability because 'their quality of life' in a wheelchair is judged not sufficiently good really creeps me out.

Ok, from looking around, while some babies are born with coexistent defects, spina bifida, while often producing symptoms such as partial or complete paralysis and incontinence, does not normally cause retardation.


So they are killing babies because they think life in a wheel chair isn't worth living.

Would it be different if they were killing babies because they thought life with a low IQ isn't worth living?

Throbert, nope...

Does bloggie no longer accept trackbacks?

I linked to my blog and prolifeblogs...

From Sullivan:

And you may have noticed we have had no trackbacks lately. This is a function of Typepad's malfunction. We've been bugging them for well over a week but they still haven't fixed it. My apologies on their behalf.

No, it shouldn't, but I still find killing babies of normal intelligence double-extra creepy.



We got the tri-screen blood test with all three of our children, but if it had suggested trisomy or some other disorder, we'd already decided we wouldn't abort, and, BTW, there is a way to sample tissue from the baby or placenta beyond just amnio, but I read somewhere the rate of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) from that test is higher than the chances of a baby that 'failed' the tri-screen actually having Down's.

So a lot of healthy babies are killed, either accidentally, or intentionally, while trying to avoid having a 'defective' baby.

Strange. Prolifeblogs uses Typepad and their trackback works.

You aren't fooling anyone Andrew. We know the real reason... *winks at Frank*

#7 evariste

I consider Nazis on the socialist side of the spectrum, for all the progressives have tried to disassociate themselves from them by calling them "facists" and "right wingers".

And, yeah, this is the socialist carrot-and-stick; "Oh, please, please, give us your tired, your poor, your disabled and we, the all-compassionate, all-excellent government, will take care of them, unlike cruel capitalism, which relies on private charity. After all, religon is the Opiate of the people, who must look to the state for help!"

And then, a few years down the road. . .

"Comrades, your tired, your poor, your disabled and all you useless eaters are burdens on the state, especially during this time of crisis when the Father of the People, great Dictator Ubu, needs to prepare for our war against the evil Zionists of (stick in the name of the nearest neighboring country) who are trying to conquer us in the name of the evil Zionist state of Israel! Therefore, some of you must be eliminated! You are a drain on society, and we simply can't afford to support such useless souls as yourselves."

Then, Ubu buys a yacht and and 16 new pleasure palaces with the swag he's saved from all the programs for (now euthanized) disabled children in his country, and his new "One child per every five couples" policy saves him a bundle on the socialized maternity programs he promised at the beginning of his reign. This policy backfires, of course, when the population drops, and Ubu needs more soldiers for his wars. He will blame the population dip on the Jews, cut more government programs and hire a group of terrorists, led by general Ahma-sicko to bomb, murder and make war against wholly innocent neighboring countries, in order to punish the "Jews" they are allegedly harboring.

So it always goes, with this sort of thing.

#14 Glen Wishard

Yes, and it is precisely people like Kevorkian who become the Mengeles and storm troopers of totalitarian movements, which is one good reason for NOT instituting vast euthanasia/eugenics programs---unless your firmly believe in jobs programs for Psychopaths!

#42 Ed Mahmoud, Mighty Weatherman

I have known two women with spina bifada, and they were both unusually intelligent, charming and witty.

Omnivore

Omnivore, the one thing I take from your posts is that your country is seriously warped, and in deep trouble.

#23 evariste

Indeed, "Doctor knows best!" I wish more people had understood that in my era! If they had, I might not have been as cruelly persecuted as I was for bringing comfort and relief to so many unhappy, lonely women, whose lives really were not living!

In your era, I might have been another celebrity, like your admirable Dr. Kevorkian! In my own, alas, I gained notoriety of a much different sort!

/Channeling Dr. H.H. Holmes, America's first serial killer, and exactly the kind of person who'se going to be in charge of any euthanasia/eugenics program! C'mon, did you think all the Schweitzers, Tom Dooleys and Mother Theresas would want to sign up for this? Get real! You're gonna get all the H.H. Holmeses and that other gentleman who'se oft suspected of being a doctor, "Jack" (the Ripper, that is).

C'mon, did you think all the Schweitzers, Tom Dooleys and Mother Theresas would want to sign up for this? Get real! You're gonna get all the H.H. Holmeses and that other gentleman who'se oft suspected of being a doctor, "Jack" (the Ripper, that is).

