That's right. Deciding to kill someone for monetary considerations isn't big news. But checking CNN.com, you can read about dolphins drowning on a coast of Africa, a Daytime Emmy awards party, or a story about a former gold medalist being arrested.
To whom it may concern:
I find it dispicable that St. Luke's Hospital would use a law that exists in Texas to euthanize a patient who, very recently, vehemently expressed a strong desire to continue living. People go to hospitals for health care, not physicians who decide it's cheaper to let the patient die!
As a Houston resident, be assured that I and my family will stridently refuse to EVER go to your hospital should you lapse in your mission to protect and serve the healthcare needs of your patients in such a tragic and appaling manner. Believe me, I am very outspoken and involved in student life at Rice University. I can see to it that public opinion in my social circle of your facilities are rightly brought low if you should choose to abuse the trust that patients explicitly put in your hospital.
I'm not sure what is more horrifying, the fact that your hospital would rather kill her because her life costs money, or the fact that this is happening literally mere feet and yards away from where I work as a graduate student at Rice University.
I implore you to feel some compassion and have mercy, even should it cost your hospital dear financial resources, and not allow the untimely and deliberate death of this woman. Please consider if it were your mother, your child...
I recently read that St. Luke's Hospital now is forcing Andrea's family to choose IMMEDIATELY a tremendous and risky transfer to a different healthcare facility (one that is willing to actually give her healthcare and not kill her) or else refusing to assist in the cost of what is sure to be a complicated move.
Why must your hospital do this? Are you so appalled by her presence, are you so without mercy that you'll help pay $17,000 to just get the poor woman away from your hospital? What kind of hospital is this? What kind of ethics does your hospital run on? This is utterly unacceptable, in every way that I can possibly express.
Please, reconsider what you are doing to this poor woman and her family, please imagine what some compassion and caring could do rather than catering to the common fiscal denominator.
If the hospital believes me to be in error in my feelings, please respond with the hospital's statement on the issue, their response to the allegations that they are, in fact, deeming the death of this woman is better for them fiscally than her continued healthcare.
Biochemistry and Cell Biology Graduate Student
The average modern reader of Matthew assumes Joseph disbelieved Mary and wanted to divorce her as an adulteress. Pictures come to the mind very easily of a Mary "pregnant out to there" and fumbling to explain to a skeptical Joseph that, well, it's not the way it looks and there was this angel, you see...
But surprisingly, there's another view of Joseph, one which Scripture supports better than the "Suspicious Joseph" portrait commonly accepted by modernity. In fact, it's a way of viewing Joseph's actions that was shared by such Church Fathers as Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity.
Put yourself in Joseph' s shoes. You are a first century Jew, not a 21st-century materialist. Not just God, but angels, the afterlife, miracles, visions, and the whole supernatural world is, for you, as normal and real as daylight and sun on the flowers. Mary is a deeply godly woman you have known extremely well for years whom you both love and trust. She tells you she received a Visitation from an angel, not months after she becomes pregnant, but hours—perhaps minutes—after the angel has departed. She is breathless and astonished. But she's not given to hysteria or tall tales and she's dead serious. She tells you the angel said she would bear a son by the Holy Spirit. She's not "pregnant out to there" when she says this. She just says it. Perhaps she's not even sure she's pregnant, since the angel has given no timetable on when this shall happen. There's no guilt or shame in her eyes. And given all you know of her, the idea of her a) sleeping around (with who? This is a small town!) and b) coming up with this sort of story to cover it up is about as likely as Mother Teresa visiting some secret lover and then trying to cover it up by claiming she was impregnated by aliens. It's simply beyond her character to create such a wild story. So, to your amazement and fear, you find Mary's story is less incredible to you than the proposition of Mary's unchastity.
Especially since that's not all Mary says. She also reports that the angel said her aged cousin Elizabeth is pregnant too. There's been no news from Zechariah and Elizabeth for several months. Then, a few days later, word comes from the Judean hill country: Elizabeth is pregnant despite her advanced age. The hair stands up on the back of your neck. And as weeks and months roll on, you find your beloved Mary is indeed pregnant too. She looks at you with absolutely honest eyes and says, "Remember what I told you about the angel and his message?"
