And misdiagnose someone for years as being less active than they were, mentally? As Instapundit points out, it’s a good thing there weren’t any liberals around trying to be “compassionate”.

Through my online debates with members of the opposing viewpoint, I have found that a shockingly large number of liberals have no real morality. I have always believed that conservatives have the higher degree of morality due to support for life, marriage and freedom. But recently through discourse on the Drudge Retort, I have found that many far left liberals don’t mind silencing dissent, speaking out for freedom to die, and generally are all about ME.

I, through my natural inclination to debate and debate fiercely, entered into a discussion on the merits of the pro-life position conservatives have taken. I saw people who heralded the murder of Terry Schiavo through slow starvation as a ‘great moment’ in our history. I also saw people determined that it was their right as a woman to kill of the baby inside of them ‘because I don’t want a party of white men telling me what to do with my body.’ Still others were on my side claiming life was valuable and the teaching of intelligent design should be encouraged to offer a valuable alternative to the THEORY of evolution. They were ridiculed. One of my posts was removed because it contained an element of religion.

Liberals in the 40s, 50s and 60s were heralded for their open mindedness and tolerance. The liberal mindset though has come full circle, from tolerance for all to only tolerance for what they want to hear. Liberals complain of the Bush doctrine of the Patriot Act which allowed warrant-less wiretaps, yet they want to shout down all opposing viewpoints. Liberalism used to be the carefree open mindset which focused on personal generosity. Now it is a close minded, our view is the only view if you don’t agree with us we will shout you down and drown you out, take more of someone else’s money to pay for ’social justice’ programs.

Liberals now applaud when someone is guaranteed a right to die, such as a baby or suicidal person, yet they denounce those that want to stick up for life. Pro life people just hate the woman with the baby, people that oppose doctor assisted suicide are simply people that don’t want others to be able to end their own misery. Yet they, the slaughterers of the unborn and defenders of murderers, are great humanitarians, promoting liberty to the pregnant and life to the prisoners.

Americans, when are we going to stand up to the valueless liberalism that is pervading our colleges, our organization, our government? Why do we listen to people who want murderers to live and be set free from prison yet don’t mind the systematic and painful dismembering and slaughtering of the unborn? Stand up for morality.

“Precious gift, that’s what you were,
God knit his work within her womb,
But a hardened heart and a selfish wish,
Turned that place into your tomb.

I wonder what you would have become,
If choice had not got in the way,
Of hearing you laugh and watching you run.
But in my heart your life has begun,
Who had the right to deprive us
Of all of the things we’d have done?

I Wonder…

My only peace is knowing
That He is at your side.
That He holds you close,
And tucks you in at night.

I’ll bear this empty hole,
Without you in my life,
Knowing that someday,
You’ll run to me — eternally.”

That is from the song “I Wonder: A Love Song to the Son I Never Knew” as performed by Jamie Dickmann. It is so heart breaking. Why do we allow this in America. Abortion is murder. No matter what the valueless left says or what ‘choice’ dictates. We need to stop this.

(Second thoughts on this post– The left blogosphere has picked this story up, but the source is the Washington Times, a hard-right organ of Reverend Moon’s Unification Church. The story concerns cancellation of private insurance for a disabled man, and the family considers the alternative, Medicaide, to be a death sentence. I’m not buying that at all. However, I can understand their desire to maintain the home care that has kept Ian Pearl well, and I support them in that. Expensive? Yes, but so is institutionalization. Home care is the future of health care, if we want to keep costs down and give people autonomy and choice.)

Another Terry Schiavo? Don’t count on Senator Bill Frist to ride to the rescue. Frist doesn’t need to divine from video that Ian Pearl is neurologically intact. Ian Pearl can speak for himself.

Rather than continue to pay for Ian Pearl’s million dollar medical treatments, one insurance company has decided to end certain lines of coverage altogether, reports William Ehart of the Washington Times. Pearl, 37, suffers from Type II spinal muscular dystrophy, and has been using a wheel chair and connected to a breathing tube for most of his life. Patients with his type of muscular dystrophy rarely live past infancy, but Peal credits his vitality to the care he has received all his life.

On December 1 his insurer, Guardian, is discontinuing a portion of its coverage, which will effectively kill him. Without his extensive coverage Pearl will be admitted to a state hospital under Medicaid, with less treatment. Pearl’s mother said that in a state hospital her son would be lucky to live more than a few weeks. Pearl’s plan, as of now, covers 24-hour home nursing, which Medicaid, and the vast majority of plans, do not.

Ian Pearl’s treatment is expensive. And I’m very concerned about the assertion that people who go into the state hospital just die. If the state hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is that bad then there are many more Ian Pearls who are not lucky enough to have fierce advocates.

Where does the money go? I’ve never met Ian Pearl, but I do work in home care so I can give an educated opinion. A better one than Doctor Senator Frist gave in the Schiavo case. I’m betting that Ian Pearl has home health aides who get him out of bed, wash him and keep him from getting bedsores. I’m betting that Ian Pearl has nurses who can manage his tracheostomy, visible in his photo, and all the breathing equipment that keeps him alive. They don’t teach that in nursing school, it’s usually learned on the job in Med Surg or ICU. I’m guessing that Ian Pearl has some very skilled nurses on his team.

So somewhere in Fort Lauderdale tonight there are some very unhappy medical workers who have kept Ian alive and well for years. They might be terminated. For what?

“This is attempted murder” said his father, Warren, “the insurance companies are cheating in order to have obscene profits.” Last year Guardian reported $437 million profits, up 50 percent from 2007.

Interesting that this story was reported by the Washington Times. A newspaper that was bought by Reverend Moon. A newspaper with an agenda, to be carried out in this world or the next, who knows? The coverage of this story on left-wing sites may be another case of politics making strange bedfellows.

The Washington Times was a good friend of the Bush administration, but they are eternally an organ of the Unification Church. I have no idea what the Times is up to.

I’ve observed that it’s easier to love those who are silently unborn than those who are not only born, but in need of expensive care to keep them in this world. Hey, a lot of wingers don’t even support prenatal and pediatric care. Every time I drive past those ‘Prolife Across America’ billboards, with the cute babies, I think about the Rhode Island children who could be insured if the governor made it a priority.

All Ian Pearl wants is to live with some security and dignity. And the money spent doesn’t go down the drain. It goes into wages for the workers who care for him, and they pay taxes, buy groceries and care for their families. This kind of hands-on labor can’t be outsourced, so it cycles back into our economy.

But a young guy with a goatee, who can speak for himself is a problem, isn’t he? Not as much of a blank slate as poor Terry Shiavo, whose autopsy revealed an atrophied brain. This is a man who is alert and oriented and can speak for himself. What will we do for him?

A public option for a Medicare-type insurance that will use less money in administration and won’t drop you arbitrarily would give some security to patients like Ian Pearl. Some of the Tea Party believe that we should let God decide. And God’s agents on Earth are named Tenet and Blue Cross. But they have a vital interest in unloading people who really need the help. So what is left?

What is left is ‘We the People’ deciding to walk the walk when we say that we value life. Ian Pearl’s condition was not predictable or preventable, but with financial support he can manage. Taking care of our own requires investing locally, in a way that cycles back into the local economy. Letting the insurance corporations do their financial triage is a disgrace and a waste. Let them reform, or get out of the way for a better system.

