Terrance Jamar Graham in 2003 at the age of 16 was arrested for attempting to rob a Jacksonville, Florida restaurant while on probation for a home invasion robbery. He was found guilty and during sentencing was told by the judge, "Given your escalating pattern of criminal conduct, it is apparent to the court that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your life and that the only thing I can do now is to try to protect the community from your actions." Even though the prosecutor in the case was not seeking life, the judge chose to sentence Graham to life without the possibility of parole.
Joe Sullivan is currently being held at a Florida penitentiary for life without the possibility of parole for raping an elderly woman in 1989. Sullivan was 13 years old at the time.
Currently, both these cases are being reviewed by the Supreme Court, together with the question of whether such sentences violate the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The United States is the only country in the world that allows such a punishment and nationwide there are 111 juveniles serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole for crimes less than murder, and of those 111, seventy-seven of them are in Florida, according to a recent study. Only 4 years ago, Roper v. Simmons struck down the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders.
Bryan Gowdy, lawyer for Graham, told the Supreme Court such a sentence says a juvenile can be "forever unfit" for society and violates the Constitution. The lawyer for Sullivan, Brian Stevenson, said, "To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. And we believe that the Constitution prohibits that kind of punishment."
The debate over this issue brings up a number of questions. The obvious question is whether or not a juvenile, because of age, should be held to a level of accountability to warrant a sentence of life without parole? The other question is why Florida accounts for nearly 70% of all life-convicted juveniles?
Laurence Steinberg, a professor at Temple University, said, "I believe that kids are just less responsible then adults, and we can't hold them to the same standards of criminal culpability. They are worse at making decisions, they are more easily coerced by others, and they have more trouble controlling their impulses."
Anyone who has spent any amount of time with teenagers, or who is young enough to remember being a teenager, knows that their ability to understand and foresee the consequences of their actions just isn't there. It's not that they don't know right from wrong, but study after study has shown that a teenager's brain and ability to recognize what their actions may lead to are underdeveloped. This reasoning is used to justify not allowing juveniles to drink, vote, live on their own (with few exceptions), marry, etc. Yet when it comes to a crime, should we hold juveniles to a higher standard? A standard which carries with it more severe consequences? I remember as a teenager being convinced I was going to marry my high school sweetheart! Both of them! Thirty was old! There was no concept of bills, mortgages, and finance charges! I was naive, and so were you! I knew right from wrong, I knew there was behavior that was unacceptable in society, but I still remember doing things that I would never dream of doing today, not only because they were dangerous, but because I have a better understanding of the consequences of my actions.
I don't believe criminals, regardless of age, should get a free pass, but I do wonder about holding a child to the level of an adult. If our judicial system is in place as a deterrent, and a juvenile can't developmentally understand the extent of the consequences of their actions, how can our system be expected to completely deter them? Should our focus when it comes to juveniles be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment?
It appears in Florida the answer is "no". Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar told the Supreme Court, "The state of Florida's interest...is first of all to punish." But the 8th Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment, and if a juvenile has not physiologically developed to the point of being able to understand the consequences of their actions, isn't to hold them to the standard of adults who do have the ability cruel? And where is the line? Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "Do you think that it categorically violates the Eighth Amendment for a 10 year old to be sentenced to life without parole?...If 10 is my judgment too early, why isn't 14, 16, or 18 years old?" Can a line be drawn or should each case be judged separately?
Ultimately I believe a child above the year of 8 should be held accountable for their actions, but their accountability should be to the level of their understanding and the severity of the crime. Life without the chance of parole seems cruel, it is unusual (once again, no other country in the world allows it), and I believe that form of punishment is missing the mark. With few exceptions, I believe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, they can be taught to behave in an acceptable manner in society, and they can be educated, in many ways easier than adults. My fear is that by keeping them locked away in our prisons with our adult criminals we aren't deterring them, but instead turning them in to the adult criminals we room them with.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Obama is Inviting Terrorist Attacks
I honestly could not have imagined our current presidential administration doing more to weaken this country until I heard what they pulled on Friday the 13th. While the President was in China, it was announced that the terrorists who mastermind the 9/11 attacks, who still remain in American custody, will be tried under our civil court system, in a court of law, in New York City. The US Attorney General, Eric Holder, under the direction of the Obama Administration, made the announcement on a Friday, a typically slow news day (not in terms of news doesn't happen, but less people pay attention to the news on Friday), while our coward President and their controlled media outlets pushed his latest nuclear weapon negotiations with Iran and his meetings with various leaders of China.
