|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD
(5/7/2007)
We're Not Equipped for Playing God
We use to convict nurses and doctors and anyone else, who participated in "mercy killing". We use to feel that it was not their decision to make, much less their authority to carry it out. So, what was considered unacceptable and illegal then -- we now find acceptable and feel it should not only be legal, but the rule to be abided by (even) in spite of the patient's wishes or that of the family? How ever did that happen? Did someone slip us something while we weren't looking? With all due respect to the bishops down there in Texas, I don't agree with their opinion on the futile care theory. I would hope that the bishops will step back and review the case of Andrea Clark and explain, if they will, how that event was acceptable by any means. Physicians and the so-called ethics committee deemed Andrea Clark's care futile and sentenced her to death, though she was conscious and actively fighting for her life. How can it then be said that she was being let go, rather than being outright murdered? No, Andrea didn't survive, but she had the right to give it a go! She certainly had survived the odds many times over throughout her life and there was a chance she would again. Who was this hospital and so-called ethics committee to suggest she shouldn't have this chance? Who are these people who decide what "quality of life" is and strive to apply it to all? There are those who could not tolerate being in a wheel chair, while a wheel chair is nothing more than legs-by-wheels to others. I personally know someone in a wheel chair that can run circles around me (and many others) as for being active and getting things done. He is loaded with intelligence, talent and a positive influence and value to this world that cannot be denied. But some will try to deny it. Some will strive to say that defective is unacceptable and all that are -- are ineffective and useless beings within our society. We must, as a merciful society, murder them -- rid our society of them. Pretty and careful words only changes the "perception" by some -- not the truth of any of it! Doctors make mistakes! To assume that a doctor's opinion is actually "all-knowing" and stripped of all (human) personal bias, is like saying he/she is god. Catholic bishops are (actually?) saying that doctors can remove themselves from their emotions (bias), while suggesting families are not able to do likewise? Bishops wish to project the perception that doctors and ethics committee members are god-like? Doctors have the "best interest" in mind, while families (and self) do not? Do the doctors also have the interest of the patient in mind when they refuse life-saving treatment (or even an office visit) to the patient-person who is wishing for a chance to live, but doesn't have the money to make it happen? On the one hand it is saving resources from being wasted (a socialistic view) to the almighty dollar (capitalistic view) being necessary that rules our health care and lives. That leaves the question -- where is the humanistic view in all of this? The one with compassion and belief in God and miracles? The one that believes God gave man the ability to become a doctor and to invent life-saving machines and methods to save lives? I especially ask this of the bishops, who are suppose to be leaders in the belief in God and all the wonders He has blessed us with. Medical care doesn't have to cost as much as it does. That is a choice that was made. A choice that has priced it right out of reach for many. Yet, we need to reserve resources for those who can best benefit from them? And man can readily and fairly judge that? How scary that thought, but exactly where we are at. We are trying to let man decide who is worthy of living and who must die and doing it out in the open without shame. Worse, it is being done with a righteousness that suggests God's approval has been granted to these all-knowing individuals that are making life and death decisions, when never asked to do so in the first place. God may not require us to stay alive by extraordinary means. We (or those representing our wishes) have a right to refuse treatment. However, I wonder when God appointed substitute gods to represent him and decide who is worthy of living and who is a burden? I wonder when man convinced self that "mercy killing" -- that illegal activity people use to be convicted of -- was actually a blessing to the patient, family and society? But then... man has a way of justifying what he wants and to say that denying wanted treatment is different from lethal injection is only fooling self. No argument can truly justify and separate one from the other. Both kill. The church teaches that God will provide. To suggest a need to reserve resources is to suggest a lack of faith. It suggests a lack of belief that God will provide for our needs. But then... that may come to be if we keep going the course we are. One day, He may give up and pull the plug on all of us. Maybe He will think that is the merciful thing to do because we have no chance to have quality life in His eyes! I guess that will be called poetic justice!
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Purchase merchandise regarding this columnist
|
|
||