More on this, with a picture of Ian Pearl, here.

Hemlock!! Yummy.

The absolute last thing I care to be remembered for is having boobs that hung down so low I could tuck them into my waistband instead of wearing a bra. (May my dear grandmother rest in peace…)

Bring on the hospice care at home. Bring on the hemlock. Bring me a cigar. Just please, don’t bring me any holier-than-thou politicians preaching about the sanctity of my life. They obviously don’t know me!

The most chilling legislation I ever worked on was the statutory definition of “Brain Death.”  Years before the controversial Terry Schiavo case, there was the equally emotional Terry Ann Quinlen case, both dealing with the definition of death.  I can still recall my many discussions on the gut wretching issue  in 1980 with the very respected lobbyist and attorney representing the Florida Catholic Conference, Tom Horkan.  As the Chairman of the Florida Senate Committee on Health and Rehabilitative Services, as well as the Senate Subcommittee funding health care, I was in a position to bring all of Florida’s legislative resources to the table to try to give the public some statutory direction on the definition of at least one form of death.  Since I was not an attorney nor of the catholic faith, I allegedly came to the issue without an obvious agenda.  Working with the Catholic Conference, The Florida Bar, The Florida Hospital Association, The Florida Medical Association, and many others, we were able to craft a bill that passed the Senate, House, and that Governor Bob Graham (D., Florida) signed into law on October 1, 1980.  I am very proud to report Section 382.085, Florida Statutes is still on the books today, and hopefully providing some statutory direction to the public on this very emotional issue.

Damn, do I ever get tired of double-talk on health care.  First, Section 1233 was, if not the gateway to Death Panels, then it was a cold, worrisome treatment of mortality vs. cost.  Now, when it comes to the idea of extending life through preventive medicine, that’s a bad idea because longer lives cost money:

As it turns out, there may be very little savings at all from preventive care:

Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year — money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.

However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services

This is all pushback against a study that says CBO isn’t factoring in savings from preventive care.  But even if you accept the idea that longer lives mean more health care, does that mean that those longer lives will necessarily be unproductive?  And even if you accept that, isn’t rejecting preventive care something akin to a Death Panel?  In other words, won’t these people just say any fucking thing at this point?  And won’t the media, except for Jake Tapper and me, just “he said/she said” the whole deal?

Update:  Jake doesn’t take exception.  I do.  I think the President should literally say “Let me be absolutely clear: The media, with the exception of Jake Tapper and Tommy Christopher, have done a lousy job of blah blah blah…”

Jake Tapper posts today about the President and his political arm, Organizing for America, taking shots at the media for not smacking down health care lies, with this pointed addendum:

For the record, HERE’s the first report we did on the erroneous claims about death panels.

I know how you feel, Jake, but in fairness to the President, not every member of the media is as awesome as me:

In the past few days, the Washington Post’s Charles Lane, then Eugene Robinson, and now The Daily Beast’s Lee Siegel have all given Palin’s death panels the “she’s crazy, but there’s a germ of a point here” treatment.

This cowardice in the face of clarity allows these lies to muddy the waters even as they are uprooted.

On March 31, 2005, Terry Schiavo passed away, after a fifteen (15) year legal battle over her fate.   During this time, her case became a national lightning rod for the discussion over end-of-life issues.

In brief, Terry had collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990.  When the EMT’s arrived, she was not breathing and had no pulse.  Various emergency medical procedures were immediately enacted, however, her brain suffered from a lack of oxygen, and she fell into a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).

In the months and years that followed, a protracted legal battle ensued between her husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, about what Terri would have wished for herself.  Michael argued that Terri would have wished for treatment to have been withdrawn.  The Schindlers argued that Terri was a devout Roman Catholic, and would never have wished to violate the Church’s teachings on euthanasia by refusing food and water treatment.

A Completely Unnecessary Tragedy

Beyond the personal and medical tragedy that befell Terry Schiavo, what made matters even worse is that the fifteen year legal battle which ensued was completely unnecessary.

To completely over-simplify the legal case: both sides argued that they knew best what Terry wanted for herself.

What was completely missing in this case was a clear and unambiguous declaration by Terry of her own decisions in this matter.

Because there was no living will in effect, both sides were forced to argue that they knew what she wanted.  Had there been a valid living will, it would have been executed, and the entire legal drama could have been avoided.

What is a Living Will?

In the legal world, there is a legal document known as a living will, or here in California, an Advance Health Care Directive.

This document is designed to do two things: (1) Make your decisions regarding health care, and end-of-life decisions, perfectly clear and then (2) Nominate another person (an agent for health care) to carry out your wishes, on your behalf, if you are not able to do so yourself.

With a living will, the decisions remain your own.  Your agent is not allowed to substitute their judgment for your own, their only role is to carry out your wishes. Without a living will, the hospitals and Courts will have to substitute someone else’s judgment for your own.

What Can You Do to Protect Yourself?

We understand that these types of decisions are difficult to think and talk about. However, they are far too important to leave to others.

Here are a few guidelines for how you can protect yourself:

(1) Talk about these issues with your spouse, your family, your pastor, your spiritual mentor(s).  Pray over these decisions, but also let others know what you would want.

(2) Execute a Valid Living Will or Advance Directive.  As important as it is to discuss with your loved ones, it is equally important to put your wishes into legal effect, through a validly executed Living Will or Advance Directive.

(3) Tell your doctors and your family that you have executed such a document, and make sure it can be found quickly in an emergency.  A recent study shows that as many as one-half of all living wills fail because they can not be located in an emergency, when they are needed most.

(4) Most importantly, don’t try to do this alone.  We encourage everyone to work with appropriate legal counsel, who can provide guidance, answer questions, and ensure that your documents are legally valid.

These decisions are far too important, too personal, and too spiritual to leave in the hands of a Court, a hospital, or a third-party.  You need to take control of your own decisions, by executing a valid living will or Advance Health Care Directive today.

On last night’s Hardball, Chris Matthews spoke with Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), a major advocate for the controversial “advance planning consultations” that are included in the current draft of the House bill.  What the consultations boil down to is that senior citizens would be entitled to a voluntary, Medicare-covered conversation with their doctors once every five years to discuss the options available to them in the event that they would need end-of-life care.  Seniors would be able (but would not be required) to complete advance care directives, or living wills, specifying their desires so that family members would not have the burden of making tough decisions down the road.

Advance planning consultations are a great idea.  Although conservatives are trying to paint them as government-sponsored euthanasia, the truth is that everyone dies eventually, and it’s better to plan for how you want to go than to have your doctors and your family suffer through difficult decisions.  And of course, there’s the reason this provision was introduced in the first place: many Americans may choose to forgo aggressive lifesaving measures, which will save the health care system money.  The consultation is with your own doctor, who is reimbursed by Medicare for any services provided, so there’s absolutely no financial incentive for a doctor to encourage a patient to forgo treatment.  And once again, the consultations are completely voluntary.

Matthews tried to bait Blumenauer by asking a question about Terry Schiavo, and the congressman fell for it, explaining that much angst could have been avoided if this legislation had been in place and Schiavo had discussed end-of-life options with her doctor.  But that’s not really true.  This plan is only for seniors, and Schiavo was much younger than 65 when her family was catapulted into the national spotlight.  The fact that Schiavo was in the pre-Medicare demographic leads to an important point: it’s not only old people who die, and it would be great to see this plan expanded to all Americans over 18, for both private insurers and the public plan when we get one.  We may be unwilling to put a Peter Singer-style price on life, but allowing patients to talk to their doctors about end-of-life care isn’t barbaric, regardless of what the Republicans say.  It’s the only compassionate thing to do.

