By BARBARA SIMPSON
(Editor’s Note: This column first appeared on WorldNetDaily, July 14, 2019.)
+ + +
There are some names we all should know and the latest addition to the list is Vincent Lambert, a 42-year-old Frenchman who died July 11 while in a French hospital. He was denied food or fluids for more than nine days. Such a death is horrid and painful; but that didn’t matter to the medical staff, or to the lawyers and judges.
Yes, the battle for his life went to the top French courts as well as the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights. They denied the desperate pleas of Vincent’s family that he be treated. He was severely disabled but conscious, as result of an accident in 2008.
He spent the last six years in that hospital room, under lock and key. Despite the frantic efforts of his parents and siblings to save him, it was to no avail. Family visits were restricted, one person at a time, and closely monitored, to be certain that Lambert wasn’t given any nourishment or liquids.
His mother said that at the end, he was crying and moaning and showing signs of suffocation, yet was not given any sedation despite the fact the law requires it.
Family lawyers said Vince Lambert was killed by the state and by doctors. He was a man who was condemned because he was handicapped.
To be polite, it’s called “euthanasia.” Sounds nice, doesn’t it? And it’s politically correct too, so you won’t hear many (or any) in the mainstream criticize it.
To add insult to injury, it’s also called “death with dignity” or “the right to choose,” which is simply a way to make the people who decide to kill (or let die) the person in question feel noble about what they have done.
No medical person — doctor, nurse, or any other — wants to be known as someone who killed a patient, even if the means is justified by current law. It sounds better if the patient just “dies” — or at the very least, decides to end their life. That way, no one is to “blame.”
It’s happening all over the world, and the number of victims grows. A report by the Federal Health Department in Canada says doctors kill more than 3,000 people every year by euthanasia. That’s more than 250 a month, 58 a week, more than eight a day . . . one every three hours!
Multiply figures like that by the countries worldwide that allow such legalized deaths, and the number is astounding. Who are the victims of such mayhem? Men, women, children, and babies. People who may “just” be old, or infirm, or depressed, or victims of accidents with long-term disabilities, and often just people who are tired of living and have a physician who is more than willing to help nature along.
Legally, of course.
So, remember the name Lambert — and add that to the list you should already be aware of.
Remember Karen Anne Quinlan in 1975 — and the battle over who should decide to remove her from life support.
Remember Nancy Cruzan in 1983 — with the same legal issue as to her life support. The Supreme Court got involved in this case.
Remember Terri Schiavo in 2005. Same issue, same court battles — same result. Terri was starved and dehydrated to death.
Remember Jahi McMath in 2013 — declared “dead” after a tonsil operation, despite signs of cognitive life. Doctors refused to treat her. Her parents forced the issue and got some help for her, but it was too late — and she really died.
Remember 2017 and 2018 and the two infants in the UK — 11-month-old Charlie Gard and 23-month-old Alfie Evans. The children were born with neurological disorders and physicians refused to treat them. Despite huge efforts by their parents and wide publicity, the children were allowed to die, untreated.
The bottom line in all of these cases, and hundreds of others, is that the deaths of the patients had nothing to do with their infirmity. It had only to do with the decisions by the powers that be that their lives were not worth living.
There are other aspects of this of course. Hospitals and insurance companies save a lot of money by eliminating such patients. Keep in mind, these situations can also apply to patients with just dementia or just old age. If the medical establishment can get the state legislatures to pass laws allowing such deaths, then the onus is off of them and they feel “guilt free.”
The decisions can and will be made over the objections of family, so even if family wants the patient to be fed or hydrated, that can and will be refused. Another aspect of this is that in addition to eliminating food and water, the patient can get a “little help” in dying. It’s called a lethal injection.
Interesting, isn’t it, that there’s an ongoing battle against states using a “lethal injection” as a means of capital punishment for criminals, yet we are more and more accepting of using a lethal injection on our family members when some authority figure in a white coat decides their life isn’t worth maintaining.
God help us.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress