Although the abortion end of the pro-life controversy justifiably generates the most attention, the fastest growing population in
Last summer Governor Sarah Palin generated liberal media controversy by creating the term “death panels” to describe Barack Obama’s “health reform” proposal to direct doctors to become involved in estate planning. While the terms “death panel” was not used anywhere in the statute, the obvious implication of being told by your own doctor to “get your affairs in order,” at the direction of the federal government, was that someone was prepared to “pull the plug.”
We may not have yet reached the dramatic dimensions of the movie “Soylent Green,” but we are not far removed either.
The pro-life implications of death were vividly reinforced during the past few months when I lost a close friend. He had been given a “death sentence” several years ago, and managed to prolong physical deterioration. Over the summer, my friend developed paralysis. But instead of saying, as they would have under ObamaCare, “Well, that’s enough,” his doctors performed surgery and restored movement.
As the end appeared, there was no effort to spare care. I learned of the new approach to hospice care: in-home hospice treatment. Throughout my friend’s final days the medical staff was focused on treatment, not death.
No one during my friend’s treatment used the term “pro-life.” But when you juxtapose our existing medical system with Obama’s plans to limit or cut off care to imperiled individuals, we have a growing pro-life crisis. The existing treatment protocol for senior citizens is “pro-life.” Obama wants to reverse that bias.
If we cheapen treatment at the end of life, inevitably we will also cheapen the origins of life.
Today, most of the energy in the pro-life movement is concentrated on the issue of abortion. I believe we also need a senator who is focused on the end of life. The pro-life challenge we face now is how we treat persons who are already alive but may be as helpless as the unborn in their ability to communicate their needs and desires.
This candidate (my opponent) has also refused to address other issues important to social conservatives. He says discussion of these questions is beneath him.
Would you trust that kind of stealth candidate with your life? Very doubtful. And yet so-called social conservatives are afraid to speak out and admit they made a mistake. There is a climate of fear on the right, again motivated by thirty pieces of silver. Is it any surprise that liberal Republicans and homosexual activists such as John McGovern control the Illinois Republican Party? There is no doubt where they stand.
My commitment to life, my commitment to the values which are central to the Roman Catholic faith (I am an Episcopalian) and my commitment to preserving life at both ends of our existence are not in doubt.
How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.