Now, I agree that the US has the most progressive and in many ways envied legal system in the world. And what a triumph it would be to prove that our legal system is capable of finding justice for the most horrific terrorist attacks on US soil! It would show the world how perfect and infallible our legal system is and that the US still has strength! And since our justice system has been set up as a means of deterring criminal behavior, surely a victory in the courts would deter future terrorist attacks, right?! Wrong! Horribly wrong! Stupidly wrong! I can't think of many more idiotic acts this current administration can pull than this one!
For starters, our justice system was indeed set up as a means of deterrence. It was never intended to be a form of punishment, despite what over-emotional judges and citizens might believe. The justice system has been about taking behavior we have deemed in our society as being inappropriate, and attaching a consequence to that behavior in the hope that an individual will choose not to commit a particular crime, and the means of deterrence varies from prison time, to probation, to death depending on the severity of the offence and the state the case is tried in. In cases where the justice system as a deterrent does not work, like with repeat offenders for example, the justice system branches out to become a means of safety and protection for the general public by determining an individual is not fit to live in society, and for the good of the people, must be confined for the remainder of his life. The justice system was designed by our founding fathers, the majority of which were practicing Christians and believed punishment belonged to God. Trying terrorists not only fails to deter others from committing similar terrorist crimes, in reality it will do the exact opposite. Our court system is backed up, it will take years to try these individuals, and once the trial does commence it can take anywhere from weeks to months to years to convict, giving the terrorists who now have the same rights as US citizens a platform to preach their twisted form of Islam, expose guarded interrogation secrets and techniques, and elevate themselves to the rest of radical Islam as heroes. This will only embolden other terrorist sects to move forward with their terrorist plans. Not to mention the fact that the accused will spend their time in facilities housing convicts from this country, many of which have a grudge against the government, and can be easily recruited. This bastardized form of Islam is far different from any other form of religion preached not only in the prison system, but in the world. Most in the prison system who convert to Christianity or traditional Islam accept the philosophy of altering their behavior to that designated by God or Allah. Even the word "Islam" means "submission". Radical Islam however does not require this; instead it uses the idea of faith as a means of recruiting individuals to support a cause, not a way of life. As a result, many of those seduced by radical Islam in the prison system are individuals Christianity and traditional Islam would not accept.
Secondly, terrorist acts are acts of war, they are not civil crimes. The 9/11 masterminds are not American citizens and therefore have no right to access to our criminal justice system, or the rights of protection, silence, or representation granted under it. Those rights are granted to citizens of the US. These individuals are criminals of war, and therefore are subject to the war crimes/military system we have set up to handle such captured offenders. That's why a separate system was created! By giving terrorists access to our civil laws and rights, we are allowing them to remain silent, to receive representation, and protection against interrogation techniques such as water boarding to make them talk. How can a judge not throw out any evidence gained by using such techniques now? Our civil justice system protects against such interrogation techniques, and any evidence gained by them is inadmissible! Not to mention that now, these terrorists and future terrorists will have the ability to use any technicality they can to declare a mistrial! I think the way we have admitted to treating terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is grounds enough for that to occur!
Now, I don't believe these terrorists will end up going free, not even this administration is that stupid, but there is a possibility they will be found not guilty and then arrested again. What's the harm in that though? Either way, they aren't going anywhere, right? True, they won't be released to kill again, but this trial is not just going to be all over the US news stations, this is going to be watched world-wide, and a not guilty ruling will completely tarnish our justice system. On top of that, how many 9/11 victim's families are going to be expected to testify against these terrorist masterminds, having to once again relive the horror of the events of that day? And all for what? So we can execute these extremists, which is the same outcome as will happen under the military justice system, but without the risks to national security or further emotional heartache.
This move by our current administration is opening the door and welcoming in all groups who wish to do us harm. Come, murder our people, and if we catch you we'll give you a place to stay, won't force you to tell us about any other plans for future attacks, won't force you to give up any other terrorist cells, and allow you to freely spread your dangerous propaganda to the world through various media outlets and your court appointed attorney. Oh, and if you're convicted, while you're awaiting your execution date which you aren't afraid of anyway since you're going to get 72 virgins in heaven, why don't you convert some of your fellow inmates to radical Islam so that when the weapons smuggler, bank robber, and drug trafficker with all their various connections get out, they can start making plans to attack us. And when you are executed, those who believe as you do will speak of your name in reverence, as a martyr for the cause.
Now, I agree that the US has the most progressive and in many ways envied legal system in the world. And what a triumph it would be to prove that our legal system is capable of finding justice for the most horrific terrorist attacks on US soil! It would show the world how perfect and infallible our legal system is and that the US still has strength! And since our justice system has been set up as a means of deterring criminal behavior, surely a victory in the courts would deter future terrorist attacks, right?! Wrong! Horribly wrong! Stupidly wrong! I can't think of many more idiotic acts this current administration can pull than this one!
For starters, our justice system was indeed set up as a means of deterrence. It was never intended to be a form of punishment, despite what over-emotional judges and citizens might believe. The justice system has been about taking behavior we have deemed in our society as being inappropriate, and attaching a consequence to that behavior in the hope that an individual will choose not to commit a particular crime, and the means of deterrence varies from prison time, to probation, to death depending on the severity of the offence and the state the case is tried in. In cases where the justice system as a deterrent does not work, like with repeat offenders for example, the justice system branches out to become a means of safety and protection for the general public by determining an individual is not fit to live in society, and for the good of the people, must be confined for the remainder of his life. The justice system was designed by our founding fathers, the majority of which were practicing Christians and believed punishment belonged to God. Trying terrorists not only fails to deter others from committing similar terrorist crimes, in reality it will do the exact opposite. Our court system is backed up, it will take years to try these individuals, and once the trial does commence it can take anywhere from weeks to months to years to convict, giving the terrorists who now have the same rights as US citizens a platform to preach their twisted form of Islam, expose guarded interrogation secrets and techniques, and elevate themselves to the rest of radical Islam as heroes. This will only embolden other terrorist sects to move forward with their terrorist plans. Not to mention the fact that the accused will spend their time in facilities housing convicts from this country, many of which have a grudge against the government, and can be easily recruited. This bastardized form of Islam is far different from any other form of religion preached not only in the prison system, but in the world. Most in the prison system who convert to Christianity or traditional Islam accept the philosophy of altering their behavior to that designated by God or Allah. Even the word "Islam" means "submission". Radical Islam however does not require this; instead it uses the idea of faith as a means of recruiting individuals to support a cause, not a way of life. As a result, many of those seduced by radical Islam in the prison system are individuals Christianity and traditional Islam would not accept.
Secondly, terrorist acts are acts of war, they are not civil crimes. The 9/11 masterminds are not American citizens and therefore have no right to access to our criminal justice system, or the rights of protection, silence, or representation granted under it. Those rights are granted to citizens of the US. These individuals are criminals of war, and therefore are subject to the war crimes/military system we have set up to handle such captured offenders. That's why a separate system was created! By giving terrorists access to our civil laws and rights, we are allowing them to remain silent, to receive representation, and protection against interrogation techniques such as water boarding to make them talk. How can a judge not throw out any evidence gained by using such techniques now? Our civil justice system protects against such interrogation techniques, and any evidence gained by them is inadmissible! Not to mention that now, these terrorists and future terrorists will have the ability to use any technicality they can to declare a mistrial! I think the way we have admitted to treating terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is grounds enough for that to occur!
Now, I don't believe these terrorists will end up going free, not even this administration is that stupid, but there is a possibility they will be found not guilty and then arrested again. What's the harm in that though? Either way, they aren't going anywhere, right? True, they won't be released to kill again, but this trial is not just going to be all over the US news stations, this is going to be watched world-wide, and a not guilty ruling will completely tarnish our justice system. On top of that, how many 9/11 victim's families are going to be expected to testify against these terrorist masterminds, having to once again relive the horror of the events of that day? And all for what? So we can execute these extremists, which is the same outcome as will happen under the military justice system, but without the risks to national security or further emotional heartache.
This move by our current administration is opening the door and welcoming in all groups who wish to do us harm. Come, murder our people, and if we catch you we'll give you a place to stay, won't force you to tell us about any other plans for future attacks, won't force you to give up any other terrorist cells, and allow you to freely spread your dangerous propaganda to the world through various media outlets and your court appointed attorney. Oh, and if you're convicted, while you're awaiting your execution date which you aren't afraid of anyway since you're going to get 72 virgins in heaven, why don't you convert some of your fellow inmates to radical Islam so that when the weapons smuggler, bank robber, and drug trafficker with all their various connections get out, they can start making plans to attack us. And when you are executed, those who believe as you do will speak of your name in reverence, as a martyr for the cause.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Killing is Easy?
The world watched this week as John Allen Muhammad, also known as the DC Sniper, was executed... oh wait, that's right, the world wasn't watching. In fact, there was very little coverage on it. I heard more about the possible breakup of Aerosmith this week than I did about the execution of a man who cowardly killed 10 people in one of the most publicized crimes of 2002. I didn't hear about any anti-death penalty protests, no memorial pieces about the victims, no possible "jihad" links, nothing other than the Beltway sniper was going to be executed on November 10, 2009. Granted, the execution did take place in Virginia, which still holds to certain conservative view points, but I wondered if the reason why I didn't hear very much about it was that we as a nation don't care. I don't believe the lack of attention was due to a feeling of vengeance that needed to be carried out, if that were the case the media would have paraded the fact that the execution was taking place a mere 7 years or so after the murders were committed. Perhaps we feel that "justice" was being carried out, proof that the legal system works, that bad guys are apprehended and punished? But if that were the case, wouldn't the media play that up aswell? I find it hard to believe the Obama administration wouldn't have jumped at the chance to somehow attribute this great symbol of American justice to their "savior president".
No, I think it is because we don't care. Death is devastating when it happens to a loved one, tragic when it happens to an acquaintance, unfortunate when it occurs in our town, and just another story when it happens in another state. We don't care about death, or famine, or starving children, or saving the whales, or any of it, and don't start getting on your high horses saying that you do! Oh sure, we watch the commercials asking us to "save the children" and think how sad it is for them, we wonder how a wife will get by when her husband is killed by a drunk driver, we as a nation kept our American Flags up for about a year after 9/11, but when it comes down to action most people don't donate to feed starving refugees in foreign countries, we don't seek out and give aid to the mourning widow, and drive around your neighborhood and see how many American Flags are still waving proudly.
The death penalty in particular use to be a hot-button topic, and whenever a death sentence was carried out it was a big deal. For decades the American people fought in nearly every state over the moral decency, correctness, and appropriateness of the death penalty. The battles have led to many states outlawing certain forms of capitol punishment, others changing the crimes which could warrant the death penalty, and still others outlawing it altogether. Prisoners now must be deemed physically well enough to be executed, efforts have been made to make the form of execution less painful, and the condemned have been granted more ways of postponing their sentenced dates. Cases of wrongful execution for years fed the fire, causing many to question not only the practice of capitol punishment, but the entire legal system and its ability to effectively detour, resolve, and punish.
It was also announced this week that the accused 9/11 masterminds would be heading to New York City for trial, and that the death penalty was going to be sought. Again, I caught this story as a small news spot in the Associated Press, I didn't see it on the news or hear it on the radio, and no one seems to be talking about it. Have we become so desensitized as a people that the idea of taking an individual's life, even as punishment, isn't a big deal?
I personally am in favor of the death penalty in cases of murder. I don't have this view point out of a sense of revenge. It doesn't bring the deceased back, and I don't believe it causes any kind of cosmic balance within the universe. I am in favor of the death penalty as a form of mercy, so that the convicted might have a chance in the hereafter by willfully atoning for their crime/sin, a sin which in my opinion is the most difficult to overcome. I believe it is a far greater punishment to allow an individual who commits murder to live out their life and die without being able to perform restitution for their sin, thus leaving that debt unpaid once they come to judgement.
