This is one of those times that on behalf of the pro-life
conservative movement we have to say
”
I told you so.
”
Editor,
This is one of those times that on behalf of the pro-life conservative movement we have to say “I told you so.” This is shocking beyond belief. The “Death with Dignity Bill” should be called exactly what it is: Legalization of euthanasia. To call it anything else is childish and certainly insulting our intelligence. I can’t recall how long it took from the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision to partial birth abortion, nevertheless this euthanasia bill has that timeline beat by a longshot. It took less than four days after Terri Schiavo’s merciless death for this bill to surface.
All along, the liberal pro-death movement and the ACLU attorneys were cooking this one up and just waiting for the right opportunity to throw it in our faces. There’s no doubt in my mind that these groups were the ones behind the killing of Terri Schiavo. That so-called husband of Terri was nothing but Judas reincarnated – dumb and stupid with eyes focused on any film or book offers to make as much money as he can with Terri’s blood. I understand CBS has offered him $2 million for film rights. What a role model for all the husbands out there.
Many people think the problem was that Terri did not leave any written instructions about whether she wanted to be kept alive. In order to avoid any such problem in their own lives, they are now told that they have to draw up a “living will.” This is both erroneous and dangerous.
Terri’s case is not about the withdrawal of life-saving medical treatment, but rather about the killing of a healthy person whose life some regarded as worthless. She was not dying, was not on life support and did not have any terminal illness. Because some thought she would not want to live with her disability, they insisted on introducing the cause of death – dehydration.
What good is a living will aside from saying, “Please don’t argue about killing me, just kill me?” The danger in our culture is not that we will be over-treated, but rather that we will be under-treated. We have the right to refuse medical treatment. What we run the risk of losing is the right to receive the most basic humane care – like food and water – in the event we have a disability.
Our culture also promotes the idea that as long as we say we want to die, we have the right to do so. But we have a basic obligation to preserve our own life. A person who leaves clear instructions that they don’t want to be fed is breaking the moral law by essentially requesting suicide.
If you want to make plans for your future health care, do not do so by trying to predict the future. Living wills try to predict the future, and people can argue over the interpretation of a piece of paper just as much as they argue about what they claim someone said in private.
The better solution is to appoint a health care proxy. This should be a person who knows your beliefs and values, and with whom you discuss these matters in detail. If you cannot speak for yourself, your proxy can ask necessary questions of your doctors and clergy, and make an assessment. That’s much safer than predicting the future. The National Right to Life Committee has designed a “Will to Live'” which can be found at www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/index.html. I recommend it highly.
David Kaeini, Gilroy
