Terri's Case
Terri's case is yet another victory for the Culture of Death.
Throughout all this controversy we have heard a lot about 'what did Terri want'? 'Did she once say that she would not have wanted to be kept alive under these conditions'?
What she might have said doesn't matter. It is not relevent in this case. Nobody can morally consent, either immediately or in an advance directive, to one's own death by means other than natural causes.
When a person is dependant upon a respirator and the respirator is removed, the death that follows is a natural death: the person dies from the disease or accident that made him dependant on the respirator. When a person has a terminal, incurable disease and he or a responsible family member elects for Do Not Resuscitate, the patient dies from natural causes.
In the case of Terri, she has not been in a terminal condition in danger of death and has not been receiving extraordinary medical treatment. Receipt of food and nourishment by a feeding tube is basic patient care and does not constitute extraordinary medical care. With this tube in position Terri has been in a stable state, for over 15 years and with the potential to live for many more years if not interfered with. Terri is dying an imposed death, an unjust death, a judiciously imposed death, a death based on the decrees of a dysfunctional judicial system.
This judicial branch of government has been for some time the dominant branch. It dominates over the executive and legislative branches by use of a veto. This veto is exercised by pronouncing certain executive and legislative acts as un-constitutional, thereby nullifying them.
When we see the areas in which they exercise their vetoes, we are led to suspect an underlying agenda. We are reminded that Pope John Paul has referred to the Western Democracies as essentially entities of Totalitarian Democracy
Throughout all this controversy we have heard a lot about 'what did Terri want'? 'Did she once say that she would not have wanted to be kept alive under these conditions'?
What she might have said doesn't matter. It is not relevent in this case. Nobody can morally consent, either immediately or in an advance directive, to one's own death by means other than natural causes.
When a person is dependant upon a respirator and the respirator is removed, the death that follows is a natural death: the person dies from the disease or accident that made him dependant on the respirator. When a person has a terminal, incurable disease and he or a responsible family member elects for Do Not Resuscitate, the patient dies from natural causes.
In the case of Terri, she has not been in a terminal condition in danger of death and has not been receiving extraordinary medical treatment. Receipt of food and nourishment by a feeding tube is basic patient care and does not constitute extraordinary medical care. With this tube in position Terri has been in a stable state, for over 15 years and with the potential to live for many more years if not interfered with. Terri is dying an imposed death, an unjust death, a judiciously imposed death, a death based on the decrees of a dysfunctional judicial system.
This judicial branch of government has been for some time the dominant branch. It dominates over the executive and legislative branches by use of a veto. This veto is exercised by pronouncing certain executive and legislative acts as un-constitutional, thereby nullifying them.
When we see the areas in which they exercise their vetoes, we are led to suspect an underlying agenda. We are reminded that Pope John Paul has referred to the Western Democracies as essentially entities of Totalitarian Democracy
posted by fergail at 1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home