April 1, 2005
JacqueFromTexas: "WILL TO LIVE" vs. "LIVING WILLS"Topics: Press misrepresentations
This blogger has some serious issues with the "Living Wills" being touted by the media, and so do I. I am in favor of the "Will To Live" as should ever advocate of life. Let's take a look at what she has to say - and I know this is going to bring the trolls out:
- via email from "JacqueFromTexas"
What is a living will? It takes your fate out of the hands of people who love you and places it into the hands of members of a very euthanasia-happy society. It's a document biased towards death. In fact, the living will was created to kill people to lower medical costs and make the push toward involuntary euthanasia. Let me explain:
"The idea was launched in the U.S.A. in 1969 by a law journal article entitled "Due Process of Euthanasia: the Living Will, a Proposal." (In Britain the Voluntary Euthanasia Society is the main distributor of Wills/Directives). The proposal soon found favour with U.S. government officials as an economy measure. The leaked "Derzon memorandum" advised President Carter to "Change social values regarding cost-inducing activities" and stated "The cost-saving from a nation-wide push toward 'Living Wills' is likely to be enormous. Over one-fifth of Medicare expenditures are for persons in their last year of life." But it was not until 1991 that it was made compulsory for all patients admitted to hospital in the U.S., for whatever reason, to be presented with "Living Will" forms."
Living wills do NOT allow for circumstances where reasonable judgment and alternative therapies may be present. Living wills allow for you to be killed despite your cognition. It also doesn't offer lee-way for cases of minimal consciousness or brain-damage like Terri, where you're not able to do things for yourself but you're still here. When are living wills going to be acceptable for quadraplegics that just don't want to live anymore? What about that heartbroken teenagers that just got dumped by his girlfriend? In certain parts of Europe, you can kill yourself for this or any reason. That's where we're going with advanced directives.
If someone's desire is to let their medical care wishes be known, sign over a durable power of attorney to someone you trust- do NOT sign a living will giving doctors and hospitals a way to circumvent your family and kill you the second you become incapacitated. People recover from comas, from PVS and traumatic brain injuries. Signing a living will ensures that you never get that chance.
We have got to get the word out that this is not the official position of the prolife movement. This is certainly not the movement that I work for. The pro-life movement I defend is the one that states that God is the given and taker of life, not that humans can take their own life if they've written down in advance for that to happen. I'm not allowed to tell doctors not to treat me if I'm depressed and suicidal, likewise why do we encourage people to sign a document for no other reason than causing hastened death?
I'm quite disturbed with some members of the pro-life movement's head-first dive into pre-written assisted suicide, and embracing a tactic created by pro-euthanites to kill people instantly upon incapacitation. They are using compromise language in their legislation, writing that it's acceptable to starve someone to death if they've made out an advanced directive.
Members of the pro-life movement that encourage living wills need to stop giving out deadly advice and stop compromising to fit societal trends that do not fall in line with our moral convictions.
A "Will to Live" is available through National Right to Life's website It might not necessarily save your life, but it certainly makes you harder to kill. It's the least you can do to protect yourself and your family.
Posted by richard at April 1, 2005 6:31 PM
Articles Related to Press misrepresentations: