Some protest a death in CA, but the same would love to see a child murdered in MA

Categories: News, Politics
Comments: 7 Comments
Published on: December 13, 2005

The Free Republic is reprinting a story from the AP. On how in MA a child is going to be put to death by the state. The child’s only crime is to be beaten by a bad father. Yet yesterday in CA liberals were all upset that a convicted killer was going to be put to death. (Let me also say here, I am not sure on the death penalty, and I am not sure Tookie should have been put to death. The loss of life, any life, is a loss to all)
The question is why do the liberals protest over the death of a guilty person (one convicted of murding 4 people), yet when it comes a innocent child (in this case a child that was beaten at the age of 11, but it easily could be a unborn child) they will call it, a “woman’s choice” or “death with dignity” but they will not call it what it is MURDER.

7 Comments
  1. Rob says:

    Once on a ventillator, always on a ventillator? Are you really sure you want to go there? The result would be to cause people to refuse the ventilator in the first place! It’s not always a clear decision to put someone on in the first place. “We know we can wean you off the ventilator” is not something a doctor could ever promise with 100% certainty. Knowing that, if the ventilator is a mistake, the patient may come off the ventilator, is what encourages many patients to try to begin with.

    The Roman Catholic Church, in the Declaration on Euthanasia”, states “It is also permitted, with the patient’s consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations.”

    I would argue that this young girl is already dead, based on the degree of brain devastation reported (we’re not even seeing an illusion of awareness like in the Terri Schiavo case), but such an argument is unnecessary. Parents can decide to remove the child from the ventilator when the doctors believe there is no hope of recovery.

  2. Hi Rob. I will admit that this is a fine line here. In this case it is not the parents that what the child off of life support. It is the state. I will not cover the parents (right now), since their actions prove they can not trusted as guardians of the child (it was the beating from the father that caused the current state, and he wants her to stay on so he does not get charged with murder — But I will cover this a bit more later).

    I understand that do not resuscitate orders, or do not put on ventilator orders. But once the person is resuscitated or on a ventilator, I think the situation is different. Also is the child fully brain dead? I don’t know, I will admit I am using this case as an example to contrast it, maybe I should use (as you also alluded to Terri Schiavo)

    Now back to the “parents” of the child. What ever the outcome of this, I believe that the father should spend a lot of time in jail for his actions, if he had not beaten her she would not be in this state. And the mother is dead in what is thought to be a murder-suicide.

    What I am saying here is 2 fold; one the state should not have the power to end the life of a innocent child. Second I am trying to show, what I view as, an inconsistency in the “pro-choice” people (the “pro-choice” people that are against the death penalty)

    Of course I am an odd ball here I will admit, I am pro-life (against abortion, and euthanasia) and I am also thinking that the death penalty is wrong also. And I know a lot of pro-life people are for the death penalty, and most people that are against the death penalty are pro-choice, so I am odd since I am pro-life and against the death penalty.

  3. Rob says:

    “But once the person is resuscitated or on a ventilator, I think the situation is different.”

    In that case, far fewer people will be willing to risk going on a ventilator. The result will be that people will die that did not have to.

    The child was put on the ventilator in the hope that some recovery might be made. If she had recovered, all would have been well and good. As the situation developed, it became clear the child had no hope of recovery and the continued use of the ventilator was medically and (I believe) ethically contraindicated. This girl cannot open her eyes, is not aware, cannot think, and does not even have the necessary reflexes left to breathe on her own. She is dead and (I pray) with the Father; her body only continues because of technology.

    Imagine how many times I’ve been involved with making the decision when to stop resuscitative efforts. I understand that there is a time to fight, and there is a time to acknowledge when the battle has been lost.

    I’m pro-life, too, although I also have a nuanced position because of my experience working in the medical field and the family members I’ve watched die.

  4. Rob, I do admit that the question of a ventilator is a very difficult thing to deal with. The one main question I would want answer, in if she was brain dead, when they do an EEG is there no activity, or is there some. But now we are trying to answer when the (for those that believe in this) soul leaves the body, I don?t know if I am even close to qualified to even to try to answer that.

    As to people wanting to try or not try the ventilator, I don’t think I can even begin to even think of trying to answer that.

    And with Resuscitation efforts, I pray I never find myself in your position (I have been train in CPR, I am looking at renewing it, just incase I ever need to use it, I hope I never have to use it, I have a friend Josh that teaches it, and he has offered me that he is going to do a First Responder course, he is still wanting to hear back from the state for approval of it, and I am thinking of taking it in the case, I pray never happens, that I would need that level of knowledge. But I do need to renew the one I did, the one I did before was only CPR and AED but that was a bit over 2 years ago so I have to renew one way or the other soon. But I am happy to say I never needed any of the CPR training I have ever had)

    Maybe I am not qualified to talk about ventilator issues, but I will say what I have said is about what I think about the stuff.

  5. Rob says:

    Mike,

    Of course you’re alloed to say what you think! I don’t mean to imply you’re not. You’re one of the folks I respect. I don’t post on some folks blogs because I have nothing to contribute. Others, I don’t post because there’s no point in contributing.

    I didn’t intend this as criticsm, but as discussion. If it came across wrong, I apologize.

  6. Rob,

    I did not see what you were saying as a criticsm, I took it as you intended as a discussion, what I was saying at the end there, was admitting that my side of the discussion is a bit weak. Not that I am changing (just yet) but that you gave me some stuff to think about, and for that I do thank you

  7. Rob says:

    When you’re crazy like me, sometimes you just need to stop and make sure you’re not driving everyone else nuts.

Welcome , today is Wednesday, November 22, 2017