or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| An interesting article |
ETWolverine |
01/25/06 |
Save Haleigh
By Michelle Malkin
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
I have a question for the hordes of bleeding-heart Hollywood stars who joined the "Save Tookie" brigade, who bowed their heads in prayer with ex-Crip gangster Snoop Dogg and the Rev. Jesse Jackson and pleaded to protect convicted Death Row murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and who lobbied so hard for the government to err on the side of life.
Where are you now?
In Boston, an innocent girl was sentenced to death by the state. Her name is Haleigh Poutre. Last fall, she was hospitalized after her stepfather allegedly burned her and beat her unconscious with a baseball bat. Haleigh was kept alive by a feeding tube and ventilator. Doctors said she was "virtually brain dead." They said she was in a "persistent vegetative state." The medical professionals pronounced her "hopeless."
Less than three weeks after Haleigh's hospitalization, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services was raring to remove Haleigh's feeding and breathing tubes. Even her biological mother (who had been deemed unfit to care for Haleigh and whose former boyfriend was accused of sexually abusing the child) wanted her to be put to death. The only person who wanted Haleigh alive was her stepfather, who will likely be charged with murder if Haleigh dies.
Earlier this month, the Massachusetts' Supreme Court ruled in favor of killing Haleigh, saying it was "unthinkable" to give the power to make a life-and-death decision to the man accused of putting Haleigh in a coma. Instead, the court did something just as unthinkable: It handed over that power over life and death to the same child welfare agency that had failed time and time and time again to protect Haleigh from her abusers in the first place. According to the Boston Herald, a report by her court-appointed guardian showed that the Department of Social Services had received 17 reports of abuse or neglect involving Haleigh in the three years before her adoptive mother and stepfather were charged with pummeling her into a coma.
"State can let beaten girl die," the headlines trumpeted. But there was just one small complication for all of those who, for whatever reason, were in such a rush to "let Haleigh die:"
Haleigh is fighting to live.
As state officials prepared to remove Haleigh's life support, the supposedly impossible happened. She began breathing on her own, responding to stimuli, and showing signs of emerging from what the medical establishment had deemed her hopeless condition. Everyone had given up on Haleigh — except Haleigh. ''There has been a change in her condition," announced a DSS spokeswoman, Denise Monteiro. ''The vegetative state may not be a total vegetative state."
Unbelievably, the state had weaned Haleigh off her breathing tube before the state supreme court had made its ruling — but the government failed to inform the court of the development. Haleigh's medical records and the social service agency's brief remain sealed.
Politicians in Massachusetts are vowing full-scale investigations of the state's incompetent child welfare bureaucrats. But where's the accountability for the medical experts whose faulty diagnosis led to Haleigh's court-approved death sentence? Will they step forward and reveal themselves? Will they explain how they erred? Will they apologize?
It was The Experts' unequivocal assessments that led the court to declare Haleigh in "an irreversible vegetative state" and to assert that "the child could not see, hear, feel, or respond." Now, they admit they were wrong. And now, Haleigh's life depends on the whims of a hopeless government agency that didn't think the court needed to know that the child was breathing on her own.
Haleigh's story is a wake-up call to "right-to-die" ideologues who recklessly put such unlimited trust in the medical profession and Nanny State. With such uncertainty surrounding persistent vegetative state diagnoses, the presumption must be in favor of life. Yet, the "right to die" lobby's mantra seems to be: When in doubt, pull it out.
While Haleigh clings to life, I've pondered how we might help persuade the plug-pullers to delay the child's state-sanctioned death sentence. I propose nominating her for a Nobel Prize. It bought Tookie Williams five extra years.
Jamie Foxx and Susan Sarandon, will you join me?
--------------
Hmmm. This opens up a whole can of worms, doesn't it?
First of all, a girl who was determined to be in a "permanent vegetative state" turns out to be improving: breathing on her own, responding to stimuli, etc. Even her doctors are admitting they were wrong. What does this case do to the argument that doctors know best when a patient will not improve and should be allowed to die? What does this do to arguments against one more check of the patient's condition? In light of this case, was Congress right to demand one more judicial and medical review of Teri Schiavo's condition before her feeding tube wa removed? Would one more review of her condition hurt anything?
What does this case do to those who argue the case against capital punishment but in favor of abortion and assisted suicide?
What are the legal ramifications of the state making the determination in favor of assisted suicide? What if the state is wrong? (I find it interesting that the same people who argue against capital punishment on the basis that the government might make a mistake and kill the wrong person suddenly argue the infallibility of the government when determining in favor of assisted suicide.)
Seems to me that the case of Haleigh Poutre raises a lot of questions on BOTH sides of the political fence: the liberals who would allow family to determine assisted suicide, and the conservatives who would allow the government to be the final arbiter. And the conservatives who would argue against assisted suicide at all need to contend with the question of what if the patient really is suffering in an intolerable manner and really does want to die.
What are your opinions?
Elliot |
Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 01/26/06 4:24 pm:
I can't speak for Massive-two-sh!ts, but I know as well as you how CPS sucks in Texas. I figger they're about the same, regardless of the state.
In my ever-so-humble opinion, they would much rather spend time screwing around with non-problem situations than take on the tough work that they supposedly exist to do. But no, kids with sorry parents end up dead, and decent parents are up against the wall for daring to tell their little darlin' "no" once in a while.
DK
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