40 percent of patients diagnosed as vegetables are in fact “minimally conscious”.

Of course, the crowd that defended Terry Schiavo’s “right to die” were really just tools for her husband to use to swindle money from the state.

From Talking Points Memo:

Randall Terry: George Tiller Reaped What He Sowed… Now Let’s Go Have Some Hot Wings And Beer

Original DVD cover.

People for the American Way have posted some incredible footage of anti-choice activist Randall Terry who, at the National Press Club earlier today, doubled down on his suggestion that Tiller got what was coming to him.

“The point that must be emphasized over, and over, and over again: pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass-murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.”

…snip…

“Thank you for coming, unless there’s any other questions. And I truly am sorry that we had to meet under these circumstances. I like Guinness for those of you who want to have a beer somewhere. I prefer my chicken wings really hot and a little crispy.”

(Videos available at link above)

From The Brad Blog:

After years of demonizing Kansas physician Dr. George Tiller who was assassinated in his Wichita church on Sunday, Fox “News” host Bill O’Reilly toned back his inflammatory rhetoric on his first show back since yesterday’s murder.

Where he had previously, and repeatedly, described Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer”, equated him with Nazis and al-Qaeda, described him repeatedly as “executing babies” and “operating a death mill”, tonight O’Reilly characterized himself as the victim of a “left-wing” cabal of “Fox News haters” trying to “exploit” the tragedy to “shut guys like me down”. Notably, however, he did not use the same strident rhetoric that had characterized his “reportage” of Tiller in the past…

…snip…

In response to a Huffington Post editorial which claimed O’Reilly would “back-peddle” on tonight’s show following the murder, he told viewers “No back-paddling here…Every single thing we said about Tiller was true.”

He then went on to back-peddle on largely everything, at least the most outrageous allegations, that he’d previously reported.

“We based on our analysis on the facts,” O’Reilly said in his own defense tonight. Though his previously “analysis” including the repeated allegation that Tiller was a mass-murderer was nowhere to be heard this evening. He did not use the term “murder” to describe what Tiller did, as he had so frequently in the past. He used carefully selected, non-libelous phrases such as “destroyed fetuses” instead.

And where he had previously charged Tiller with “operating a death mill”, the closest he came to that tonight was the carefully worded use of “this mill” when he admitted that Tiller hadn’t been found guilty of breaking any laws.

…snip…

In a later segment, he alleged that pro-life groups have been very respectful since the tragedy, but that his critics were “exploiting Tiller’s family”. He did not note any of the dozens of blog comments from rightwingers applauding and celebrating the death of Tiller [...]. Neither did he report on the statement on Tiller’s death by Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, a frequent guest on Fox “News”, which began: “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.”

…snip…

In the toning back of his own rhetoric, Bill O’Reilly acknowledges the irresponsibility of his own previous behavior.

…snip…

It’s a shame he hadn’t taken a similar tack over the 4 years, and at least 29 episodes in which he’d irresponsibly accused Tiller of committing crimes that he hadn’t.

Everything O’Reilly said was not true, despite his claims to the contrary tonight. A man is dead in Kansas, in no small part, thanks to the type of irresponsible “reporting” and incessant, outrageous hatred, that O’Reilly helped to inflame.

(Lot of videos available at The Brad Blog link above)

Here are some facts about Randall Terry compiled from different sources on the internets:

Founded Operation Rescue 1987, led it until 1991. (Operation Rescue president, Troy Newman says Terry does not speak for the organization, and the members deplore the actions of Scott Roeder, Dr. Tiller’s assassin)

Married to Cindy Dean in the early 1980’s.

1985–met a women who was planning an abortion. Terry talked her out of it, and she gave birth to a daughter named Tila.

1987–the Terry’s daughter, Faith born.

1988–Terrys took in Tila and her siblings, Jamiel, 8, and Ebony, 12. The children are all biracial.

1994–Terrys adopted Tila and Jamiel.

1991–Ebony, then 16, left the Terry home. She got pregnant and went on to have 2 children out of wedlock. She later became a Muslim.

1998–Terry ran for Congress. Jamiel defended him against charges of racism.

2000–Terry and Jamiel worked on Steven Forbes’ campaign for the Republican nomination for President. They campaigned against gay marriage in Vermont. Terry divorced Cindy, married Andrea Sue Kollmorgen, 17 years his junior. She was his former assistant and an anti-abortion activist. His church censured him:

“in preparation to divorce, annul or otherwise dissolve their Christian marriage and for his unwillingness to repent of sin….” It also accuses him of a “pattern of repeated and sinful relationships and conversations with both single and married women.”

circa 2003–Tila got pregnant out of wedlock twice, and Terry threw her out of his house. Terry founds the Society for Truth and Justice. His first order of business was campaigning against a Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws. He didn’t get enough attention for that, so he jumped right into the middle of the Terry Schiavo case, acting as an advisor, media coordinator, and arranging a meeting with then-Governor Jeb Bush.

2004–Jamiel announced he is gay and wrote an article for a magazine about it. Terry disowned Jamiel and wrote an essay, “My prodigal son, the homosexual.” Jamiel was disowned, and Ebony and Tila were not mentioned as his children, only Faith from his first marriage and his 2 sons with his second wife.

2006–Terry converted to Roman Catholicism and disavowed his first marriage. In the National Catholic Register, he describes his family as his 3, soon to be 4 sons.

2008–Andrea Terry is arrested for trespassing in St. Petersburg, Fl, while leafleting cars bearing Rudy Giuliani bumper stickers in a Roman Catholic church’s parking lot. The leaflets were for a fictitious candiate promoting slavery for African-Americans.

2009–Terry was arrested for trespassing at Notre Dame University when he was protesting President Obama’s commencement speech.

Os dejo un interesante artículo de uno de mis filósofos favoritos, Salvador Pániker (presidente de la Asociación Morir Dignamente), que aborda con gran lucidez un tema tan delicado como es el de la eutanasia.

Ha llegado la hora de levantar el tabú de la muerte y afrontar con lucidez la finitud humana. Un Estado laico y secularizado ha de respetar la libertad de conciencia de cada cual y la libre voluntad del enfermo.

Espero que os haga reflexionar y que os guste tanto como a mi.

La polémica desatada por las muy sensatas declaraciones del ministro Bernat Soria a propósito del suicidio asistido, bien merece un nuevo comentario sobre el debate de la muerte digna en general. Lo recomendable es que ese debate sea sosegado y racional, sin concesiones a la demagogia y atendiendo a toda la complejidad del problema. No tiene demasiada gracia, por ejemplo, declarar que el suicidio asistido equivale a liquidar a la gente con fondos públicos.