Despite this personal belief, shouldn't it still be a difficult thing to kill another person? The time of their probation is being ended! I've seen dead bodies, it's a humbling experience. It is a reminder of how fragile life is, and how easily it can be over. I wonder if our indifference is because all it is to us is an article in a paper? I wonder how we would feel if we were the ones pushing the button, pulling the level, carrying out the act? Whether our motives be for revenge, justice, or mercy, I wonder if our feelings on capitol punishment would change if the person's life, even the most vile of individual, were in our hands?
No, I think it is because we don't care. Death is devastating when it happens to a loved one, tragic when it happens to an acquaintance, unfortunate when it occurs in our town, and just another story when it happens in another state. We don't care about death, or famine, or starving children, or saving the whales, or any of it, and don't start getting on your high horses saying that you do! Oh sure, we watch the commercials asking us to "save the children" and think how sad it is for them, we wonder how a wife will get by when her husband is killed by a drunk driver, we as a nation kept our American Flags up for about a year after 9/11, but when it comes down to action most people don't donate to feed starving refugees in foreign countries, we don't seek out and give aid to the mourning widow, and drive around your neighborhood and see how many American Flags are still waving proudly.
The death penalty in particular use to be a hot-button topic, and whenever a death sentence was carried out it was a big deal. For decades the American people fought in nearly every state over the moral decency, correctness, and appropriateness of the death penalty. The battles have led to many states outlawing certain forms of capitol punishment, others changing the crimes which could warrant the death penalty, and still others outlawing it altogether. Prisoners now must be deemed physically well enough to be executed, efforts have been made to make the form of execution less painful, and the condemned have been granted more ways of postponing their sentenced dates. Cases of wrongful execution for years fed the fire, causing many to question not only the practice of capitol punishment, but the entire legal system and its ability to effectively detour, resolve, and punish.
It was also announced this week that the accused 9/11 masterminds would be heading to New York City for trial, and that the death penalty was going to be sought. Again, I caught this story as a small news spot in the Associated Press, I didn't see it on the news or hear it on the radio, and no one seems to be talking about it. Have we become so desensitized as a people that the idea of taking an individual's life, even as punishment, isn't a big deal?
I personally am in favor of the death penalty in cases of murder. I don't have this view point out of a sense of revenge. It doesn't bring the deceased back, and I don't believe it causes any kind of cosmic balance within the universe. I am in favor of the death penalty as a form of mercy, so that the convicted might have a chance in the hereafter by willfully atoning for their crime/sin, a sin which in my opinion is the most difficult to overcome. I believe it is a far greater punishment to allow an individual who commits murder to live out their life and die without being able to perform restitution for their sin, thus leaving that debt unpaid once they come to judgement.
Despite this personal belief, shouldn't it still be a difficult thing to kill another person? The time of their probation is being ended! I've seen dead bodies, it's a humbling experience. It is a reminder of how fragile life is, and how easily it can be over. I wonder if our indifference is because all it is to us is an article in a paper? I wonder how we would feel if we were the ones pushing the button, pulling the level, carrying out the act? Whether our motives be for revenge, justice, or mercy, I wonder if our feelings on capitol punishment would change if the person's life, even the most vile of individual, were in our hands?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Euthanizing Children
Dr. Jack Kevorkian became both famous and infamous for his stance on what he termed as physician-assisted suicide. During the years of 1999-2007, Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years of a 10-to-25 year prison term after being convicted of second-degree murder for the death of Thomas Youk, a 52 year old man who was suffering from the final stages of ALS. Although Dr. Kevorkian claims to have assisted in at least 130 patient suicides, during this procedure, Dr. Kevorkian chose to not only videotape the process, but inject the needle himself (in the past he had merely shown the patients how to carry this out, and they then performed the injections).