Or Dr Harold Shipman

#36 Omnivore

Omni, you're trying (very clumsily) to be sarcastic, but I can actually see the things you snark about coming to pass, in the not-so-distant future.

embryonic stem cell research, the concept of cloning people for spare parts and experiments on embryos lead me to believe that cannibalism of the "unfit", or something very much like it (using human beings as "spare parts") is heading down the pike. And when it does, it will be lauded as progressive, compassionate and tolerant.

After all, the Red Chinese apparently sell body parts of executed dissidents? What next?

Just as a side note---I work in a legal office. Very often, it is the prospective heirs of a dying and/or severely debilitated elderly man or woman---and their attorneys---who push for the supposed "sufferer" to be allowed to "die with dignity"---not the "sufferer" themselves, who often appears to be quite happy to go on living! And the push to hurry things up, and get them bumped off while they are still competent (because once they're declared incompetent, they can't legally assent to anything) is downright ghoulish!

OT--evariste, I am working on the piece I promised you, and should have it for you in few days. We definitely need some cheering up around here!

Oh, it's a happy fun euthanasia piece! Can't wait! :)

#54 Frank IBC

No, no, it's got nothing to do with euthanasia, so don't worry.

#52 Papijoe

Ah, yes, how could we ever forget that "angel of mercy", Dr. Shipman?

His case, and H.H. Holmes's, by the by, should really have warned the public against placing so much blind faith in doctors, or those who claim to be doctors, or wise medical experts.

(Not to mention all those "compassionate" Palestinian "pediatricians" who do nothing to stop the horrible practice of homicide bombing).

We're accepting them and storing them in the database, but not displaying them. One of these days I'll spend twenty minutes to finish my homebrewed trackback script; I want to add one more feature before I start displaying them. I have an idea for an anti-spam defense to add, one that I don't believe has been done before. Then I have to decide how to style the trackbacks and where to put them on the page. So yeah, we're accepting trackbacks but not doing anything with them at the moment.

OT--evariste, I am working on the piece I promised you, and should have it for you in few days. We definitely need some cheering up around here!

Thanks TalkinKamel!

The Torah agrees with you, evariste, euthanasia is wrong; in fact, murder. However, anything medical can be done to make the terminal patient pain free/comfortable, including addictive drugs.

My father, obm, had terminal cancer. He was prescribed a self-administered, addictive opiate anytime he desired for pain relief. When the cancer reached his brain, he became pain free without drugs. He was mobile and lucid until he lost conciousness a few hours before his death at home. All his family and friends from throughout his life had the chance to visit and say good-bye. He was made comfortable throughout. If any other life threatening illness had come up, it wouldn't have been treated (which is also ok, according to Torah). I wish he had had more time with us. I wish he had taken longer to die. When my time comes to go into the next world, I hope it is as peaceful a journey as his was.

That's beautiful, Jayce.

I hate the distortion wrought by the War on Drugs on American medicine, which has opened the door to these euthanist ghouls.

There are many religious Jews in Israel who tell their families to donate their body parts after their death. However, they do not sign a donor card in order not to encourage doctors to sin by "hastening their death" to get those parts.

However, anything medical can be done to make the terminal patient pain free/comfortable, including addictive drugs.

This is how it should be.

I'm sorry you lost your dad, Jayce. What a comfort to know that his journey was peaceful and he was not in pain.

One piece of advice for anyone who goes the home hospice route with a loved one...

If there is an expensive, or sentimentally valuable clock in the sickroom, remove it and replace it with a cheap one that you won't mind throwing out.

Why, Frank?

Thanks, zorkie. He was a great man and we miss him terribly, but I know he's very happy. My son was upset that he wasn't with him at the last, but in a dream Grandpa came to him with a big smile and full of love, so we all feel good that he's getting his 'just desserts'. He sure made our lives better with his own.

Aw, what a sweet story, Jayce.

Re #63 - after the person dies, sooner or later you will need to look at the clock, to establish time of death. You will hate that particular clock forever after.

Ah! Good advice then, Frank!

(I've got an alarm clock now that I'm willing to donate. It only beeps twice. I already hate it.)

Actually I've disliked clocks in general, since that moment.

So sorry, Frank.

ok. bloggie doesn't tell me a trackback address to ping tho'...

Thanks G-d your father had good palliative care Jayce. This is how we need to be addressing "death with dignity"...