Veamos. Como he expuesto en anteriores ocasiones, suicidio asistido y eutanasia son temas interdisciplinarios, donde concurren aspectos médicos, jurídicos, filosóficos, éticos, incluso estéticos. El debate, a menudo, más que ideológico es de enfrentamiento de sensibilidades. La empatía por el sufrimiento ajeno es variable. Hay quien percibe, y hay quien no, el carácter intolerable de un ser humano reducido a la condición de piltrafa vegetativa en contra de su voluntad. Pregonan algunos declamadores que la vida “siempre es maravillosa”. Bien; a veces lo es, a veces no. A veces -con sida, con cáncer, con tetraplejia, con demencia senil y otras mil posibles degradaciones- la vida resulta, como mínimo, muy oscura. Absolutizar la vida, absolutizar lo que sea, conduce irremisiblemente al totalitarismo. La vida puede ser maravillosa y puede ser espantosa. Depende. Y la única manera de conseguir que, al menos, sea digna es reservándose uno el derecho a abandonar el mundo cuando comience el horror. El derecho a dimitir.

Alegan algunos detractores del derecho a la eutanasia voluntaria que con los adelantos de la medicina paliativa y del tratamiento del dolor el tema ya está resuelto. A esto hay que contestar que, en primer lugar, bienvenida sea la medicina paliativa y el tratamiento del dolor, pero que, desgraciadamente, la citada medicina y el citado tratamiento están todavía en pañales y que, en todo caso, la última palabra y la última voluntad le corresponden siempre al enfermo. Además, la experiencia y las estadísticas confirman que, en las peticiones de autoliberación, tanto o más que el dolor físico cuenta el sentimiento de que uno ha perdido la dignidad humana. En rigor, como lo tengo expuesto repetidamente, cuidados paliativos y eutanasia no sólo no se oponen sino que son complementarios. No debe haber eutanasia sin previos cuidados paliativos, ni cuidados paliativos sin posibilidad de eutanasia. Más aún, si el enfermo supiese que tiene siempre abierta la posibilidad de salirse voluntariamente de la vida, las peticiones de eutanasia disminuirían. Porque esta “puerta abierta” produciría un paradójico efecto tranquilizador: uno sabría que, al llegar a ciertos extremos, el horror puede detenerse.

Debo añadir que en este tema es crucial la actitud de la clase médica. Porque la cuestión no puede, ni debe, desmedicalizarse. Precisamente, los médicos han de ser la garantía de que no se produzcan abusos. No es recomendable legislar sin contar con el asentimiento de los sanitarios. En Suiza y Oregón los médicos suministran la prescripción de fármacos para morir, es decir, intervienen indirectamente (suicidio asistido); en Holanda y Bélgica actúan directamente (eutanasia), si bien existe una cláusula de conciencia. En España, el último estudio publicado sobre la actitud de los médicos ante la eutanasia (encuesta CIS de abril-mayo de 2002) dio como resultado que un 59% de los consultados apoyaban su legalización. Tocante a los facultativos contrarios a la eutanasia, lo que deberían hacer es contribuir a un clima médico/social para que nadie la reclamara. En eso estaríamos de acuerdo: no deseamos que haya peticiones de eutanasia. Pero tampoco es ético -ni decente- oponerse a quienes, razonable e insistentemente, reclamen el respeto al derecho humano de salirse de la vida. Todo el mundo dice querer respetar la dignidad del paciente. Pero ¿cómo puede obligarse a un paciente a vivir en contra de su voluntad? ¿Qué hacen con la dignidad esos mandatarios de la lucha ideológica contra la eutanasia? Suelen ser, esos mandatarios, gente de la Iglesia o del Estado, herederos de quienes, durante siglos, han sofocado la libertad individual en nombre de alguna coartada colectiva. Claman demagógicamente que la eutanasia es un asesinato. Pero, díganme: ¿es lo mismo un acto de amor que una violación? Puede que biológicamente tengan un factor común, pero nadie discutirá la diferencia. En el asesinato, el que muere lo hace en contra de su voluntad; en la eutanasia y el suicidio asistido, el que es ayudado a morir recibe la ayuda como un acto de amor.

Un ejemplo del grado de desvergonzada desfachatez a que pueden llegar los integristas lo tenemos en el caso no tan lejano de la norteamericana Terri Schiavo, que llevaba 15 años en coma, viviendo como un vegetal humano, en tanto que su antiguo marido pedía que se le retirasen todos los tubos que la mantenían artificialmente con vida. Los políticos americanos de la ultraderecha conservadora, con intervención explícita de los hermanos Jeb y George Bush, se opusieron a ello. Hubo procesos judiciales hasta que el Tribunal Supremo de Florida dio la razón al ex marido. Pues bien, en España, un conocido periodista católico, llevado de su fanatismo, llegó a escribir que Terri Schiavo “no estaba enferma, sino sólo aquejada de una profunda minusvalía” y que ahora, por orden del juez, la iban a matar de hambre y sed al retirarle la alimentación por sonda, y que no había ninguna diferencia entre esto y lo que solía hacer Hitler. Y el día que se consumó la agonía de la enferma, el presidente George W. Bush, el hombre responsable de más de 100.000 muertos en Irak, el hombre que se ha hartado de firmar sentencias de pena capital, declaró que se sentía triste y desolado, puesto que él reiteraba su posición “en favor de la vida”.

Otro argumento esgrimido, aparentemente más neutro, es el de la llamada “pendiente deslizante”, la posible proliferación de homicidios sin consentimiento del enfermo, en el caso de que se despenalice la eutanasia. Ahora bien, ningún dato empírico confirma este temor. No hay ninguna evidencia de que en Holanda -país pionero en la despenalización de la eutanasia voluntaria- hayan aumentado las eutanasias involuntarias, más bien al contrario. Lo que sí existe en Holanda es una total transparencia informativa, y muchísimos más controles legales que en otros países -donde sí es habitual la eutanasia clandestina-. Y hablo especialmente de Holanda porque este país ha sido objeto de una campaña de desprestigio tan grosera como inútil. Los críticos plantean que la legalización de la eutanasia voluntaria ha producido allí una degradación de la profesión médica y todo tipo de males. Sin embargo, los holandeses no se han dado por enterados. Los holandeses saben que la eutanasia legal ha mejorado incluso la atención médica en lugar de dañarla. Prueba de ello es que a ninguno de los Gobiernos posteriores a la legalización de la eutanasia se le ha ocurrido revertir esta medida.

En fin, quienes defendemos el derecho a morir con dignidad pensamos que el debate sobre la eutanasia y el suicidio asistido ha alcanzado ya un punto irreversible de esclarecimiento y madurez. Pensamos que es hora de abordar este problema, ya que resulta notoria la pasividad social que ha habido en torno al mismo. Ello es que al cabo de 200 años de luchas sociales, luchas por la emancipación de las clases trabajadoras, derechos de la mujer, Tercer Mundo, pueblos de color, niños, homosexuales, etcétera, el tema de la muerte digna permanece inauditamente congelado. Entre otras razones porque la muerte ha sido un tema tabú. Y porque los moribundos no van a votar. Pero ha llegado la hora de levantar el tabú de la muerte y afrontar con lucidez la finitud humana. Un Estado laico y secularizado ha de respetar la libertad de conciencia de cada cual, y ser neutral frente a las distintas creencias religiosas. El respeto a la libre voluntad del enfermo es así primordial. Se trata de una aplicación de la idea general de autonomía (autos nomos, la ley que cada cual se da a sí mismo, la soberanía del ciudadano), que es uno de los legados más firmes de la modernidad.

Or the attempt to create one. I understand Terry Schiavo was a controversial and painful issue for the Republicans, and similarly, waterboarding is also becoming controversial. However, attempts to create a moral connection between ending the life of a brain-dead invalid and the torturing of a suspected terrorist aren’t just not valid, well, they’re just plain stupid.

Judge George Greer sentenced Terri Schindler Schiavo to death by starvation and dehydration.�

The execution of Terri Schiavo took nearly fourteen (14) days to complete. It was a horrendous death that only fools would call peaceful and painless. Sadly, there were, and still are, many fools. Along with the fools come many ironies.�

Waterboarding is the topic of the moment. The shouts of it being torture, wrong and an outrageous crime can be readily heard throughout the day. Where were these voices when Terri Schiavo was being tortured to death? Yes, tortured to death. There was no simulating of anything. She was actually starved and dehydrated to death as the world watched and the system shamefully failed.�

The court ruled to end Terri�s life based on conflicted interest and conflicted testimony. Outside the testimony from those with conflicted interest, there was no testimony that suggested Terri would wish to die, especially a death by starvation and dehydration� A death that goes beyond any torture that any may have experienced as a result of waterboarding. But then, so selective are many of those who would shout against torture of a terrorist while condoning the torture-filled death sentence of Terri Schiavo.�

Heaven forbid if a murderer suffered for three minutes, or a terrorist was tortured by simulation, but quite acceptable if an innocent young woman suffered excruciating pain for nearly 14 days? The irrational �reasoning� process that is necessary for this conflict of thought is frightening. Even more frightening is how many of those in power appear to be suffering from this very process.

First, of the objective of torture isn’t death. If you kill the subject, you screwed up. The objective of torture is to cause physical or mental suffering so extreme that the subject divulges information they wouldn’t normally provide under normal interrogations. So no, Terry Schiavo wasn’t “tortured to death.” She was merely starved and dehydrated to death, which is on its own terrible.

However, that doesn’t prove that anti-torture activists are hypocrites or that Schiavo’s death was wrong. What it does indicate is that we need better laws for how we assist people in their deaths.�

But only an idiot can see similarities in the government administrating torture on enemies of the state and a husband wishing to assist his permanently damaged wife in dieing. �One is an issue of wide concern for all citizens, and the other a private affair between family members. It was the media circus and Congressional intervention which made the Schiavo situation as a joke, as government tried to interject itself into questions of basic human decency amongst family members. And isn’t that worse?

-Marc-

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, Luke Jackson serves time in a Florida prison work camp. From the moment he is introduced to the camp, Luke establishes himself as a fiercely independent spirit, challenging the authority of  the prison guards and refusing to accept the heirarchy of power among the prisoners established prior to his arrival.  One of the movies most memorable moments occurs when Luke (Paul Newman) challenges Dragline (George Kennedy), the self appointed leader among the band of prisoners,  to a prison yard fight.

Dragline uses his size and strength to pummel Luke. However, each time Dragline knocks Luke to the ground, he rises back up to take the next round of punches. At first, the other prioners cheer the fight on, but after a while they begin to see the extent of the beating and encourage Luke to either stay down or start bleeding so that the guards will stop the fight.  Luke refuses, rises to his feet and attempts a weak swing at Dragline who picks Luke up and throws him over his shoulder like a sack of potatos. When Dragline puts Luke down, he takes another swing at Dragline’s face. Dragline looks at Luke tells him “you’re beat” and to “stay down,” but Luke rises back up, as Dragline walks away.

Later that night, Luke manages to win most of the money in camp by bluffing his way through a hand in poker. Dragline looks at Luke and makes the comparison of the way Luke continued to fight him with “nothing” to the way he won a big hand in poker with “nothing.” This prompts Luke to issue one of the most famous lines in movie history, “…sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.” As the movie progresses, we see Luke defy the authority of the prison guards and that of Captain, seeking to escape from both the literal and metaphorical chains they attach to him, refusing to allow the authority of the prison camp establishment intimidate him.

When I think of Cool Hand Luke, I’m reminded of what the Republican Party currently needs. In the current political clime, Barack Obama plays the role of Captain. Indeed, you can almost hear the words, “what we have here is failure to communicate,” coming out of Obama’s mouth. The prison guards represent Obama’s lackeys in the Democratic Party–Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc. Dragline represents the current “leaders” in the Republican Party–John McCain, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham. The other prisoners represent the Republican Party and Luke represents the figure the Republican Party lacks.

Yes, the Republican Party needs their own Luke, someone willing to challenge the authority of the political establishment, someone willing to challenge the Captain and his guards, someone willing to take the punches from those in the Republican Party who will tell him or her, “we’re beat, stay down.”  The Republican Party needs politicians,not with policy, but with swagger. The Republicans need someone to energize their party with their dissidence.

Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) understands this, but lacks the eloquence to properly express this philosophy.  Asking a political party to take lessons from a Paul Newman movie is far less controversial than asking a political party to take lessons from the Taliban. I might not agree with everything Sessions says, but I admire his bravado nonetheless. Earlier in the week, Sessions called out Barack Obama, saying that Obama wants to “inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not kill it.”  After that remark, members of Sessions own party played the role of Dragline, distancing themselves from Sessions comments, submitting to the authority of the Democratic leadership.

Instead of standing up beside Sessions, lambasting Obama for his contempt of the private sector, accepting the punishment the White House would surely throw their way, the Republican leadership tucked their tails between their legs and said they did not agree with Sessions. They chose to cut and run, instead of staying and fighting.

We have seen this same cowardice since 2000. Every Republican politician has marched in line with the leadership at top. Every now and then, a few Republican politicians will have a moment of clarity and take a stand like Sessions; however, none of them go far enough.

For example, when Sessions made his accusations about Obama’s attempt to “kill” capitalism, he could have launched into a speech against socialism and took a chance to criticize many in his own party. 

The Republicans taxed and spent the past 8 year like there was no tomorrow and tried to force the government in arenas where the government has no business (gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc.). Yes, the few remaining Republicans in Congress are just like their Democrat counterparts. In the words of Bon Jovi, “it’s all the same/only the names have changed.” 

As much as I hate the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is actually more puzzling to me. Why is that they continue to push issues that many, if not most, Americans see as products of bigotry and misogyny. You don’t win elections by telling people “we think this group of people should have these rights, but not these.” They’re free to believe that, but don’t try to legislate it.

The best way for Republicans to win elections is to focus on the economy. “I’ll cut your taxes. I’ll decrease regulation of your business. I’ll let you make as much money as you want and spend that money the way that you want. Other than that, do what you want, just remember your rights end at your nose.” 

Instead, Republicans vote with Democrats on raising taxes, increasing government spending, using the government as a vehicle to fix mistakes made by the private sector. Let us not forget, a Republican president started the Federal bail out program. Three Republican Senators voted in favor of the Federal stimulus program. No wonder the Republican Party is at rock bottom, right now, it has no backbone to support it. Hopefully, before too long, the Republican Party will find it’s Cool Hand Luke and throw a wrench in the Democrats plan to turn the United States into a European socialist state.

Billy Ray Cyber,

It hardly seems like 13 years have passed since I killed you through neglect.  Time flies when you’re alive, I guess.  I hope you’ll understand, as I apologize for the first time, that I wasn’t trying to kill you.  I wasn’t even trying to NOT kill you, just so I could see what would happen when you died – if you did a special “death dance” like Steve said you would or if you would turn into a ghost and haunt the mall arcade where I usually abandoned you.

