More of the "New Eugenics" in Action
by JoyI don't see this blogged, so I'm jumping into the fray (with my usual liberal dose of righteous indignation at this sort of thing). I think this is an important developing story - the Dead Date is April 30.
Despite the Shiavo fiasco we all recall - when the President interrupted one of his frequent vacations to return to DC and call a special session of Congress to prevent the euthanasia of a Florida woman with brain damage - a hospital and insurance company drafted bill G.W. Bush signed into law as Texas governor in 1999 is once again being used to kill. This time it's a 54-year old woman who is not in a coma, is not terminally ill, and whose brain damage from hemorrhage suffered after heart surgery does not compromise her higher brain functions. It just compromises certain motor control, which requires her to breathe by mechanical assist (ventilator). The patient and her family have registered strong objection to this planned "mercy killing," but a single doctor has decided their wishes don't count.
Senior DI Fellow Wesley J. Smith is so far one of very few who have taken up the cause, arguing that the treatment isn't being removed because it doesn't work - it's being removed because it DOES work. He also lists a host of other objections, and lodges substantial criticisms of the Texas law.
Houston Hospital Votes to End Woman's Life with Bush Law
WorldNet Daily: Hospital to Kill Sick Woman
Read it and weep…
April 26th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Interesting stuff, joy, but is Telic Thoughts really an appropriate forum for this post?
Comment by Mesk — April 26, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
April 26th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
This is the result of a lack of telic thinking in our world today, those who cannot speak for themselves are kept alive beyond their will (depending on who you believe) and those who are infirm but can speak for themselves are silenced so that they may be killed before their will.
We confuse evil for good
Mesk, I would say that telic thoughts is perhaps not the best place, but this story as an example of the results of a lack of telic thinking generally, philosophically, emotionally speaking fits right in there in so far as I can see, even though this is a science based (proper phrasing?) blog. I think its neccessary sometimes in order to remind us what we are talking and arguing for ultimately
Feel free to holler at me if this isn't sensible to you, I know what I'm trying to say, but having difficulty putting it concisely and intelligibly
Comment by carbon14atom — April 26, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 12:13 am
[...] 20;mercy killing," but a single doctor has decided their wishes don't count. Telic Thoughts � More of the "New Eugenics" in Action [For clarity, the author of this post, Joy, [...]
Pingback by hell’s handmaiden » More of the “New Eugenics” in Action — April 27, 2006 @ 12:13 am
April 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Hi, Mesk. I saw this story on a leftist political blog (previously mentioned here on TT more than once), in a diary entitled Culture of life indeed. It's crossposted to Club Lefty. The articles linked in that diary and on this one both mention Smith as primary source, so I went to the DI main page to get his info. There I found his blog addy and a couple of good blogs about this case, along with a host of darned good bioethics blogs from this very interesting writer I hadn't noticed before.
I figure that if this case presents a considerable moral and ethical issue for people so widely separated along the political spectrum, it also represents an excellent opportunity to open discussion of the directions we are going in science, medicine and policy. A "Before It's Too Late" opportunity to look these issues right in the kisser. Maybe agree on something for a change.
Many of the same notables at the forefront of the issues we see here daily - Dawkins, Pinker, Wilson, etc., etc., etc. - also are the movers and shakers in what THEY have dubbed the "New Eugenics." It includes forced euthanasia to whomever they deem 'unfit' (or maybe just 'unworthy'), infanticide, human experimentation… you know. All the stuff that isn't really 'new' at all, just recently resurrected as pridefully human "Intelligent Design." Which is what eugenics always was, of course.
So I posted it, in case anyone cared. Because I can.
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2006 @ 9:16 am
April 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am
And in case anyone IS interested in the ethical dimensions of this debate, please see the blog and comments at Wesley Smith's blog - Secondhand Smoke. Including the comments of the attorney who has agreed to take this case, on the issue of due process. I particularly like Smith's observation:
"The care isn't being unilaterally refused because of the medical uselessness. It is being refused because it isn't medically useless, that is, it keeps the patient alive. It is the patient, in effect, that is being declared useless."
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2006 @ 11:23 am
April 27th, 2006 at 11:44 am
This is really sick. Having been very involved with disabled children (http://www.littlelighthouse.org/), this is very VERY discouraging.
Comment by johnnyb — April 27, 2006 @ 11:44 am
April 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Hi, Johnny. Yes, it is discouraging. Given the medical details as characterized in some corners of the blogosphere, Andrea Clark's condition does appear to be deteriorating via progressive organ failure. One bioethicist defending this decision claims she can't have more than weeks to live. In which case I can't see ANY reason to suffocate her or starve/dehydrate her. Except of course to free up the hospital bed and save her insurance company a few thou over the next few weeks they haven't saved since her surgery in November.
That's a pencil-pusher decision, not a medical ethics decision. As the "New Eugenics" goes forward in the brave new realm of genetic testing [abortion of 'unworthy' fetuses], genetic manipulation [designer babies] and genetic screening [prevention of some people having children at all], there is of course going to be the issue of how society will then treat already-born people whose various disabilities or features have been deemed worthy of artificially selecting out of the gene pool. The deaf, the blind, the small, the large… whatever. It can't be good, and there's reason for concern.
Devaluation of life - over the often strenuous objections of those who would rather be deaf than dead [for instance] - is then bound to trickle down to negative valuations about who deserves to be treated medically too. Bringing us to this current impasse, where the wishes of the patient can be entirely ignored in favor of economic considerations for her insurance company or the hospital bed she has spent the past few months living in.
