Killing babies
LINK2
When we read about abortion, euthanasia, and now infanticide, it's always a soap opera where the reader thinks: Oh my, killing is the only compassionate way to respond...
Of course, the dirty little secret is that most of these suffering babies have untreated meningomyelocoel...which IS treatable...but never mind. If the press bothered to look, they could find adults with meningomyelocoel who could give the other side...and even in the other cases, palliative care and loving a child can make it's life worthwhile.
I knew a devout Mormon mother who adopted and raised a child with a degenerative neurological disease...the docs said it would die in 3 months, and when I knew them the child was 15 months. Yes, heartbreaking for the mother, whose religious faith kept her going..(and a little practical and spiritual help from the LDS church)...and as for the child, he was loved...and did not suffer, merely deteriorated (think more sleepy)...a useless life for those who see money and productivity as the highest goal of life...
The point is: Euthanasia is NOT necessary...but like other agendas, it is being pushed by the MSM and agenda oriented medical journals like the New England Journal of Medicine...
Back in the late 1980's, the NEJM kept publishing articles on euthanasia, most pro death and mostly by the same small group of authors...and all of them claimed that euthanasia in the Netherlands was "well regulated...so that no abuse could occur"...
Well, at the time I was working at a job that required us to document for regulation...when you did so, the data should be fairly accurate...so that if two people noted the same occurance, these reports should agree most of the time...(indeed, if the number were too perfect, it meant someone was cooking the data).
Well, at that time the spin was that Dutch euthanasia was "regulated" because the courts stipulated that the doctors would not be prosecuted if they reported their intentions to the police before the death occured, there had to be two physicians who agreed, and the person involved not only had to agree, but be voluntary...so if these facts were true, scientifically you could say that euthanasia was regulated.
However, various articles agreed that most cases were not reported, that "estimates" of the numbers involved varied from 600 (the medical society) to 20 000 (the pro death organizations)...and there was a pesky doc in the Netherlands who collected articles from Dutch newspapers about cases that did not fit the criteria: Where people were euthanized against their will, for example...
So after every article, I wrote to the NEJM:
Regulation requires documentation and oversight.
If the rules were followed, we would have exact numbers. However, various reports from reputable journals note "estimates" vary so greatly as to suggest not only is no proper reporting or regulation is occuring, but that authorities are not bothering to try to do any sort of regulation...As for no "abuse", there are many cases reported in the Dutch press, and cited in the Hastings Center report...
After six or eight almost idenitcal letters, the Lancet published an article which, if you ignored the MSM and optimistic wording, showed everything that I had suggested...
So I wrote and insisted: I understand why you don't publish my letters, but why don't you bother to print a retraction of the statement in these six or eight articles?
And the editor answered: These articles are OPINION pieces, and do not require proof that their statements are proven.
So much for science...and it is something to remember the next time you read an "opinion" article in the NEJM...
Oh: An afterward.
We did a "headup" to Cardinal Law about this. I was a nobody, but three of us wrote an article for one journal, and the other two were a bioethicist from Tufts and a bioethicist from Harvard. (I was the token Catholic).
Three months later we got a letter smoothly saying they could not do anything, but that the Boston Catholic newspaper the Pilot would have an article on euthanasia...
My friends laughed bitterly and said: He doesn't want to make waves.
And indeed, the letter was one of those "MEGO *" bland letters that really didn't provide any insight into the growing threat of adult euthanasia...nor did it mention that Harvard was planning a "bioethics" meeting at the time to discuss "end of life care" that included all the usual suspects ...
Law just didn't want to make waves...which is why I laughed bitterly when his moral leadership failed in other matters...Oh, he's a good man...just prudent...
Well anyway, both in Massachusetts and in Detroit, where kavorkian caused a similar milquetoast opposition by the bishop, it was the evangelicals who stopped the medical societies from supporting euthanasia initiatives in the legislature...