Bye-bye, Billy Ray Cyber.

Here’s the thing, Billy Ray Cyber.  You were the neediest fucking Tamagotchi I had ever met.  My other friends’ Tamagotchis only required the smallest daily ration of food and the occasional snack.  YOU, on the other hand, were like pre-pants Jared.  My household hardly had enough food for its human inhabitants, but you didn’t give a shit, did you?  As long as you were eating 26 times an hour, the rest of us could starve.

Of course, after you ate, you took huge dumps that filled the entire screen.  By the time I finished cleaning up your mess, you were ready to eat again.  You’re lucky Terry Schiavo wasn’t relevant in 1996, because that would have been your motherfuckin’ Christian name.

Oh, and you l-o-o-o-o-o-o-ved to play, didn’t you?  Loved to learn new tricks.  Except you never ACTUALLY LEARNED THEM, DID YOU?!?  You just sat there, with your stupid head cocked sideways, looking at me like it was my fault your Tamagotchi brain had zero capacity for knowledge.

For the record, the reason I kept turning the lights on and off was because I wanted you to go to sleep.  I didn’t know that Tamagotchis came with diseases like epilepsy.  At least you died in a sort of dance party atmosphere.

Still living,

Greg

«E’ qualcosa di vomitevole. La situazione che si è creata intorno al dramma di Eluana Englaro è oscena». Ad essere indignato è lo scrittore Daniele Gorret, che al tema della morte ha dedicato anni di profonde riflessioni confluite nei tre volumi “Venticinque maniere per morire”, “Crocefissi” e “Via Crucis”. «Tutto ciò è conseguenza del fatto che la morte è l’argomento più rimosso e dimenticato della nostra epoca. Un atteggiamento irrazionale ed infantile che in Occidente è iniziato quando la civiltà contadina ha lasciato il posto a quella industriale. Da allora ci siamo illusi che, per vincere la morte o, almeno, per non provarne più l’angoscia, bastasse rimuoverla. Da “nostra sora morte corporale”, come la definiva San Francesco, è diventata qualcosa di oscuro che ogni tanto sembra ricomparire con caratteristiche di casualità e insensatezza. E ciò la rende ancora più paurosa, terribile e inaccettabile». Quale è, invece, la sua idea di morte? «In tutti gli esseri viventi la morte non è scissa dalla vita, ma, anzi, ne fa parte. E’ solo a prezzo della morte che la vita può continuare e rigenerarsi. Sono, piuttosto, i fantasmi di immortalità che ci vengono agitati davanti il segno più chiaro della nostra voglia di distruzione che coinvolge tutto il pianeta. Ne è una prova il problema, completamente censurato e rimosso, della demografia galoppante, che se da una parte porta all’aumento dei potenziali consumatori, dall’altra condanna a morte certa tantissima gente». Col suo impatto mediatico il caso Englaro ha, poi, fatto scoppiare tutta una serie di contraddizioni della società contemporanea. «E’ emblematica- continua Gorret- l’immagine di questo corpo straziato totalmente in preda a poteri forti: la politica, la chiesa, la medicina, i giornali… Tutti a contendersi un corpo che, tra l’altro, non era più quello della splendida giovane delle foto che ci hanno fatto vedere. Perché almeno negli Stati Uniti le immagini diffuse di Terry Schiavo ne mostravano il disfacimento, qui, invece, si era indotti in inganno. Sembrava, infatti, che la contrapposizione fosse tra la vita e la morte, e non, piuttosto, tra la vita piena e quella artificiale a cui questa persona era affidata da 17 anni. Giustamente, infatti, il padre ha invitato i politici ad andare a vedere in che condizioni fosse Eluana. E qui si aprirebbe l’altro capitolo del feticcio della “quantità” di vita piuttosto che della “qualità”, e di quella più grave “morte seconda” dell’anima, come la definiva San Francesco, che interviene anche se si scoppia di salute. Da questo punto di vista viviamo in mezzo a “morti” che non sanno di esserlo». A proposito di politici, il loro atteggiamento ha reso ancora più esplosiva la situazione… «C’è stata l’incoerenza etica del nostro Presidente del Consiglio, che dopo essersi defilato, temendo una divisione del suo schieramento, quando il problema è diventato una patata bollente ha assunto il profilo del decisionista. Sono, tuttavia, convinto che, come diceva Pasolini, non possiamo ribaltare tutto sulla classe politica, perché, come confermano i sondaggi, la classe dirigente rispecchia il livello etico e culturale della maggioranza degli italiani».

This will be the first of three blogs today.  This will be the saddest one to write.  The last two get increasingly better.

March 31, 2009 marked the 4 year anniversary of the death of Terry Schiavo.  I am not going to get into a discussion over whether or not her death was right or wrong, at least, not on the blog.  Comments are a different story, and, if you would like to talk about it, feel free.  I’m just not doing it here.  I want to talk about something else.

This is a question that has nagged at me since this all happened.  And I suppose I should make an effort to do something about it, considering my activist rants here.  But why kill her by depriving her of food and water?  Why?  Of all the ways to die, is that the most humane they could come up with?  Or, and this is my opinion, does it feel like there is less blood on your hands when your actions fail to kill a person immediately?

Now I did a little research on this.  You can read what I read here and here.  I didn’t read them all, but of the one’s I did I failed to find ONE that didn’t list starving an animal as cruelty in some way.
“deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter”
That is one way that North Dakota describes cruelty.  So with all the medical technology at our disposal, that is the best that can be done?  I know it is not!  In cases like this the patient is already deprived of the choice of life or death.  Is it necessary to make it cruel?  Death Row inmates are not allowed to be put to death that way.  There would be an uprising if the Humane Society suddenly decided starvation was the most effective way to put down an animal.  So why was Terry Schiavo, or anyone else, any less important?

I can haz ur First Amendment rights?

The morning roundup, for your reading pleasure:

• With such low-hanging fruit on the other side of the aisle, it’s all too easy to forget the horrors of our last presidency. Newsweek reports on the declassified Bush terror memos, in which the cowboy-in-chief seriously considered eliminating the first amendment to the constitution.  And the conservatives are still whining about the fairness doctrine?
• Ever hear about those animals that eat their own young? Apparently, the GOP’s been taking pages from their playbook  with their own Jim Bunning of Kentucky. I guess aiming a gun towards your foot and pulling the trigger helps win elections.
• 

  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

  While the Republicans are focused on defeating one of their own in Kentucky, the Dems have their sights set on the other half of the state’s Senatorial Juggernaut. Mitch the Turtle should start ducking and covering!

• Let the Limbaugh fetish continue! I haven’t seen Republicans flock to a brain-dead coma victim like this since Terry Schiavo! Yesterday, the Jindster applauded Steele’s apology to Rush, confirming that this love-triangle from hell will indeed continue. No word yet on whether Steele gave Rush flowers or a bottle of OxyContin. My bet’s on…both.

Lastly, we’d like to welcome our newest blogger, the Nandinator. She will contribute wit and/or witticisms, obscure pop-culture references, Stewart-Colbert ‘12 campaign updates and an undying love for Ann Coulter.

- A-$

Si è parlato e scritto molto di Eluana e del valore della vita umana.

Quando si parla di vita cosa si intende con precisione?

