Except now, they are coming after Grandpa! Not happy with having females killing their own babies, now the death cult wants to put Grandpa and Grandma to death. Nice!
In the matter of life and death, the family should rule
The momentary focus is on the case of Samuel Golubchuk, an 84-year-old Orthodox Jewish man on life support at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. Mr. Justice Perry Schulman of Court of Queen's Bench recently ruled in favour of the family, which had sued to maintain Mr. Golubchuk on life support contrary to the wishes of doctors.
This is not a "religion versus medicine" issue. It is more a human-rights issue — specifically, the right to live.......
The role of the health provider is to advise, not to dictate. Once that distinction is clear, the distress should disappear. Doctors would be wise to shy away from any unilateral power to use the potent hammer of deciding who gets removed from life support.
In reality, this case should never have needed adjudication. We should have done what is usually done — respect the family wishes.
Read the comments, best reason for killing Grandpa? Cost to the health system, it all comes down to money, not love, care, or compassion.
Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: If there is unanimous decision in the medical community that the person will not be able to return to any kind of conciousness, then the life should probably be ended, given that this person has been in this condition for a specified amount of time, maybe a month or 2. If the family want to keep the person alive, then they should have to pay for it.
Nowadays we don't have the resources, the money or the doctors to keep everyone alive who is unconcious. We have thousands to people waiting for operations, not to mention the wait times for everything. We need the beds, and I personally don't want to spend my tax money on keeping someone alive who should die because modern medicine has no cure to return them to a partially functioning human being.
I wonder if Dana will be saying the same thing 10 or 20 years from now when they come for her, because she has reached the age of 65, and healthy or not the LAW says you must die, for the good of ALL mankind?
I happen to agree that it should be up to the family, not the doctors when life support should end, hopefully the person has a living will to help the family make this decision. We should decide, with the help of our doctors when the time is right to stop all life saving measures. I still shudder in horror thinking about this killing:
So, what happens when a husband wants to kill his wife, and gets legal help in doing it? Slippery slope. Do you see the slope Dana, or are you headed right for it, at speed?
Was this an “end-of-life” issue?
No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.
Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?
No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.
Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?
No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.
Oh, and the newest, coolest trend in death?
Pushing Infanticide, by Wesley J. Smith, CBC special consultant
Support for infanticide is becoming positively trendy. Where once support for killing babies born with birth defects was a fringe belief, it became respectable—even mainstream—after doctors from Groningen University Medical Center in the Netherlands admitted in 2004 that they euthanized dying and profoundly disabled babies under the terms of what has come to be called the "Groningen Protocol."
The Protocol permits doctors to lethally inject three categories of sick or disabled newborn infants:
The baby has no chance of survival (which is sometimes misdiagnosed)
The baby "may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectation for their future are very grim" or,
The baby does "not depend on technology for physiologic stability" but whose "suffering is severe, sustained, and cannot be alleviated."
This means that not only are dying babies lethally injected, but also babies with serious disabilities who do not need intensive care.
Slippery slope, indeed! And the Death Cult marches on...who's next?