Originally Posted - February 24, 2007

return home

Mercy as a noun is defined as compassion or forbearance, especially to an offender, such as offender David March who helped his wife commit suicide and was then shown mercy by the courts. The Merchant of Venice is an example. This is not to be confused with David March showing mercy by killing his wife, as End of Life radicals would have you believe, as killing another is not merciful. http://www.24dash.com/communities/11881.htm

There simply is no mercy in taking the life of another. There is no moral relevance in killing another and claiming it as a merciful act.

Mercy is also defined as lenient or compassionate treatment by one person to another: a fortunate circumstance; compassionate treatment of those in distress; a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion. Tender, loving care; keeping one clean and dry, well fed, and medicated for symptoms is merciful. There is no mercy in killing as a way of showing compassion.

As an adjective, mercy is defined as at the mercy of; wholly in the power of; with no way to protect oneself against which often sets the stage for abuse, neglect and exploitation of the weak and vulnerable in our society.

Mercy is often defined by end of life (EOL) advocates as compassionate treatment and putting those at the mercy of others, or in the power of others (with no way to protect oneself) out of their misery by "mercy killing." This is not the original and true definition of the word mercy, rather a skewed notion of what mercy means in euthanasia deaths.

EOL also lumps mercy with dignity, a patient's choice and rights issue, and self determination.

Mercy is also synonymous with clemency, grace, leniency, and charity. EOL advocates easily could have used "graceful killing" or "charity killing" but instead chose to use the word mercy. The connotation of the word mercy is often perceived as a good deed, and thus mercy killing is often confusing to people and perceived as a good deed by many in society.

Does mercy encourage starvation and dehydration of the brain injured like Terri Schiavo until death? Yes. Some folks think withholding food and fluids is merciful. What is merciful about purposely starving and dehydrating a person to death?

In 2004, a professor of sociology at Brunel University in London by the name of Clive Seale reported that 1,930 deaths in the UK were a result of a physician ending a patient's life without the patient's consent.

The practice known as "mercy killing" is also known as non-voluntary euthanasia.

Some people truly believe mercy killing or non-voluntary euthanasia is a merciful act. One's stance is predicated on opinions and moral philosophy, and also personal experiences. But that does not mean we all believe that misconception.

Passive Euthanasia is withholding or withdrawing medical interventions without the patient's consent. The intent is to cause death, even though the patient may not be dying. Terri Schiavo is a classic example of passive euthanasia. Even though the media continues to erroneously report that Terri was dying, she was not. Those with chronic disease, brain injuries, mental impairments, stroke patients, the elderly and infirm are other examples where care is purposely withheld to cause death. EOL advocates want us to believe this is merciful care and treatment. This is your choice and your right. The Patient Self Determination Act provides this to us and allows nurses and physicians, and medical facilities to passively euthanize you.

TYPES OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

Voluntary Euthanasia is consenting to a doctor's lethal injection, overdose, or other method of assisted suicide. Oregon's state law allowing Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a prime example.

Non-voluntary Euthanasia is when consent is not possible due to unconsciousness, inability to speak, mental incompetence of the patient, or other medical reason. Examples are comatose patients, such as Nancy Cruzan and Karen Quinlan; brain injured patients, such as Hugh Finn, and Terri Schiavo; or those with dementia, such as the elderly dementia and Alzheimer's patients.

Involuntary Euthanasia is when consent is possible but not sought. A doctor euthanizes the patient without his or her consent. Andrea Clark in Houston who had an advance directive that the hospital ethics committee did not follow is one example. Inmates on death row could technically qualify as other examples, as their consent is possible, but not sought. Mercy, by whatever definition, is non-existent when involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is applied.

If killing, euthanizing, starving and dehydrating or withholding treatment are merciful acts, why are the Catholic Bishops in Florida only begging the Governor to stay the execution of death row inmates? If these same Bishops are begging for a murderer's life, why did they remain silent and not beg for Terri Schiavo's life? Supporting the life of a death row murderer over the weakest and vulnerable in need of our protection is incomprehensible.

The 2004 research also indicated that doctors in Britain were involved in as many as eight deaths a day from voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.

A third of the people, 192,000 patients, who died in 2004, had their deaths "hastened" by using pain relief under the false claim this was alleviating symptoms, when in fact, the patient's life was deliberately shortened. Deliberately shortening a person's life is no different than premeditated murder, particularly when that person does not have the ability to make decisions.

Just under a third of the deaths in the UK study were from withholding treatment, which is passive euthanasia, with the rationale that it was deemed in the best interest of the patient.

Only 2.6% of the doctors surveyed said changing the law to permit assisted suicide would benefit patients. Do you find these statistics disturbing; that one third are passively euthanized under this false pretense; purposely killed, and that only 2.6% of the physicians feel a law legalizing euthanasia was in the patients' best interests?

This research study was published in the Palliative Medicine journal and based on an anonymous survey of 857 doctors.

The U.S. is not so different than the UK. With our larger population, we can expect a larger proportion of people to be put to death in the U.S than in the UK.

We do not know exact numbers of “mercy killings” in this country, but we do know about Terri Schiavo in Florida, Hugh Finn, Paul Brophy, Steven Becker, Robert Wendland, Marjorie Nighbert, Brianne Rideout, Matthew Woods, and so many others across the nation whose surrogates have attempted euthanasia. Some named above have actually been mercilessly killed. Others were more fortunate and survived through legal proceedings, such as Robert Wendland.

Some states practice passive euthanasia via state laws, such as Oregon, state statutes, such as Florida, or with the assistance of ethics committees and other health care enablers, such as Texas and most other states.

In Florida, state Statute 765.309 contains 2 clauses on mercy killing which state:

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying. Terri Schiavo's killing voided this statute, as her life was ended by deliberately omitting the act of feeding. She was not naturally dying. She began to die when all food and fluids were omitted.

(2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide. Under this legislative law, Terri's death is not considered a suicide. This is somehow supposed to make a killing acceptable and merciful. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC309.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0765->Section%20309#0765.309

These 2 statements are totally contradictive of one another. One forbids euthanasia by omitting treatment when the patient is not actively dying, while the other condones the practice. Based on this statute with these two clauses, we wonder how Judge Greer could rule as he did in Terri Schiavo's case by allowing passive euthanasia, not distinguishing between the two forms; active and passive, and not honoring the law by distinguishing the forms of passive euthanasia; involuntary and non-voluntary. Just because Florida statutes declare that withholding and withdrawing treatment to the incompetent is not defined or considered suicide does not mean the act is morally permissible. By making this a legal right does not mean this is a moral right. Figuratively speaking, it is suicidal to halt treatment. Withholding and withdrawing treatment voluntarily is assisted suicide and also a form of euthanasia which is illegal in the state of Florida, regardless of suicidal definitions. This statute is an inept piece of legislation and offers no protection for the weak and vulnerable or any person under the care of a guardian in the state of Florida.

The first clause forbids mercy killing and euthanasia. Additionally, this clause forbids deliberately ending a life by omitting an act to end life, unless a person is in the process of dying.

In Terri Schiavo's case, she was not dying and she was not in the process of dying. She did not have any health conditions that would cause her imminent death. Yet, she was denied food and water which caused her death. The law was not followed.

Based on Florida law, why then was Terri Schiavo passively, non-voluntarily euthanized by her husband, Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer and the Florida courts, the hospice facility, and the state of Florida?

The second clause is attempting to reassure us that withholding treatment that causes death is not defined as suicide. We cannot ascertain whether this clause is meant for the benefit of the medical field involved in voluntary killings, guardians making the decision to cause death, allay patients' fears before they are voluntarily killed, or another reason. No doubt it was devised to incrementally push us ever closer toward assisted suicide and euthanasia. Unlike Oregon, we do not have legally assisted suicide in Florida. There is no merit in this second clause and it surely provides no comfort or mercy to the patient when treatment is withheld.

Florida law is telling us it is legal to euthanize based on their definitions of withholding or withdrawing life prolonging treatments, procedures, or interventions. Not your definitions or ideas of treatment and interventions, not mine, and not the medical field, but the Florida legislators' ideas and definitions that are redefined in a court of law. The legislature's ideas originated with the end of life movement in the form of Community State Partnerships, Five Wishes, and other EOL programs funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and George Soros's Project Death In America (PDIA) which advocates legalization of euthanasia in the United States.

In Terri Schiavo's case, Judge George Greer redefined and expanded Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) on the bench. He interjected his ideas of treatments, interventions, and procedures that "sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function." Greer also interjected his ideas of "end stage condition" that means "an irreversible condition that is caused by injury, disease, or illness which has resulted in progressively severe and permanent deterioration, and which, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, treatment of the condition would be ineffective" that ultimately changed the law to include dehydrating a person to death as legal.

Anyone in disagreement who tried to save Terri Schiavo from murder was labeled a kook, a religious zealot, or right wing conspiracy nut. These so-called "kooks" involved with saving Terri came from all political parties, including Libertarians and Progressives. If Michael Schiavo was honest, he would admit some conservatives supported his action to euthanize his wife, Terri. His religious and right wing zealot accusation is simply misleading and dishonest.

Nancy Valko, a registered nurse with a background in medical ethics, recently commented that many forms of palliative care, such as terminal sedation, withholding food and fluids from the brain injured, and other methods of treatment are just other forms of euthanasia. She is correct, as the end result is omitting treatment or procedures purposely causing death, and often very quickly.

Nancy is a wealth of knowledge and has written on medical ethics, ethical evolutions in medicine, non-heart beating organ donation, and many other ethical issues. http://www.wf-f.org/bd-nvalko.html

Nancy's philosophy is simple, "honor the principle of not causing, hastening, or prolonging death." A presumption for basic medical care for those without Living Wills ought to be a minimum safeguard and protective mechanism for all.

Isn't this what merciful care and standard clinical care is all about, and not some judge's interpretation of medicine or a slanted mandate pushed by governmental policy? 2-24-07

© 2007 North Country Gazette