THE POPE AND TERRI SCHIAVOBoortz sees the presence of a feeding tube as sufficient grounds to declare both cases identical, and then declares the euthanasia foes hypocrites for treating the two cases as different.
Part of the story about the Pope's final days goes that John Paul II was offered the chance to go back to the hospital in Rome in order to prolong his life, but instead he chose not to. According to an official spokesman, the Pope was "informed of the gravity of his situation" and decided to remain in his apartment overlooking St. Peter's Square." In other words, John Paul II chose to not to have his life prolonged by artificial means, but instead to stay home and let nature take its course.
So since his passing over the weekend, there have been a few stories circulating noting the parallels between his illness and Terri Schiavo's (the coverage of which has been mercifully knocked off the front page.) The Pope was attached to a feeding tube....Terri Schiavo had a feeding tube. The feeding tube wasn't enough to keep Pope John Paul II alive, in Terri's case it was enough to at least keep her body going. The Pope said no. Will we hear a peep out of the abortocentrist crowd about the Pope's decision to die with dignity?
Probably not. After all, it doesn't fit their agenda.
Boortz really must have a blind spot here. Does he really not comprehend that the Pope had a terminal illness, and Terri did not? She was severely incapacitated, but she had no life-threatening medical condition. In the Pope's case, he did not decline food and water. What he did decline was any medical treatment that would delay his imminent death.
Death by starvation and dehydration is about as undignified as can be imagined.
Will we ever hear Boortz admit these truths?
Probably not. After all, it doesn't fit his agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment