Gus > I, for one, am of the opinion that Mrs Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago on that fateful day when she suffered her brain stroke. Ever since, what remained of her was a mere flabby carcass --what used to be Mrs Schiavo's body.
Yes, she suffered brain damage and what's the big deal about that? There are many people in this world who are either born with or have suffered varying degrees of brain damage from different causes -- injury, disease etc. So, should they all be exterminated? That's what Hitler did -- and it seems some of us haven't progressed any further in their ethical opinion concerning their fellow humans. And yes, a brain-damaged person is still a human being -- not a sub-human or a creature.
toolan.com
>>The total number of victims of the euthanasia programme is difficult to determine but as there were 300,000 to 320,000 mental patients in 1939 and only 40,000 in 1946 it would seem that the figure of 275,000 deaths mentioned in the Nuremberg Trials was reasonably accurate.
The victims were not confined to mentally incurable patients; as the programme progressed and gained momentum other undesirables were included. It was obviously too great an opportunity to be missed to not include anyone else who wasn't worthy of life. Amongst those caught up in the dragnet for the murder institutes were psychotics, schizophrenics, patients suffering from infirmities of old age, as well as epileptics, and other patients suffering from a variety of organic neurology disorders, including the various forms of infantile paralysis, parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis and brain tumours. We also know that children were disposed of similarly, when the orphanages and reformatories were searched for further candidates.
It should be borne in mind that according to one expert at least 50°/o of the patients murdered would, if allowed to survive, have been able to recover and lead useful lives.<<
In the circumstances of Schiavo's permanent disability, I can accept that there may be some kind of argument in favour of "execution" if there was no-one to look after her but in her case her parents were happy to do so and take responsibility. She would not have been a burden to the state, to taxpayers or anyone else. So, whose business was it anyway? Certainly not her so-called husband's. He has already shacked up and had kids with another woman and has shown his indifference to his so-called wife. The legal system? I don't wish to speak about that.
Indeed, and if the truth is known, I'm sure there's money involved in her death -- and it devolves on the husband. |
