The Right to Life...
The right to life was guaranteed in the constitution. Why, then, has
This is Stateline -
The law prohibits health care providers from making medical decisions based on the assumption that “extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual (is) of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill.”
Value judgements of another's
life should not be the domain of the doctor; it is not for the medical
staff – not for State appointee, nor for anyone else – to say that this is a
life not worthy of life, either by comparison or degree, nor by absolute definition. We must never go
there again.
Although the Oklahoma law received little attention at home and has gone virtually unnoticed elsewhere, it revisits a philosophical divide that has periodically gripped the nation. On the one side is the palliative and hospice care movement which holds that terminally ill patients should be able to forgo high-risk, low-odds treatments in favor of comfort care at the end of life. On the other side is a branch of the right-to-life movement which believes that doctors are inclined to withhold life-preserving treatments when, in their opinion, a patient’s life has lost its “value.”
Despite sharply divided opinions during the bill’s debate, the measure passed easily, 41-2 in the Senate and 85-11 in the House.
“We are starting to see a trend nationwide,” Johnson said. He said that the law’s origins go back to the case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman in a vegetative state whose husband and parents battled in court for seven years over his desire to remove her feeding tube.
The husband prevailed and the feeding tube was removed in March 2005 to the consternation of activists in the pro-life and disability movements. Schiavo died within days.
The right to life is no longer guaranteed; it is neither guaranteed nor respected. What would the Founding Fathers have made of this?
This is The Raw Story -
This is the right to death.
The current interpretation is that the constitution is a 'living constitution', which means you may make of it what you want and make of it what you will...
until it bears absolutely no resemblance at all to the original
document…?
This document was not just a declaration of independence from the Crown; it was a document to defend the people from its government. It was to break, fundamentally, from the European model, once and for all.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The constitution, set in place and signed in congress, has been a long journey for the American people. It has been a journey of struggle and struggles.
I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
The document is the American dream.
Who may, they must recall the broadcast of King's stirring staccato cadences as he enounced his dream upon the steps of the Capitol and urged Americans to live out the true meaning of the document and its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." ...
Who may, they must recall the broadcast of King's stirring staccato cadences as he enounced his dream upon the steps of the Capitol and urged Americans to live out the true meaning of the document and its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." ...
that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness…
King was urging Americans not to change the document, but to
live out the true meaning of the document.
They should do so with renewed endeavour and revoke these laws of death.
No comments:
Post a Comment