....and this will probably be the last time I ever address it,” he said. “It should be decided by the families — the federal government and the state government too, except for the court system, ought to stay out of those matters as far as I am concerned.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/us/politics/23thompson.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Well. That statement helped me decide whether or not I would want Fred Thompson for my president. I definitely won't vote for anyone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

1. It should be decided by the families. [Your daughter died. The Schindlers' daughter was publicly executed. You decided. The Schindlers were denied any right to be involved in the decision making part of their daughter's death.]

2. state and federal government "except for the court system" ought to stay out of end of life matters.

Thompson's statement brings to mind an article I just read about  a presentation in which Ronald Cranford, Lisa Ellis[no kin] and Ann Russell[ Hennepin County Medical Center] focused their presentation on the cases they had been involved in and how the criminal justice system and ethics committees interplayed. In their presentation they emphasized the fact that "despite the reality that the courts are a poor place to resolve most complex ethical dilemmas in a health care setting, the use of courts is inevitable and a uniquely American response to this kind of conflict." 

I have to wonder what else Fred Thompson has in common with those in the US Pro-Death Movement?

Let's see:

1) Those in the pro-death movement believe that anyone diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative  state should be recognized under the law as being 'legally dead' for the purpose of harvesting their organs and body parts. [Where do you stand on this Fred?]

To me this is a scary thought. Especially, considering how little science knows about the human brain .  

Those in the pro-death movement call themselves 'bio' ethicists. That term didn't exist until the 1970s.

About 1970, Van Rensselaer Potter coined the term bioethics to bring under one heading broad questions of human survival, environment, and biology. In 1971, Potter outlined a statement of principles that linked the ethics of the biological sciences with the ethics of environmental concern. Regrettably, the field that adopted his rubric bioethics immediately diverged from Potter's interests. Bioethics has become for the most part identified with medical ethics or health care ethics and in so doing has developed few ethical principles and analyses in relationship to environmental ethics. http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/314

Interesting, that a term coined for those seeking answers to questions about  'human survival' in connection to the 'environment, and 'biology' has been perverted to define those dealing in 'the survival of the fittest'.

   I am 58 years old. I cannot remember a time before 1970 that any family was denied by law their right to make end of life decisions for a dying family member.

   Bio-ethics is not about preserving a family's rights in end of life matters. There was nothing about the Terri Schiavo case that even hinted that  those seeking her death even considered giving the 'bio' logical family any kind of say in the matter of starving and dehydrating their daughter to death. No, indeed! Because if they had allowed her family to have a say the outcome may not have been to their liking.

   We are at war. But this war is not fought with guns. This war is being fought with ideas. And like other wars of ideas the American people have had to fight in our country's short life span [231 years], the outcome depends on whether or not Americans are willing to sacrifice a weaker class of Americans to satisfy the deranged part of our society who are well educated in everything but human compassion.

I, personally, am waiting to see which presidential candidate has the guts to take a public stand against starving and dehydrating disabled Americans to death, before I jump on anyone's bandwagon. 

   Sorry, about your daughter, Fred. But your excuse for jumping on the pro-death bandwagon is a crop out. You are old enough to know that the thing that has always made America strong is not the selfish minority but the majority of the Americans who were/and are willing to give up some of their rights if it will benefit the majority. 

That's where the saying comes from: An American is in both the minority and the majority. 

     When we can no longer see wrong in killing the weakest among us [for the benefit of the few] then we have reached the bottom of the slippery slope.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it