Thank God that it worked in his particular case.

An if we kill and call it euthanasia, what about terminal cases like this child's? (video)

Yeah, I figure everyone has tools that support Trackback Autodiscovery by now. If you view the page source we have the autodiscovery stuff in there in an RDF block, including the trackback URL...I guess not all the tools are supporting it yet, though. Maybe I'll bring it back out in the open.

For this thread it's http://discardedlies.com/dl-trackback.php?19044

WOW! I love the prayer. "May the sickness leave him and stick in Arafats head..."

What is Mitzvat Tzitzi?

I know tzitzi is a fringed garment, but not the meaning of the gesture...

Er, I think it means giving cucumber in yoghurt to all visitors on Shabat.

How timely! New Arutz-7 feature: Restoring the Right to Choose Life

“Our organization is pro-choice in the truest sense,” says Ruti Tidhar. “Many women see abortion as their only choice due to financial woes. We restore their ability to choose to have their baby.”

Tidhar, a social worker, heads the team of 2,300 volunteers who are the lifeblood of Efrat, an organization offering assistance and support to Jewish women considering aborting their pregnancy.

“When people hear about an organization that empowers people to decide not to have abortions, they think of protestors waving pictures of baby parts and waging legal battles - but you won’t find any of that here,” says Tidhar, Efrat's Deputy Director. “That is not what we are about.”

When Tidhar is contacted by a woman wanting to know more about her options, she dispatches one of the group’s volunteers to meet with the patient – anywhere in the country. Based on their experience of meeting with many such women, volunteers report two underlying reasons abortion is pursued in most of the cases they deal with: One, the embryo is so small that they are able to disconnect emotionally. Two, financial pressures and anxiety – fear that they will not be able to provide properly for the child.

“We let the woman know what her options are,” Tidhar explains. “We let her know that we truly will shoulder the financial burden. We give her back the empowerment of being able to make an actual decision on the matter."

“The turning point is usually once she is willing to look inside and admit that even with all of the difficulties, she doesn’t really want to go through with it, but simply told herself she had no choice,” Tidhar says. “Once she is there, she makes the decision with her heart. And the heart is where we make all our truly important decisions.”

The entire article (with pictures) is worthwhile reading. I didn't know this, though - and it's very disheartening:

Israel remains the only Western country with no cut-off point for late-term abortions.

“Theoretically, a woman can have the fetus aborted while she is already in labor here,” Tidhar laments. Though such a case has never occurred, late-term abortions are extremely common in the Jewish state.

Terrible.

It's tzitzit. What's the "gesture" (do I have to watch the video..?)

Wow, that's great, joem.

lol. Joem can explain this better, but until he shows up....
All Jewish men are commanded to wear tzitzim, a certain configuration of threads, on any garment (usually shirts/coats) that has 4 exposed corners to it. For this, a special garment with for sure 4 corners is worn like an undershirt everyday, so tzitzim (threads) won't have to be placed on the 4 corners of every shirt he buys, for example. He fullfills this commandment by wearing this 'undershirt'. These men were choosing to do fullfill this commandment of G-d's for the first time for the rest of their lives as a show of good faith and a plea that HaShem rescue the little boy.

Oh good, Joem, you're here!

“Theoretically, a woman can have the fetus aborted while she is already in labor here,” Tidhar laments. Though such a case has never occurred, late-term abortions are extremely common in the Jewish state.

I don't think that's accurate. As far as I know, 24 weeks is the cut off point unless the mother's health is endangered. I seem to remember hearing about this when a member of my family had an abortion for health reasons.

Jayce, thanks for the video link. I watched the whole thing. It's very moving and emotionally wrenching.

You are incorrigible Frank!

Hi Annie. Thanks. I know what you mean.

Popijoe #76

WOW! I love the prayer. "May the sickness leave him and stick in Arafats head..."

Well, the little boy is growing up big and strong ...and Arafat is still dead.


The point is, I think, not to give up; to "choose life" as it says in the Torah.

We all know of people who have suffered terrible pains before dying in order to live a little longer. Medical science today should also be working on getting rid of pain for the terminally ill. However, my friend, Rabbi Simcha, zatzal, choose not to even take this step because it would increase one of his problems and shorten his life.

Thanks for the explanation Jayce!

It's interesting, the Rav also referred to it as an act of repentance, IIRC...

I think he said "tshuva", returning/getting closer to G-d.