Ci sono tanti tipi di vita: la vita umana, quella animale e quella vegetale.

Nell’ambito della vita umana si hanno molte sfumature e valori diversi. Si passa dalla vita piena, consapevole e felice a quella posizionata all’estremo opposto: la morte costituita dalla distruzione e dissoluzione delle cellule in materia di base.

La nostra vita nasce da un ovocita, cresce assimilando sostanze ed elementi vari e si completa alla fine del percorso, dopo molti anni, restituendo alla natura la materia che ha preso in prestito.

La vita umana è composta, essenzialmente di tre componenti: il corpo fatto di organi; la coscienza che comprende l’intelligenza, la memoria, l’intuito, l’amore e tutti gli altri sentimenti contenuti nelle cellule del cervello e della altre parti dell’organismo. La terza parte, di cui molti non ne sono consapevoli, è il soffio vitale, che è quella forza che fornisce la spinta, e mantiene il movimento al sistema integrato delle altre due componenti.

Paragonando, banalmente, la vita di una persona  ad una automobile in movimento, si può considerare la carrozzeria e il motore come il corpo, l’autista può paragonarsi alla coscienza umana, che stabilisce dove l’auto deve recarsi e impone anche un senso all’auto stessa.

L’auto, anche se perfetta e potenzialmente pronta per affrontare un lungo viaggio, non si muove se non c’è l’autista che decide dove e perchè andare in un certo luogo. Ma entrambi rimangono fermi se non c’è la chiave di accensione che fornisce il comando di partenza, impartisce lo start, e mantiene sempre acceso il motore. L’autista, se non ha la possibilità di avviare l’auto, esce sbattendo le portiere, perchè il tutto perde il senso della propria esistenza. L’autista senza l’auto non può esprimere le proprie potenzialità, deve rassegnare le proprie dimissioni. Il soffio vitale si sfiata se non ci sono gli altri due.

Corpo, coscienza e soffio vitale devono essere tutti presenti e funzionali per poter esprimere una vita umana. Mancando una sola di esse la vita non è vita, è un’altra cosa.

Eluana era effettivamente viva quando poteva esprimere se stessa: ridere, piangere, amare, comunicare con gli altri, ammirare la natura, mangiare, lavorare, viaggiare ecc. In queste condizioni la propria coscienza, e  il carattere potevano espimersi tramite il corpo, che forniva il supporto fisico. Venendo a mancare la coscienza e le altre potenzialità intellettive, a causa di un incidente traumatico, il corpo è rimasto vuoto e inattivo ed ha perso la volontà di muoversi.

Eluana in quel momento è diventata come un’auto abbandonata in un parcheggio, in attesa di un autista che non sarebbe mai più ritornato. Aspettando che la ruggine divorasse la carcassa fino al punto che lo sfasciacarrozze decidesse di portarla via. Finché si è deciso di interrompere i lavori di manutenzione.

La vera Eluana è morta 17 anni fà, quella rappresentata nelle foto con un radioso sorriso, ieri è morto solamente il suo corpo inanimato.

Nella fine di tutta questa storia su cui si può essere concordi oppure no, secondo coscienza, davvero non mi aspettavo nel momento, in quel momento, l’atteggiamento riottoso, scomposto, maleducato e irrispettoso, nei confronti degli interessati e del paese, da parte di chi era “chiamato” a dibattere su una materia così sensibile e che tocca tutti da vicino. Quei pochi attimi sono stati davvero un pugno in faccia. Così come lo saranno oggi le prime pagine di alcuni (non tutti, qualcuno che nonostante il disaccordo ha avuto il pudore di rispettare una scelta altrui c’è) quotidiani dai cui titoli Beppino Englaro ne esce come un’ assassino, e chi lo ha sostenuto come complice del delitto. Nessun rispetto, nemmeno in questo momento, della scelta altrui. Nessun pudore. Pronti a fomentare quella divisione che nulla avrebbe a che vedere con questa storia, che anzi è stata portata come battaglia sociale per tutti, anche per quelli che diversamente la pensano. Uno su tutti è il Foglio, di Ferrara, il cui titolo è impietoso e irrispettoso:

Niente moratoria per la Englaro

La disabile uccisa ieri a Udine. Il Vaticano invoca il perdono di Dio

Così come triste sarebbe se venisse confermata la fuoriuscita di qualche immagine scattata col cellulare dall’interno della Clinica la Quiete, adesso che tutto è andato, infrangendo quella volontà familiare di non mostrare altre immagini se non quelle di prima dell’incidente. Quando vennero mostrate quelle di Terry Schiavo l’opinione pubblica Americana subì un duro shock, se fossero uscite anche quelle di Eluana probabilmente il signor Englaro avrebbe avuto meno difficoltà. Ma non lo ha, coraggiosamente, fatto. Nei giorni scorsi si era paventato un’ abbassamento dei toni. Così non è stato, e anzi, da qualche ora il fango viene ulteriormente gettato da talune persone a cui il rispetto non è mai stato insegnato.

Quattro anni fa, gli USA vissero il caso di Terry Schiavo. Caso affine e simile a quello di Eluana Englaro.

Leggendo questo post di Leonardo, mi è venuto in mente una cosa trovata in un newsgroup americano. Cambiando il nome di Bush con quello di Formigoni ed alcuni particolari , direi che il ritratto della situazione è piuttosto calzante:

1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.

2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler’s case.

3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.

4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.

5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.

6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly editted videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.

7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistant vegetative state than experienced neurologists.

8 ) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.

9) 15 years in the same persistant state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.

10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really “life support”.

11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.

12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn’t.

13) Interfering in a family’s private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.

14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.

15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean “Maybe” when they are saying “No!”.

16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.

17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents, so it’s Clinton’s fault.

18 ) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, democratic activist even though he is a conservative, republican, Southern Baptist.

11) The fact the Swindlers er… Schindlers made $5 million off a web site and didn’t pay one penny for medical costs shows they are only thinking of Terri.

L’aborto è un omicidio o un atto terapeutico?

L’aborto per definizione è l’interruzione prematura della gravidanza, con la conseguente morte del feto. Esso può avere cause naturali, provocato da una malattia o da un trauma, ma in certi casi è premeditato.

Quest’ultimo caso, a prescindere dalle motivazioni che lo hanno determinato, è molto criticato, per alcuni è considerato un vero e proprio omicidio.

Le motivazioni che inducono una donna a compiere un’azione del genere sono solitamente molto gravi, anche drammatiche. Ci sono casi in cui il feto è il risultato di uno stupro di cui si vogliono cancellare i ricordi. In altri casi le condizioni economiche o sociali non permettono di mantenere il futuro bambino, oppure la madre è troppo giovane o addirittura adolescente. Un caso abbastanza comune è quello in cui il feto presenta delle alterazioni genetiche talmente gravi che potrebbero renderlo infelice e sofferente per tutta la vita.

In altre occasioni la motivazione dell’aborto, un po’ banale, è perché la maternità potrebbe compromettere la carriera lavorativa.

La questione si può riassumere con la seguente domanda:

E’ giusto procurare la morte a un feto in evoluzione per uno dei motivi elencati in precedenza?

Quanto vale la vita del feto rispetto al valore del benessere della madre, della famiglia o della società che lo deve accogliere?

Per un credente la vita è sacra, perché dotata dell’anima, quindi il suo valore è infinito e non può essere mai soppressa, in nessuna occasione, in nessun caso.

Per i laici, il valore della vita è quantificabile, quindi si può stabilire quando e quanto una vita è più importante dell’altra.

Da ciò si deduce che sono necessarie due risposte diverse, secondo l’interlocutore che si ha di fronte.

Le due risposte saranno diverse solamente nelle argomentazioni e nella forma ma, nella sostanza, convergono nella stessa direzione, perché la verità e la giustizia è una sola.

Per convergere, ovviamente è necessario che l’interlocutore sia disponibile ad ascoltare, che non rimanga fermo ai propri pregiudizi e alle filosofie pre-costituite non supportate dalla logica e dalle esperienze.

La mia risposta ai credenti è ampliamente trattata nel libro “Dio dell’Universo”, nei capitoli che riguardano l’anima.

Fortunatamente nel corso dei secoli, a seguito dell’evoluzione economica e sociale, il valore della vita e della dignità umana è aumentato considerevolmente. Fino a pochi anni fa la pena di morte era applicata ufficialmente nella maggioranza dei paesi. Nel 1700 la schiavitù era ancora ammessa in alcuni stati considerati civili. Durante le guerre del secolo scorso la vita dei soldati era considerata spendibile, e al termine delle battaglie i morti si contavano tranquillamente a migliaia.

Fortunatamente l’evoluzione sociale ha permesso di acquisire il grande valore dell’uomo, come individuo. Un tempo si era rassegnati davanti alla morte e alla malattia, si poteva tollerare e giustificare qualche aborto, ma ora dobbiamo considerare il problema con un’altra ottica e cercare le soluzioni che un tempo non erano impossibili.

Lo sviluppo della scienza, in particolare la medicina, delle istituzioni economiche e sociali permette di raggiungere un certo benessere e allungare le aspettative di vita. La scienza mette a disposizioni delle opportunità per migliorare la qualità della vita rispetto a ciò che consente la semplice vita naturale.

La società ha l’obbligo di evolversi e di migliorarsi continuamente, perciò per mantenere il livello raggiunto e per garantirsi tale prerogativa può essere necessario obbligare i cittadini ad un comportamento (igiene, educazione, qualità) che in altre nazioni potrebbe essere considerato inconcepibile.

Nei paesi poveri, non ancora civilizzati, dove la medicina non ha raggiunto i progressi delle nazioni occidentali, i dottori sono costretti a “lasciar morire” i loro pazienti più gravi. Viceversa il medico di una clinica moderna deve usare tutte le tecniche, che il progresso e lo Stato gli consentono, per aiutare il paziente a superare la fase critica e ritornare alla vita quotidiana per proseguire la propria evoluzione sociale, economica e sentimentale.

La scienza e la civiltà ci consentono di svincolarci, parzialmente, dalle necessità puramente materiali della sopravvivenza cui la natura ci obbliga, e di conseguenza consentono di evolverci dal punto di vista sociale e intellettuale. Lo scopo della vita sulla Terra non è semplicemente quello di vivere o sopravvivere più a lungo possibile, ma quello di acquisire coscienza e conoscenza, sia individuale sia collettiva.

Il divertimento e il godimento non sono lo scopo della vita, ma delle parentesi piacevoli che compensano gli eventuali e inevitabili giorni tristi e dolorosi, che aiutano a proseguire nel percorso quotidiano.

Il valore della nostra vita è proporzionale a quanto siamo in grado di evolverci e migliorare. Il riscontro non deve considerare solamente quanto stiamo realizzando in questo momento, ma anche a quanto potremmo realizzare in un prossimo futuro. La persona più umile e ignorante, che sta educando un bambino che in futuro diventerà uno scienziato, sta in realtà compiendo un grande servizio all’umanità ed è quindi molto apprezzabile.

I nostri pensieri, le decisioni importanti devono essere proiettate verso il futuro. Lo studio del passato è utile solo dal punto di vista accademico, per non ripetere gli stessi errori, ma non può essere cambiato. Anche sul presente non si riesce ad intervenire. Possiamo agire solo sul futuro. Le azioni di oggi devono essere orientate per il futuro, devono essere lungimiranti.

Quando devi giudicare una persona, devi giudicare il suo possibile futuro e quali saranno i suoi rapporti con la società e quanto sarà utile o dannoso agli altri. Il male che eventualmente ha arrecato a te o gli altri è ormai passato e non puoi più modificarlo. Puoi intervenire solo sulle conseguenze future.

Dovrai essere disponibile a perdonare il passato, ma dovrai essere esigente per il futuro.

Quando è in repentaglio la vita di un feto, un bambino, una persona adulta o di un vecchio, la società moderna ed evoluta deve fare quanto è possibile per risolvere il problema, tenendo nella giusta considerazione la qualità e la quantità di futuro su cui si va ad intervenire.

Poiché il feto non è in grado di parlare e difendersi in sede processuale, desidero prendere le sue parti.

La legge attuale considera il feto sotto una certa età, quando i suoi organi non sono ancora ben formati, come un semplice ammasso di cellule senza intelligenza e sensibilità. Il feto in questo stato non è considerato una persona, e quindi non è degno dei diritti che solitamente si concedono agli esseri umani.

Giudicare una persona, ed eventualmente condannarla a morte, solamente in base a quello che è in quel determinato momento non è affatto giusto. Occorre considerare anche quello che potrebbe essere in futuro, ciò che potrebbe diventare. Un feto davanti a sé ha delle grandi prospettive, ha davanti a sé tutta una vita da trascorrere e grandi possibilità, ha quindi un grande valore sociale.

Per rendersi conto della gravità di tale giudizio, pensate alla vostra reazione quando qualcuno volesse sopprimervi perché in un determinato giorno, in seguito ad un incidente o una malattia temporanea, non foste più utile alla società o addirittura considerati un peso. La vostra difesa si baserebbe sul fatto che dopo la guarigione sareste di nuovo efficiente e grande lavoratore.

Perché per il feto ci assumiamo questa responsabilità, questa decisione irreparabile e definitiva? Perché il futuro bambino è considerato una proprietà della madre e non un componente della società?

Ovviamente, se il neonato è parte della società, è questa, con le proprie istituzioni, che deve farsene carico, quando la madre non ha la possibilità di assolvere i propri doveri.

Tornando ai vari casi di aborto, la madre non deve essere costretta a sopprimere il feto, quando ci sono delle coppie sterili che potrebbero prendersi cura del nascituro ed adottarlo.

Da una parte abbiamo una donna disperata, sola, senza soldi, e con un figlio di troppo.

Dall’altro lato ci sono coppie senza figli e con molte disponibilità economiche.

Per risolvere molti dei problemi relativi ai casi di aborto basterebbe creare un’istituzione che faccia incontrare le parti in causa e consentire che si possano aiutare reciprocamente.

Il feto, colpito da una grave malattia genetica o che presenta delle gravi malformazioni, ha una vita futura molto limitata e di bassa qualità. In questo caso l’interruzione della gravidanza è un atto di pietà, è un modo di evitare una vita di inutili sacrifici e sofferenze. 

Leggi anche il precedente articolo:  Eutanasia

 Non sono in grado di dare un consiglio per quei casi in cui l’aborto è motivato da esigenze di carriera o altre ragioni particolari.

_________________________________________________________