Earl.Appleby@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Earl Appleby) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15981
The recent euthanasia "debate" on the ABLED echo, like most debates,
generated more heat than light. That is one reason CURE concentrates
our efforts on helping those who want to live and on defending the
lives of those endangered by the murderous intentions of others, rather
than wasting our limited resources on vainly trying to dissuade the
so-called "rationally suicidal."
An old saying reminds us that there are none so blind as those who will
not see. Perhaps, that is why my responses to the advocates of death
for the disabled (self-chosen, they would add) have gone without reply.
That is their privilege, of course. And quite frankly, as I just noted,
I would rather talk with those who value their lives and do not devalue
the lives of others simply because they are sicker.
The advocates of euthanasia may also consider it their right to
ridicule that which they deny, the mounting medical murder of our
disabled, infirm, and aged brothers and sister, the harbinger of an
impending euthanasia holocaust. (Those who deny others the right to life,
often exercise the right to lie themselves.)
But I am more concerned with duty than rights, as old-fashioned as
that may appear to those who see progress in the rejection of
time-tested values that once were the standards of civilized men.
Whatever anyone chooses to believe, I do not have the arrogance to
claim that I possess all truth. I simply say that truth exists. That
we have a moral duty to seek and share it, because the truth shall
make us free. And that it is the love of truth, not suicide, that is
the ultimate signature of freedom.
A truth I do know, having learned it the hard way over many years, is
that euthanasia is not about the "right to die" but about the
"duty to die." Yes, I am "fearmongering" again, but if you are not so
foolish as to be afraid to fear when there is reason to fear, please
consider the following statements by prominent players in the game of
life, not one of whom shares CURE's philosophy that where there is
life, there is hope. And thank you for the valued gift of your time.
"In 'erring' on the side of life...we expend an enormous amount of
money on nenonatal intensive care." --Ernle Young, ethicist; Dr. David
Stevenson, pediatrician, Stanford University [According to Sarah
Glazer, writing in The Washington Post, some medical experts find
treating "fragile" ill newborns "morally and medically flawed." "They
question the wisdom of providing heroic treatment at exorbitant cost
that...results in a growing population of severely handicapped children
who are a burden to society."]
"Should people in a persistent vegetative state [an anti-life term for
prolonged coma] like Ms. Greene, although loved and worthy individuals,
receive high levels of care?...Despite the excellent treatment Ms.
Greene has received, I wonder if care for her at someone else's expense
renders such 'life' [note the discriminatory quotation marks]
meaningless...We must have a board of doctors, community members,
judges and others to set up guidelines... --Arlene Plevin, Washington
[Alas, we have such Auschwitz-style death selection committees. They
are called hospital ethics committees. Note the constant emphasis on
money. Checkbook euthanasia is the garden variety...]
"Economists and bioethicists say the nation cannot afford to keep
providing increasingly more costly, heroic measures to all patients no
matter how poor the outlook. They're saying that soon society will have
to decide whether to limit such care to those who will benefit the most
from it. Some are even talking about rationing." --Donald Drake, staff
writer, The Philadelphia Inquirer [Guess whose care will be rationed?
Rockefeller's or yours?]
"Sooner or later the only way to cut health care spending significantly
is to reduce the quantity of service rendereded to the patient."
--Victor Fuchs, Stanford economist [And of course, the quality.]
"By the year 2000, the only person in the United States who can afford
to get sick will be Donald Trump." --Joseph Califano, well-heeled
health consultant, [who as Jimmy Carter's Secretary of HEW proposed
that states who refused to pass life-ending "living will" laws be
denied life-saving Medicare benefits]
[Finally, a quote from a past that is forgotten at grave peril...]
"One painfully realizes how wastefuly we treat life that is precious
and full of vigor and power an how much wasted manpower, patience, and
capital investment is invested at the same time to keep life not worthy
to be lived alive until finally, often awfully late, nature triumphs...
"There are undoubtedly living people whose death means a final release
for themselves and at the same time a release of a burden for society
and for the country. This burden serves no useful purpose, except
perhaps to give an example of high unselfishness.
"Realizing that there is indeed human life whose continuation is of no
interest to any reasonably thinking person, then it is up to the
legislature to ask this fateful question: 'Is it our duty to
continually defend this unsocial life by giving it the full protection
of the law or is it our duty to release it for euthanasia?" --Karl
Binding, J.D.; Alfred Hoche, M.D., The Release of the Destruction of
Life Devoid of Value, Leipzig, 1920 [BTW this book coined the
euthanasia code words "death with dignity."]
... Caring when Care is Critical (CURE: 304-258-LIFE)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Earl.Appleby
Internet: Earl.Appleby@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.orgNadine.Thomas@p1.f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Nadine Thomas) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15989 In a message of <May 24 16:47>, Earl Appleby (1:275/429@fidonet) writes: > our efforts on helping those who want to live and on defending the > lives of those endangered by the murderous intentions of others, rather > than wasting our limited resources on vainly trying to dissuade the > so-called "rationally suicidal." > > An old saying reminds us that there are none so blind as those who will > not see. Perhaps, that is why my responses to the advocates of It makes me very sad indeed to see how you twist the debate to YOUR closed minded thinking and then call me and others close minded. NO ONE has advocated euthanasia as a norm for those who do not believe in it. EVERYONE who has spoken of it has spoken for THEMSELVES - the RIGHT to SELF determination. Please, get off your soapbox and let this debate (pardon the pun) die a natural death. A few of us who have been involved with this debate have agreed that: 1. We have our individual belief that will not (at this time) be changed by each other's opinion. 2. In order to keep passions to a minimum we would agree to disagree and drop the topic. 3. The only thing that can come from prolonging (pardon the pun again) the life of this debate is ill-feelings. So, Earl, how about it? Are you willing to shake hands and let this go for now? I value your friendship and want to keep it. We are adults here and I guess what I am saying is I am aware of my boiling point and I prefer to lower the heat then to spill over. I also know that you are capable of making your own decision and may not agree but continue to post. Nadine -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7.1!Nadine.Thomas Internet: Nadine.Thomas@p1.f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org
Earl.Appleby@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Earl Appleby) (06/19/91)
Index Number: 16236
Hello, Nadine. I just received your message of May 27th in which you
comment:
NT> It makes me very sad indeed to see how you twist the debate to YOUR
NT> closed minded
NT> thinking and then call me and others close minded.
I, too, am sad, Nadine. <sigh> But this is not the appropriate forum
for me to express my personal disappointment. Besides you are
perceptive enough to know why, were you to chose to reflect on it. But
that is your choice. For what it's worth, my reference was to those who
prefer to ignore facts rather than deal with them, primarily two
gentlemen, not you dear lady. The sort that see death as a cheap joke
that scarcely merits grief much less opposition.
NT> NO ONE has advocated euthanasia as a norm for those who do not
NT> believe in it.
One reason why I'm sad and, far more, angry is that as I write these
lines my friend Oliver Wanglie is in court fighting against those who
want to kill his wife Helga. She does not want to die. Oliver, her
husband of 54-years, does not want her to die. Nor do her two adult
children, Ruth and David. But that hasn't stopped the *government*
from going to court to have a third-party, an outsider, appointed so
Helga can be killed by the euthanasians at Hennepin County Medical
Center in Minneapolis.
There's a world outside this Echo and even beyond our computers and in
that world the glib distinctions about euthanasia (as limited to suicide
by some here) and murder (the involuntary euthanasia that is most common
in actual practice) isn't worth a wooden nickel. God, how I wish that it
were. CURE has not worked in *one* case where the victim said I want to
die (a la Janet Adkins). In almost all instances we are working *with*
families (like the Wanglies) that do not believe in euthanasia. But
anyone who believes that protects you is truly blind. I don't seek to
force anyone to think, much less do, any thing. I simply offer free
information to those open-minded enough to look at the facts and make up
their own minds. If that's *closed-minded* so be it. (I am closed-minded
when it comes to someone murdering someone else simply because their
so-called "quality-of-life" fails some some Hitlerian standard.)
PS--You may imagine that my family does NOT believe in euthanasia. Do
you think that got my Dad the blood transfusion he needed *before* he
died? Do you really? Whom do you think the State is going after when they
murder Helga Wanglie? Volunteers? The medical establishment calls Oliver
a kook for wanting his wife to live. But you know, it's surprising how
many of us nuts are still out there. I'd fight for just one and if I
could reach just one and help protect his or her life, why you [and I
don't mean you personally, Nadine] can call me a closed-minded,
fear-mongering, pro-life, kook or anything you please. (In fact those who
call good folks like my late Dad "vegetables" or equate thier lives to
those of dogs needn't spare one kind word for me.)
NT> EVERYONE who has spoken of it has spoken for THEMSELVES - the RIGHT
NT> to SELF determination.
Even in terms of this Echo, that is unclear at best, as one of my
unanswered replies to someone else affirmed.
NT> Please, get off your soapbox and let this debate (pardon the pun) die
NT> a natural death.
NT> So, Earl, how about it? Are you willing to shake hands and let this
NT> go for now? I value your friendship and want to keep it. We are
NT> adults here and I guess what I am saying is I am aware of my boiling
NT> point and I prefer to lower
NT> the heat then to spill over.
NT> I also know that you are capable of making your own decision and may
NT> not agree
NT> but continue to post.
My friend, Nadine, rather than a handshake will you accept a hug? (NT)
As I said from the start I do not believe in *debating* euthanasia, any
more than I would debate other holocausts. This whole thread was
initiated by euthanasia proponents and I posted the grand total of two
messages to All to correct a grossly misleading picture of euthanasia as
presented by its advocates. (I do not claim any infallibility or psychic
powers but ten years in the trenches and in the libraries give me some
perspective.) Finally, there may be a few folks who would not want to
be murdered if they get too sick in someone else's opinion and they need
the Life Support Directive not the "Living Will."
So thank you for caring enough to respond. It was not and is not my
intention to continue a debate I neither initiated nor desired. The
euthanasia issue is, of course, far broader than the discussion here, or
even than the actual end stage, i.e., the killing of the victim. For
example, a principal source of euthanasia is medical neglect and not
infrequently medical malpractice. I shall continue to support human
rights as the Spirit moves me, but feel free to reject or even disregard
anything I say, while accepting I pray my friendship.
Your friend as ever,
Earl [YR]
... He that does not learn from history is condemned to relive it.
CURE/304-258-LIFE
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Earl.Appleby
Internet: Earl.Appleby@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org