VF'ers: Assisted suicide is exactly the same as abortion

[Daenerys]

I always find this kind of thing a bit rich coming from the Republicans who vote against the idea of universal healthcare. Also, I'm pretty sure this man only survived his accident because of medicine fighting nature/God, so how is taking him off a ventilator an unChristian thing to do if he consents?

I thoroughly encourage you to comment on this blog, because she actually replies most of the time in a non-crazy way.

Also it's interesting to note what she HASN'T said, as a very well-connected member of Vision Forum and manager of one of their blog sites, in the week that the shit really hit the fan and the entire ministry has been disbanded. That would really be something to start questioning about our 'broken, fallen world'.

onebrightcorner.blogspot.co.uk/

[Stephanie66]

So did this couple ever pay the huge medical bill for their son? visionforumministries.org/projects/llmaf/baby_nathan_valor_jackson.aspx

And is everyone supposed to work for free because they don't want to accept satan's medicaid?

[Vex]

I really resent that comparison. Fetuses are not conscious beings who are deeply suffering. They aren't trapped in decaying bodies. They're not suffering the agony of terminal cancer. They haven't spent their entire lives on dialysis with no hint of a transplant on the horizon.

I had a friend who killed herself. She tried many times to do it before she succeeded and nobody could talk her out of doing it. Every single time the campaigners for the legalisation of euthanasia come to my city I write out her story and my grandfather's story (he wanted euthanasia but couldn't get it) to be sent off to parliament to try and convince them to legalise euthanasia. It's probably never going to happen but I fully support it.

To say it's the same thing as abortion is to ignore the free will and diminish the suffering of millions of people.

Fuck her.

[lilwriter85]

So did this couple ever pay the huge medical bill for their son? visionforumministries.org/projects/llmaf/baby_nathan_valor_jackson.aspx

And is everyone supposed to work for free because they don't want to accept satan's medicaid?

I kind of remember hearing about that couple and their son. There was another VF connected family(Zimmermans) that had a preemie son and they refused medicaid and four years later(this past spring) they raised $100,000 online to pay off a remaining hospital bill.

[Stephanie66]

Their son was born at just over 21 weeks, and the hospital's cut-off was 22 weeks. They bullied the hospital into providing hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care, then absolutely refused to get Medicaid and had no way to pay for it. I hope the hospital takes away their house.

[Coconut Flan]

If you're talking about Nathan, he was born at 23 weeks five days. They had a lot of nerve demanding treatment and refusing Medicaid both. They should have been grateful the hospital existed and he stayed in utero a couple more weeks.

[FloraKitty35]

Wow, that is some serious fucked up logic. Assisted suicide is not abortion. Since there is no such thing as retroactive abortion, so how does assisted suicide equate abortion. Shouldn't these morons read Logic for First Graders. :evil: :twisted: :angry-banghead: :cray-cray: :pull-hair: :wtf:

[Trynn]

I actually have no problem with Euthanasia... under very strict circumstances. To me it's the same thing as a DNR (Do not resuscitate). There are strict circumstances under which you could get one, and in order for it to be valid the EMS personnel must be provided a doctor's note, the original, not a copy, and have it in their hand. I don't think it's quite the slippery slope some make it out to be.

People considering euthanasia are suffering. Fetuses generally don't. Not a valid comparison.

[bionicmlle]

The comparison makes me completely sick and it doesn't even make sense from THEIR perspective! They say that a fetus "deserves" to live and have a chance at life. They speak for them. So now, they want to speak for people who CAN SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? People have a right to die.

[splork]

"There is a time to cease artificially keeping someone alive--but this is a decision arrived at slowly and carefully. I will never know what caused the Bowers family to consider taking out the breathing tube only 24 hours after the accident or why, when they took Tim Bowers out of sedation to ask him, Tim consented to going off the ventilator. I grieve with them for the loss of this precious life."

There's a time to cease artificially keeping someone alive...but I'm not going to tell you what it is. Well, that solves THAT dilemma.

"God has created each human being in His own image! Europe and North America--I will take the 95% of down syndrome babies you are aborting."

Hey, guys, I'll take 'em ALL. Another ethical problem solved! Hooray!

[ILoveJellybeans]

No, that is wrong. Assisted suicide is helping an already living person to end their life when they are suffering. Most abortions are done when the fetus is nothing that even looks like a baby, with a brain that is not fully developed enough to have any feelings or consciousness. Abortion also means ending a pregnancy, therefore it can only happen to a fetus. Suicide is when the person wants to kill themselves-a fetus cant decide to be aborted because they have no consciousness.

The only time where it comes anywhere near is when someone decides to abort a much wanted pregnancy because they have found out that their fetus has problems with it that are incompatible with life and they decide to abort now than give birth to a baby that will suffer and die in a few hours.

[salex]

"There is a time to cease artificially keeping someone alive--but this is a decision arrived at slowly and carefully. I will never know what caused the Bowers family to consider taking out the breathing tube only 24 hours after the accident or why, when they took Tim Bowers out of sedation to ask him, Tim consented to going off the ventilator. I grieve with them for the loss of this precious life."

There's a time to cease artificially keeping someone alive...but I'm not going to tell you what it is. Well, that solves THAT dilemma.

"God has created each human being in His own image! Europe and North America--I will take the 95% of down syndrome babies you are aborting."

Hey, guys, I'll take 'em ALL. Another ethical problem solved! Hooray!

I will never understand why choosing not to use extraordinary means to sustain life is "playing God." Years ago, in a ICU my cousin was told by the doctors it is always easier (legally, emotionally, etc) to choose not to begin a life sustaining treatment than to choose to remove it later.

[Phoebe]

I live in northeastern Indiana (did some of my clinicals at Lutheran Hospital, even!) and there is no way in hell that Mr. Bowers' decision did not go through a thorough review by the hospital's ethics committee. It's not as though Mr. Bowers woke up, heard that he'd be permanently paralyzed, requested life support be pulled, and ten minutes later they shut off the machines. The doctors asked him, over and over, in the presence of his family, by himself, in every permutation they could have asked, in order to ensure this was in fact Mr. Bowers' choice of his own free will and that he was mentally competent to make that decision. I can assure you that if Mr. Bowers had said even once that he wanted the breathing tube put back in, they would have done so in a heartbeat.

I am currently doing clinicals at the nursing home at which Mr. Bowers most likely would have ended up, as every resident there is ventilator-dependent, mostly bedfast with their trachs and their machines beeping loudly all the time and little privacy, less autonomy, and poor staffing (having nursing students there to help shoulder the work means the aides aren't stretched so thin -- they do their best but staffing direct-care positions in nursing homes is always catch-as-catch-can). It is a smelly, noisy, depressing place and frankly, I would have chosen to die like Mr. Bowers rather than end up there.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll agree that the fact that a fairly young man and new father chose suicide over life with paralysis raises moral questions - about how much autonomy we have over our bodies, about how society views disabilities, about the concept of intrinsic human worth, etc.

What's missing, of course, is a discussion of what needs to be done, on a practical basis, to support those with serious disabilities and end-of-life issues, so that they can see life as an option. Affordable health care, appropriate staffing and resources for nursing homes, organizations to support those dealing with serious medical issues and their families, proper funding for therapy including recreation therapy, good access to hospice care - all of these things and more would show societal support for the notion that all life is precious.

Finally, I don't like the trend that I see among some groups to confuse the issue of euthanasia with the issue of not having futile medical treatment. Yes, there are wonderful, miraculous stories about how difficult treatments do sometimes save lives - but you would only go through such difficult treatments if you knew that there was a realistic hope that the outcome would ultimately be worth it. It's legitimate to turn down treatments that are likely to cause more harm than good.

[anachronistic]

I'm pro-choice but anti-assisted-suicide. The disability community has very strong feelings about this. Before you dismiss all anti-euthanasia people as right-wing crackpots, I urge you to take a look at this site - [link=]http://www.notdeadyet.org/[/link]

Not Dead Yet is an awesome organization that just happens to be named after a Monty Python skit, so for that reason alone, check it out and consider the far-left's anti stance.

[Jana814]

So did this couple ever pay the huge medical bill for their son? visionforumministries.org/projects/llmaf/baby_nathan_valor_jackson.aspx

And is everyone supposed to work for free because they don't want to accept satan's medicaid?

Thanks for the link. Just read the story, I feel bad for the hospital staff that they had to deal w/ these loons!

[DarkAnts]

I'm pro-choice but anti-assisted-suicide. The disability community has very strong feelings about this. Before you dismiss all anti-euthanasia people as right-wing crackpots, I urge you to take a look at this site - [link=]http://www.notdeadyet.org/[/link]

Not Dead Yet is an awesome organization that just happens to be named after a Monty Python skit, so for that reason alone, check it out and consider the far-left's anti stance.

I am for assisted suicide when it involves a terminally ill person (ie cancer exc). In Oregon, a person needs to have their full mental capacities and go through extensive counseling with a doctor and counselor before the doctor can prescribe the lethal drug combination. This is not a rash decision for those that choose to end their life. These are people that are going to die painfully due to medical conditions. They want to die before it gets too painful. Who are we to deny them this option? BTW, there are people who get the prescription but never use it. No one is forcing these people to take their own life.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for the link. Just read the story, I feel bad for the hospital staff that they had to deal w/ these loons!

While I have tremendous sympathy for anyone without the resources to pay medical bills, I can't understand a deliberate refusal to apply for benefits. The hospital has expenses, and waiting indefinitely for payment from folks who refuse to make use of available resources means that the hospital would have to dip into its general funds, taking money away from other programs. If everyone acted like that, where would the funding for neo-natal treatment come from?

What the story also glosses over is the fact that the initial conversation with the hospital occurred on Jan. 27, but Nathan was not born until Feb. 6. At that point of gestation, this is a HUGE difference. My SIL, during her first pregnancy, was placed on strict hospital bedrest but ultimately had her water break at 22 weeks. They desperately wanted the baby, but after consulting with all the specialists realized that there was no realistic hope at that point. The situation closer to 24 weeks is much different. 10 days would have made all the difference in terms of lung development. The conversation on Jan. 27 may have come as a harsh surprise, but it was not incorrect. If a baby delivered at 22 weeks has no realistic chance of surviving, why stick him full of painful tubes instead of allowing him to be held during his very brief time on earth? At 24 weeks, those painful interventions are justified because there's a decent chance that the baby may survive.

[cindyluvs24]

So did this couple ever pay the huge medical bill for their son? visionforumministries.org/projects/llmaf/baby_nathan_valor_jackson.aspx

And is everyone supposed to work for free because they don't want to accept satan's medicaid?

I read the article. Its not an "incontinent cervix", but an Incompetent cervix. They are soooo dumb.

Question 1: That was 2006. Has the bill been paid yet?

Question 2: How is the kid?

[Stephanie66]

I read the article. Its not an "incontinent cervix", but an Incompetent cervix. They are soooo dumb.

Question 1: That was 2006. Has the bill been paid yet?

Question 2: How is the kid?

Found this:

heritagedefense.org/about/selected-cases/baby-nathan-valor-jackson/

Although their medical bills remain substantial, the Jackson family and Nathan Valor rejoice in God’s grace, goodness, and care every day.

So...as of this update...no. I am guessing it was upwards of the high hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Still a few years old, but he is probably four? I wouldn't describe him as a "manly little fellow" as they did and would be more concerned with his intellectual development. He LOOKS fine, though.

It is extremely irritating to me that they mock the doctors who actually saved their son's life. I'm glad Nathan is doing well, but it wasn't god who saved him. It was a team of medical specialists. You know, the ones they stubbornly refuse to pay.

[formergothardite]

After watching the documentary How to Die in Oregon I'm a supporter of assisted suicide. I was raised to believe that it was just bad, but watching that made me realize that if I was in many of those situations I would want the option for assisted suicide.

[Stephanie66]

I wrote a comment and she responded, actually very nicely.

I would never decide for someone else, but I don't think I could kill myself. I just don't think I could wake up and say, "Yep, today is the last day I will live." What would I miss the next day?

That said, I can understand wanting to know that I COULD, if I needed to. I think having the medication available to painlessly die is comforting to some people.

[Three and Done]

As a person with disabilities, I fully support the right to assisted suicide. Only I should be able to determine whether life is worth living.

I had cervical spinal surgery in 2005, and due to the minuscule chance that the doctor may accidentally paralyze me from the neck down, I seriously considered the issue and decided that for ME life would not be worth living as a quadriplegic.

No one else should have the right to decide for me. I am an adult, and completely capable of making the decision.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Found this:

heritagedefense.org/about/selected-cases/baby-nathan-valor-jackson/

So...as of this update...no. I am guessing it was upwards of the high hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Still a few years old, but he is probably four? I wouldn't describe him as a "manly little fellow" as they did and would be more concerned with his intellectual development. He LOOKS fine, though.

It is extremely irritating to me that they mock the doctors who actually saved their son's life. I'm glad Nathan is doing well, but it wasn't god who saved him. It was a team of medical specialists. You know, the ones they stubbornly refuse to pay.

Reading through a bit more, I'm very reluctant to put this in the same category as assisted suicide.

Nathan, as a newborn, had no ability to make any decision. It was a question of his parents vs. the hospital staff.

While I really hate is the false legal and medical information that is frequently spread in these sort of cases. Here's my rant about a case that was completely misreported a couple of years ago: http://jrkmommy-personalandpolitical.bl ... eport.html

On the other hand, there are cases where tough decisions need to be made, and it's not clear what the right answer is. Where there will be no happy endings, and only different tragic outcomes. In those cases, I really think that some deference needs to be shown to loving, mentally capable parents, even if the decision is that the same as what the health care provider may have done.

[Stephanie66]

Similar to that, when W was signing the thing about Terry Schiavo in his pajamas (no, don't remove her life support!) a hydrocephalic baby in Texas was removed from life support against his mother's wishes under a "futile care" law signed in 1999 by...then Governor George Bush.

Who is removed, you ask?

Terminally ill patients who are on life support and unable to pay their medical bills.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Texas_baby_ ... 27s_wishes

Hypocrisy? Oh yeah.

I understand that Nathan was never terminally ill, but can you imagine if such a law existed for just anyone who say...racked up over half a million and couldn't pay? Or refused self help? Hmmm.

ETA: Actually, I think they are in Texas. They could have fallen under this law at any time, which was probably what the hospital was trying to warn them about.