-------------
*MEGO= my eyes glaze over
When we read about abortion, euthanasia, and now infanticide, it's always a soap opera where the reader thinks: Oh my, killing is the only compassionate way to respond...
Of course, the dirty little secret is that most of these suffering babies have untreated meningomyelocoel...which IS treatable...but never mind. If the press bothered to look, they could find adults with meningomyelocoel who could give the other side...and even in the other cases, palliative care and loving a child can make it's life worthwhile.
I knew a devout Mormon mother who adopted and raised a child with a degenerative neurological disease...the docs said it would die in 3 months, and when I knew them the child was 15 months. Yes, heartbreaking for the mother, whose religious faith kept her going..(and a little practical and spiritual help from the LDS church)...and as for the child, he was loved...and did not suffer, merely deteriorated (think more sleepy)...a useless life for those who see money and productivity as the highest goal of life...
The point is: Euthanasia is NOT necessary...but like other agendas, it is being pushed by the MSM and agenda oriented medical journals like the New England Journal of Medicine...
Back in the late 1980's, the NEJM kept publishing articles on euthanasia, most pro death and mostly by the same small group of authors...and all of them claimed that euthanasia in the Netherlands was "well regulated...so that no abuse could occur"...
Well, at the time I was working at a job that required us to document for regulation...when you did so, the data should be fairly accurate...so that if two people noted the same occurance, these reports should agree most of the time...(indeed, if the number were too perfect, it meant someone was cooking the data).
Well, at that time the spin was that Dutch euthanasia was "regulated" because the courts stipulated that the doctors would not be prosecuted if they reported their intentions to the police before the death occured, there had to be two physicians who agreed, and the person involved not only had to agree, but be voluntary...so if these facts were true, scientifically you could say that euthanasia was regulated.
However, various articles agreed that most cases were not reported, that "estimates" of the numbers involved varied from 600 (the medical society) to 20 000 (the pro death organizations)...and there was a pesky doc in the Netherlands who collected articles from Dutch newspapers about cases that did not fit the criteria: Where people were euthanized against their will, for example...
So after every article, I wrote to the NEJM:
Regulation requires documentation and oversight.
If the rules were followed, we would have exact numbers. However, various reports from reputable journals note "estimates" vary so greatly as to suggest not only is no proper reporting or regulation is occuring, but that authorities are not bothering to try to do any sort of regulation...As for no "abuse", there are many cases reported in the Dutch press, and cited in the Hastings Center report...
After six or eight almost idenitcal letters, the Lancet published an article which, if you ignored the MSM and optimistic wording, showed everything that I had suggested...
So I wrote and insisted: I understand why you don't publish my letters, but why don't you bother to print a retraction of the statement in these six or eight articles?
And the editor answered: These articles are OPINION pieces, and do not require proof that their statements are proven.
So much for science...and it is something to remember the next time you read an "opinion" article in the NEJM...
Oh: An afterward.
We did a "headup" to Cardinal Law about this. I was a nobody, but three of us wrote an article for one journal, and the other two were a bioethicist from Tufts and a bioethicist from Harvard. (I was the token Catholic).
Three months later we got a letter smoothly saying they could not do anything, but that the Boston Catholic newspaper the Pilot would have an article on euthanasia...
My friends laughed bitterly and said: He doesn't want to make waves.
And indeed, the letter was one of those "MEGO *" bland letters that really didn't provide any insight into the growing threat of adult euthanasia...nor did it mention that Harvard was planning a "bioethics" meeting at the time to discuss "end of life care" that included all the usual suspects ...
Law just didn't want to make waves...which is why I laughed bitterly when his moral leadership failed in other matters...Oh, he's a good man...just prudent...
Well anyway, both in Massachusetts and in Detroit, where kavorkian caused a similar milquetoast opposition by the bishop, it was the evangelicals who stopped the medical societies from supporting euthanasia initiatives in the legislature...
-------------
*MEGO= my eyes glaze over
posted by boinky at
8:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home