Straight Up with Sherri

Saturday, April 02, 2005

The Humane Holocaust

Hat tip: Marine Momma

The Humane Holocaust

The initial event that disabled Terri Schiavo didn't end up killing her. But in her obituary notice, what will the cause of death read? Will it read: murder? It should. The heart attack that disabled her didn't doom her; a husband without a heart did.

Under judge-made law, euthanasia has become America's most astonishing form of premeditated murder, a cold-blooded crime in which husbands can kill their wives and even turn them into accomplices to it through the telepathy of "their wishes." To wonder if we're on the slippery slope sounds like an obtuse moral compliment at this point. The truth is we're at the bottom of the slope and have been for quite some time, standing dumbly as the bodies of innocent humans pile up around us. As we sift through them -- puzzling over how they got so numerous -- we're reduced to mumbling sophistries about compassion and consent.

This is the "humane holocaust" of which Malcolm Muggeridge wrote, a culture that kills the weak, from deaf unborn children to mute disabled women, and calls it mercy. Those responsible for this humane holocaust look into the mirror and see Gandhi, but it is Hitler who glances back. If someone had taken the passages of Mein Kampf that speak of euthanizing "unfortunates" and inserted them into the columns from newspapers and magazines cheering Schiavo's death, would anyone have known the difference?

In the humane holocaust, murdering undesirable unborn babies at the beginning of life, the elderly at the end of it, and the disabled in between, forms the final solution in the quest for the perfect, burden-free society. In the humane holocaust, one generation's crimes become another generation's compassion.

Could a liberal humanism which sanctions a million-plus abortions a year and presses for a widening culture of euthanasia be Hitlerite? No, many in our society would scoff. But read the words of Leo Alexander, a doctor who assisted the chief American counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal, about the beginnings of Nazi society and he is describing our own:

Whatever proportion these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which the entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitative sick.

Then as now, doctors, judges, and politicians threw the stone that turned the slope into an avalanche. And that stone was the utilitarian rejection of an inviolable right to life for the innocent -- a right to life that no innocent human can lose because it is based not on their utility but their humanity, a humanity which no chronic illness, disability, or weakness can eradicate.

With Hitler the advocates of the humane holocaust say that the value of a human being derives not from his humanity but from his activity, and hence inactive humans possess no value worth preserving. With Hitler the advocates of the humane holocaust accord power to the strong but none to the weak: Michael Schiavo could kill Terri Schiavo simply because he was stronger than her. With Hitler the advocates of the humane holocaust conceal mercilessness in the language of mercy.

Evil is always done under the appearance of goodness. But evil renamed is still evil. And injustice to which our society has manipulated the aged and disabled into consenting is still unjust. If a man consents to slavery, does slavery cease to be wrong? If patients don't mind violations against the Hippocratic Oath, are doctors free to flout it? The engineers of the humane holocaust uses this lie of consent as moral absolution of evil, but if it can't collect the lie from its victims (as in the case of abortion where no killed child gives consent) it keeps churning anyways.

Terri Schiavo is its latest victim. May she find in God the real compassion the vile imposter gods among us denied her.


  • Eloquently stated...the complete support of the disabled community for Terri speaks volumes. As does the nearly complete aovidance of this fact and its underlying rationale by the MSM. Facts are often inconvenient, and the historical perspective in this post presents a scenario difficult to square with the Manhattanite-left lifestlye.

    By Blogger viacalx, at 1:04 PM  

  • You can't "square a scenario" with a "lifestyle". I guess that doesn't matter . . .

    I take so much pride in the fact that the twelve mile island I call home is known all around the USA as the hot-bed of liberal elitism . . .

    Alright. Let's see. I do comprehend the scenario. I just don't see a firm enough connection to the issue being discussed.

    Hitler killed people who he thought were socially unwanted (in his eyes). This practice is really bad. He also killed Gypsies, Homosexuals (I am sure you care a little less about those guys. I mean, I am pretty sure some of that lifestyle you are thinking of involves them.) and Jews.

    This guy did a lot of horrible things, but just the fact that he called some of them "mercy killings" does not mean it has anything to do with what we are talking about.

    In the post, the idea of life soley being about activity and experience is brought up. Some people adhere to this philosophy, some don't.

    All the Left is saying is that if you do, you get to die (in Ms Schiavo's case, I don't think she should have been killed, because we can't be sure about what she would want). But if you don't, if you value life differently, the plug will not be pulled.

    I am not going to say that people should pull the plug just because that is what I would want in such a situation. I think people should have the option. I am pretty sure that you guys think that too.

    I am just trying to clarify the left's overall opinion on this. Euthanasia is not a happy idea. It is a sad alternative. An alternative that should exist to accomodate the people who want it.


    I am sorry for the rude intro, I just don't apprechiate how some people speak with condesention towards my city and make assumptions about how people live. I don't like the red/blue divide that people on both sides perpetuate. I don't like the idea that we aren't real Americans on the coasts. That we are out of touch with America. It's so false.

    Manhattan is a microcosm of America, in its diversity of creed, color and nationality. It was the first place most people arrived upon coming to the USA, where the American dream began.

    We have to be more open to other schools of thought if we don't want this country to radicalise and turn into a tailspin. This requires both sides to abstain from making assumptions of the other.

    Or whatever, do what you want.

    By Anonymous A Sushi-Eating, Faux-Jew, New-Yorker American Liberal., at 8:12 PM  

  • Dear Sushi-Eating, Faux-Jew, New-Yorker American Liberal.

    Let me tell you why the Terri Schiavo story is important to all of us, irrespective of location or politics.

    Many, if not most, people recoil at the thought of being hooked up to machines that force their lifeless body to expand with air and pump blood until some poor beloved one says "stop".

    Thats not what this is about.

    The laws in Florida already allowed ways for the terminally ill to refuse extraordinary measures, and for the families of hopeless brain dead individuals to pull the plug.

    This is about a man who wanted his disabled wife's life to end. She was not brain dead or in agony. She was profoundly retarded but would live a close to normal lifespan. The law said she had to be protected, not killed.

    Let's ignore any speculation about the husband's motives or the way he treated his wife's family because that obscures the really important part of this whole affair. What is important to know is, the husband hired a lawyer who was politically well connected, had an interest in euthanasia, and was involved in running a hospice. The lawyer used his connections to CHANGE the laws in the State of Florida to accomodate this one unhappy estranged hubby.

    Now any person in the state who has a non-fatal but permanent "condition" may be killed, legally.

    The new law, written by euthanasia advocates, is very dangerous because it gives doctors authority to withhold treatment and remove food and water from any baby, child, adult, or elderly person who is incurably ill or disabled but is NOT in danger of dying. The law is intentionally vague, only saying there must be an "irreversible condition".

    That covers a lot of ground.

    Now, you'd think that the patient would have to agree to end their life, either verbally or in writing. Not so. The patient may *refuse* treatment and nutrition, or if he is unable to communicate, a relative, friend, caregiver or even a neighbor can refuse for them. (So yes, if you believe life is measured by activity you can now leave instructions or if you are able to personally instruct nutrition be withheld until you die. Hey, I am nearsighted and it can't be corrected. Starve me!)

    But (this is the frightening part) even if the patient wants to live and gives specific instructions to provide adequate nutrition and medication, and keep them breathing comfortably - the doctor can overrule their wishes and the wishes of their family, to deny treatment and starve them to death.

    The bottom line is, just about anyone (for whom amongst us doesn't have at least one "irreversible condition") CAN choose to die. You can be killed against your will. The one thing you CANNOT do is, choose to live.

    That is what happened to Terri because it is the LAW in the State of Florida. It was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. It may be law in your state as well - either now or in the future.

    So eat your sushi, book your house at Asparagus Beach, and be well. Because if you aren't well, you might just be made dead. Like it or not.

    By Anonymous FloridaHeat, at 12:22 AM  

  • By Blogger Dominicans resources, at 2:07 AM  

  • Hey nice info you posted.
    I just browsing through some blogs and came across yours!

    Excellent blog, good to see someone actually uses em for quality posts.

    Your site kept me on for a few minutes unlike the rest :)

    Keep up the good work!


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home