Subject: I respectfully ask for a moment of your time, sir.;)
The right good and honorable Big Chris, with all due respectfullness and becoming that suits the graduate student addressing his right honorable advisor, Danio Wagner, respectfully wishes to point out that temperature in "his" half of the laboratory fluctuates between 25.4 C and 26.1 C (77.7 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit) depending on the time of afternoon of data collection.
Whereas common laboratory protocol, as is rightful and befitting for this laboratory to follow, commonly hold the term "room temperature" to be between 21 and 23 C,
And whereas numerous people make bothersome comments about the room "being fucking hot,"
And whereas Christopher might sometimes agree with said colloquial references and classification of the situation, if not the profane and disrespectful manner of such vocalization,
And whereas the right honorable Big Chris wishes for embryos that are being placed our in "his" half of the lab receive the bona fide "room temperature" incubation that their owners implicitly seek,
And whereas the current temperature regulation prohibits all from accomplishing these goals,
And whereas the honorable Big Chris wishes to respect the sensitivities and desires of his right honorable advisor, Danio Wagner, who initially set and evaluated the thermoregulation of said room, and who may have set the temperature to agree with his humours and sensitivities,
Big Chris HEREBY respectfully petitions the powers that be that a precise recalibration and reestablishment be made to the thermoregulatory instruments as they exist and control thermal conditions in "his half" of the lab to best serve the needs and comforts of all users of said room if those adjustments will not upset the sensitivities of the right honorable Danio Wagner.
“It is fascinating to see the ways [the media] can report a story to over-simplify it. The media misreported and didn’t report an enormous amount of facts in the case.”Link.
He stated it was rarely reported, for example, that there were 25 national disability groups standing with the Schiavo family trying to stop the killing of Terri, for the media did not want to recognize her as a disabled person.
Instead, he said, they consistently applied the label of Persistent Vegetative State to her condition which he considers absolutely false. “We never for a moment believed that Terri was in a PVS condition.”
“PVS is something that needs to be abolished… It is a completely subjective diagnosis, based entirely upon the interpretation of the doctor.” To drive this point home, Schindler referred to a recent British study which concluded that PVS is misdiagnosed 43 % of the time.
The media also repeatedly referred to Terri as being on artificial life support. “This confused the public” said Bobby. “They never said that she was receiving food and water. In the eyes of the law in our country, food and water are now considered medical treatment, extraordinary care. Feeding tubes are now seen as other than basic care.”
"the hospital ethics committee met the day before yesterday and concluded that Andrea's treatment (respirator and dialysis) should be discontinued. We have ten days to move her from that hospital or they will 'pull the plug' and let Andrea die."
Obviously this is a pretty involved story so you will have to read the whole post. I can't pretend to know all sides of this.
John called the sister, Melanie, and was told: "her sister [Andrea] recently had surgery for a heart condition. After surgery, she developed an infection and that's why she's so weak and needs a respirator to breathe. Again, her sister is not brain damaged, she can speak, and she does not want the hospital to let her die."
"If what Melanie Childers has told me is correct," writes John, "we've got a situation where a hospital that claims to provide 'ethical, compassionate and quality care' is pulling a woman's respirator and dialysis against her wishes and the wishes of her family after a doctor at their facility has said she might be able to recover.
"It is the first ruling recognizing the United States Constitution gives protection -- constitutional protection -- to the informational privacy rights of young people in health care," Heller said.Sure. And it helps 13 year old kiddies abort their children. It's not about privacy, it's about abortion, and it effects only abortion.
The center sued in 2003 on behalf of a group of obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses, psychologists, social workers, a family practice doctor, and a sex education teacher.Take a second and think about that little list of people - notice one thing in common? They make money and have a vested interest in increasing the number of "private, surgical procedures" (aka abortions) procured by all people as well as maintaining easy access to such "care." Caring about the kids? Doubtful. Caring about their business? More likely in my opinion.
Research to be presented at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's annual conference later this month shows babies born at 25 weeks or under cost almost three times as much to educate by the time they turn six as those born at full term.
In its response to an in-depth inquiry into premature babies by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the RCOG writes: "Some weight should be given to the economic considerations (of neonatal intensive care) as there is a real issue in neonatal units of 'bed blocking', whereby women have to be transferred in labour to other units, compromising both their and their babies' care. One of the problems of the 'success' of neonatal intensive care is that the practitioners are always pushing the boundaries. There has been a constant need to expand numbers of cots to cover the increasing tendency to try to rescue baby at lower and lower gestations."
Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.