covici@ccs.portal.com (John Covici) (02/21/91)
Index Number: 13682
Feb. 6 (EIRNS)--MISSOURI COURT HEARS STATE'S CASE AGAINST
PARENT'S DEMAND TO STARVE DISABLED DAUGHTER. The Missouri Court
of Appeals in St. Louis heard arguments today from that state's
Department of Health asking the court to overturn a lower court
ruling that would permit the father of a 20 year old handicapped
patient to move his daughter from a Missouri hospital to one in
Minneapolis where state laws permit, and even, facilitate
families' wishes to starve to death disabled relatives.
The Department of Health represents the Missouri
Rehabilitation Center, the same hospital where the disabled Nancy
Cruzan was starved to death in December. They argued that the
best interests of their patient, Christine Busalacchi, were not
represented when a St. Louis Probate Court ruled in favor of
Christine's father, Pete Busalacchi on January 17. Probate Judge
Louis Kohn refused to hear any evidence of the level of
Christine's awareness or view a video of Christine's responses to
doctors' or nurses' demands. Christine, who sustained brain
damage in a May 1987 car accident, continues to improve weekly,
especially with increased attention. Kohn decided Christine's
fate on the basis of who decides if patients who are unable to
speak for themselves live. Kohn said, "Somebody has to make a
decision, maybe the right decision, maybe the wrong decision. I
think it has to be made by the family." With that, the
Rehabilitation Center argued, disabled patients lost all their
rights.
Pete Busalacchi, 44, who had his first wife killed by
having her removed her from a respirator, contends his daughter
is nothing but "a machine" and wants to end the only thing
keeping her alive, her tube feeding. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a
Minneapolis neurologist best known for transforming American
medical care using Nazi medical ethics, says Christine is in a
"persistent vegetative state" and is assisting in having her
removed to his facility.
The Court of Appeals is expected to hand down its ruling
within three weeks.
Feb. 6 (EIRNS)--MICHIGAN JUDGE PERMANENTLY BARS DR. DEATH FROM
USING `MURDER MACHINE.' Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Alice
Gilbert has permanently barred Jack Kevorkian from using his
homemade murder machine, which he used last June to kill a
retired Oregon woman with Alzheimer's disease. Kevorkian was
originally charged with murder, but the charges were later
dropped when an Oakland County District Court Judge ruled in
December that the victim, Janet Adkins, died by her own hand
after throwing the switch on Kevorkian's machine, which released
lethal drugs into her system. Suicide is not a crime in Michigan.
Therefore, Kevorkian rationalized, neither is "assisted suicide."
Geoffrey Fieger, Kevorkian's attorney, said they would
appeal Gilbert's ruling on the grounds that the Judge has no
authority to prohibit "a legal activity" by Kevorkian simply
because "she thinks it is immoral or unethical." The unemployed
pathologist claims he is being persecuted for advocating an
enlightened approach toward the terminally ill. Kevorkian,
however, was ready to use his machine on "anyone who's in
distress or who thinks he is." He modeled his experiments of
direct transfusions of blood from corpses to live patients on the
WWII methods the Soviets used.
Judge Gilbert said Kevorkian was not qualified to evaluate
Mrs. Adkins, and evidence of the victim's suicide wishes were
"too sparse." Rather, she said, the video of Kevorkian's
interview with Adkins shows Kevorkian "rather anxious to try his
invention that he has advertised, and Janet Adkins appeared as a
likely candidate."
While Gilbert's 35 page ruling has not yet been reviewed,
she appears to have made one of the few, if not only, statement
against assisted suicide heard in today's courts. She dismissed
Kevorkian's claim that he sought to expand the basic right of a
third person to include a right to assisted suicide, saying: "The
rights of privacy and self-determination do not encompass the
right to direct another person to kill or the right of a third
person to participate in the killing.... Patients cannot confer a
right upon a doctor to assist a suicide. Patients cannot dictate
to a physician how to practice medicine." Russell.Hunt@f243.n620.z3.fidonet.org (Russell Hunt) (04/16/91)
Index Number: 14958
The whole issue of ethics in relation to this quickly changing world is
about the most perplexing of all issues.
I believe changes in medical technology and areas such as genetic
engineering, fertility technology etc etc are vitally important to those
interested in disability issues.
I feel that there has to be a careful look at these issues and a wide
debate about them because the reality of our world today is so
dramatically different than it was.
I feel it would be a mistake to automatically rely on past value
structures in the light of such changes. There are circumstances where I
would strongly support euthanasia.
I believe that this and the issues of genetic engineering, reproductive
technology etc is worth of great debate on this echo.
What does EVERYBODY think????????
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!620!243!Russell.Hunt
Internet: Russell.Hunt@f243.n620.z3.fidonet.orgAnn.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Parsons) (04/16/91)
Index Number: 14990
Hi Russel,
RH> The whole issue of ethics in relation to this quickly changing
RH> world is about the most perplexing of all issues.
Yes, I agree with that in part.
RH> I believe changes in medical technology and areas such as
RH> genetic engineering, fertility technology etc etc are vitally
RH> important to those interested in disability issues.
RH>
RH> I feel that there has to be a careful look at these issues and
RH> a wide debate about them because the reality of our world today
RH> is so dramatically different than it was.
RH>
RH> I feel it would be a mistake to automatically rely on past value
RH> structures in the light of such changes. There are
RH> circumstances where I would strongly support euthanasia.
Well, this debate has been heard on here before, and many of you know how I
feel. I guess I will start the ball rolling by saying this. There is *NO*
*EXCUSE* *FOR* *EuTHANASIA*. God brings us here, he takes us home. Now, I
can't say this any stronger than that. There are certain values that do not
change. One of those is the sanctity of life. In our society where we have so
many medical miracles at our finger tips, to allow someone to be killed (yes I
will not couch the word in any other term), is a crive against God. If we were
a hunter/gatherer society having no recourse, then there might be reason for
killing of the useless. No, I will not be polite or gentle in my speech
because I want you to think carefully about what you are saying, Russel, and
what you are allowing the society to do in your ignorant rantings about
ethics.
Question? Are people in wheelchairs useless? Are the blind useless? Are the
deaf useless? Well then, if we aren't, then you'd better start thinking about
survival because everyone who touts out the cry in favor of euthanasia is
bringing his or her death that much closer. No, no, no, I will not be still, I
will not be silent. Look at Germany in the 1930's. You probablly don't
remember but there was a time when they used to measure the distance between a
child's eyes to determine if he could live or not. What makes you think that
unscrupulous men wouldn't get it into their heads that persons with
disabilities didn't fit in and could be disposed of according to some new law
or other? I do not trust my fellow men, Russel, especially people like you who
are willing to jump on a band wagon to change things because it's just too
hard to keep them the same. It's the complacent people that will allow this to
happen. It's the people who are willing to allow their holy books to be
changed to satisfy some women who insist that "he" isn't good enough for God,
or that "mankind" excludes them. Yes, you say the issues should be discussed.
I wonder, if the idea wasn't put in their heeds would they do anything about
it?
"Why did the kids pour jam on the cat?
raspberry jam all over the cat,
Why did the kids pour jam on the cat,
Because we said no."
The Fantastics
Please, remember this when you so glibly talk about
sometimes there is a need for "euthanasia". Don't give the Devil any more
leaway. If you want to write a living will, then write one, but don't try to
impose your views on somebody else.
Your kind of thinking frightens me greatly. I can not tell you how much. I see
children on a weekly basis that would be prime candidates for the Devil's work
if it were not that our laws keep them alive. They are nonverbal, they are
nonambulatory. They can not feed themselves. Yet, they live and they love and
they love music. Each time I enter one of the rooms in that school for
profoundly handicapped children I am greeted by the squealing and the pounding
on trays and the clapping. No, no, no, no, there *IS* *NO* *EXCUSE* *FOR*
*KILLING*.
Sorry, but you've really hit a nerve here. I'll listen to the discussion, but
I've said my piece. No, there are certain values that do not change ever.
If you want to discuss genetic engineering, that's a whole other bag and I
think there is much to be said for careful use of genetic engineering. But you
have heard my views on killing the old and the useless.
Ann P.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!260!207!Ann.Parsons
Internet: Ann.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org