When blue eyes and blonde hair are the new designer goodies (that would be the "Valley Girl Model), people born naturally and without the elitist-required pre-birth genetic screening who have brown eyes and black hair may find themselves "mercifully" dead at the first opportunity of elitists/medical people to make such decisions. Makes me sick. (Oops! Did I just put myself on their kill list?…)
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
–stands and applaudes Joy–
I am someone on the "mercy" list, for more than just brown eyes and dark hair. Why stop at mere physical features, what about mental or emotional problems that are not the result of genetics or detectable by screening?
I pity these people…I hate what they do, but I pity them
Comment by carbon14atom — April 27, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Caution! Rant…
Yo, Carbon! I don't pity them one bit. I know, that speaks of my lack of human compassion for the malignantly narcissistic, but there you have it. If there's evil - and I certainly believe there is - this is one of its most glaring manifestations. BUT… because I also know that evil is an entirely human invention (and therefore ultimately stupid), I also see that it's asserted itself prematurely on this issue. That means there really may be TIME (fair warning) for us humans to nip this manifestation in the bud. Before too many are killed, and I view killing as primarily a theft of TIME.
I mean, if we're talking mere weeks in any case, what's the hurry? If it's not advisable to transfer her to ICU for dialysis that won't do any good, then she'll die where she is just that much faster. Why suffocate her? It honestly makes zero sense to me medically, morally or ethically.
That said, the trick evil will use to keep on asserting itself (and killing people) as this pogrom moves forward is our current strange reluctance to provide for our citizens that which all other arguably democratic/republic forms of government on the planet provide for their citizens - health care. When you're rationing health care on the sole basis of class/income in favor of corporate greed, human life is of course devalued. They're in it because there's money to be made from closed-market trade in human suffering. If that's not evil then there's no such thing. That's not a religious statement, it's plain old right and wrong.
Guess you can tell this subject is a sore point for me. My son was killed by doctors and insurers and he was an intelligent, 21-year old, fully functional 6'3 blonde with blue eyes, a well-paid celebrity with an unbounded future of possibilities. The pencil-pushers don't read medical records when they trade their stock, so the doctors refused to accept him when he got in trouble after they'd released him without treating injuries they diagnosed - "he'll be fine," they told us. When he did hemorrhage, the helicopter ambulance was left hovering for an hour and a half after a 9-minute transfer refused permission to land after it was pre-approved. Which then required emergency state interference because the helicopter was running out of gas - too late… he'd already bled to death.
I was tremendously tempted more than once in the course of the resulting 7-year legal struggle to just shoot 'em, but in the end those doctors are no longer practicing medicine thanks to me staying the course to hit 'em right where their deadly decision originated: their pocketbooks. They won't be doing that to anyone else's son, but a dozen just like them no doubt took their place.
I see no appreciable difference between an insurer who decides you're not a good money-making risk, a hospital deciding you're in the way, and you being the "wrong color" or the "wrong shape" or whatever other value judgments will be made in this ugly "New Eugenics." So yeah, I think attention and action are necessary. Now, not sometime in the future.
[/rant]
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Breaking News
This just gets worse and worse! I don't often agree with the right wing on a lot of their signature issues, but here I'll take whatever they've got to offer. Because the participants in this action cover the spectrum, and I believe that's a great strength of unity we can put to good use.
Seems phone calls and emails to St. Luke's in Houston (the hospital at financial issue in this financially-motivated premeditated murder) have done it again. Andrea Clark's family found a hospital in Illinois willing to accept her in transfer, to see what they can do or at least let her die with some dignity. So the current hospital told the family they'd pay the full cost of transfer [~$17,000] if they do it today. If they wait until tomorrow, they'll only pay half, and after that they're on their own.
This, pure and simple, is Patient Dumping. A violation of federal law, by the way, and one among several state and federal laws I used to fight the battle mentioned in my last post.
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 11:36 am
[...]
"More of the 'New Eugenics' in Action" April 28, 2006
Read this important post"More of the "New Eugenics" in Action", @ Telic Thoughts. Terri S [...]
Pingback by truegrit » “More of the ‘New Eugenics’ in Action” — April 28, 2006 @ 11:36 am
April 28th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Hi, joy, Joseph Bottum has a post on this at First Things today which is a good read.
Comment by Deuce — April 28, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Thanks, Deuce! Latest from Smith is that the Clark family has accepted the move to Illinois. Which is good, and the hospital's paying for it. Further action to be organized, so this doesn't keep right on happening. It's been a real eye-opener!
Comment by Joy — April 28, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
This isn't the first case in Texas. You're late in getting to the issue, but welcome.
Comment by edarrell — April 28, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Moi? "Late?" Au contraire, mon ami! This time there is bipartisan support and action, to be welcomed indeed. But this isn't the only place I post, or the only issue I post about. America's due for a general wake-up call, and now the alarms are buzzing all over the place. The wall had to be breached first, you know.
Comment by Joy — April 28, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
May 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pm
UPDATE - THINGS DID GET WORSE!
PLEASE SEE: Secondhand Smoke for today's update and planned legal action…
Wow. It looks as if St. Luke's is hell-bent on facilitating the Constitutional challenge this law merits. Glad to see that attorney Ward is prepared to launch requisite legal actions, and I hope concerned parties on both 'sides' of the broad support coalition will help to finance the challenge. Perhaps they can get emergency consideration to the Texas Supreme Court quickly, because I expect the hospital will appeal any injunctions the family is able to obtain.
And for poor Andrea Clark (for whom many prayers have been said), let's hope she isn't callously murdered just for spite in the meantime. If the care is truly futile, then let it be futile in God's own time. The challenge will go forward regardless, with hope of preventing this travesty in the future. As Smith so eloquently pointed out, what good are advance directives and medical powers of attorney if the only decision medical providers will honor are the ones that direct death?
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2006 @ 1:39 pm