While some people argue 8 years in prison is hardly enough time served for murder, others argue no time should have been served at all, believing as Dr. Kevorkian does that "dying is not a crime."(1) Dr. Kevorkian in 2008 while speaking to nearly 5,000 students at the University of Florida stated, "My aim was to end suffering. It's got to be decriminalized." (2)
Regardless of your take on voluntary euthanasia, there is no denying the turning point the case brought to the medical field and to the way we in the US view medical care. Since then, the debate over an individual's rights to be taken off of life support and the rights of one's family to remove them from life support have been further debated. The medical marajuana push has picked up steam and in some states become legal, the reason being to ease the pain of those suffering from certain illnesses and diseases. It does seem like people today have moved from "surviving at all costs" to "living only if I can really live."
In London, England today, what could possibly be the next chapter in the euthanasia debate is being presented to the British courts.
A mother and father, whom both due to a court order cannot be named, are fighting, literally, over the life of their one-year old child. The child, known as RB, suffers from a severe medical condition known as congenital myasthenic syndrome or CMS. There are three different types of CMS and despite testing it is not known which type the child has. All forms of CMS have varying degrees of respitory issues, muscular weakness, including the muscles in the eyes and throat, reduced mobility, and in some cases severe curvature of the spine, and further, it is a progressive disease. The mother, siding with doctors at the hospital where the child is currently located, believes that it is in the best interest of the child to diconnect the respirator and allow the child to die, while the father believes the child should receive further treatment in the hope that it can lead some sort of life.
Lawyers for the hospital said in court today that the child's life is "miserable, sad and pitiful," and that his lungs continue to fill up with fluid every few hours -- giving him the sensation of choking -- and that doctors then must suction the fluid out causing the child additional pain. So far the child has been taken off respirators three times. The first time he was able to breathe on his own for 40 minutes, the second time for 30 minutes, and the third time for only 5 minutes.
Lawyers for the father however contest that the child can play and recognize his parents and plan to show videotape proving that he is aware of and responds to the world around himself. According to The Mayo Clinic's Web site, "different forms of CMS vary widely in their symptoms, from mild to severely disabling. With accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy, even potentially fatal forms can usually be treated successfully."
The case just got underway today and will most likely take some time to be decided. So far an independent doctor has been asked to examine the child and determine if a tracheostomy would help the baby to breathe better. His determination could be the catalyst for either side of the battle.
As I think about not only the precedent the decision in this case could set, (remember, this child is a year old, not a newborn) and about what these two parents, both of whom I believe are doing what they feel is best for their child, I wonder what I would do in this situation. No doubt, their are thousands of parents who raise children with all forms of physical and mental disabilities and illnesses, despite the difficulties, the trials, and the hardships. But I also cannot imagine the heartbreak of a parent having to watch their child suffer incredible pain their entire lives. And then there's the issue of the parents themselves and their own motives. Would my own selfish feelings or maybe even resentment of a life devoted so intensely to my child sway my decision? Should it even be legal to euthanize your child, regardless of the physical or mental condition they are born with? And who decides? Doctors? Parents only? Both? There are medical advancements everyday, who's to say the next one won't be the breakthrough needed to help your child?
Personally, I know a number of couples with children that require additional work and effort because of their physical and mental state. Some of those children are older, in their thirties and forties and will always need to rely on their parents, some are my age, some are newborns. Some are constantly in severe physical pain, and will be, barring a medical breakthrough, for their entire lives. As I've watched those parents, their interactions with their children, and their children's interactions with them, I know neither one could imagine life without the other, and whatever extra trials they have had to endure, they rejoice in having their family. I also am aware of a staggering number of children whose family life has only compounded their personal pain and struggles from diseases, illnesses, and physical and mental handicaps.
If it were your child, what would be the "right thing"? What would be your motivations? Mercy? Perhaps selfishness masked as mercy? Despite being stewards and guardians of our children, do we have the right to decide whether their life will be worth living?
1 Betzold, Michel,"Appointment with Doctor Death" Troy, MI: Momentum Books 1996
2 "News - - Gainesville.com". Gainesville.com
While some people argue 8 years in prison is hardly enough time served for murder, others argue no time should have been served at all, believing as Dr. Kevorkian does that "dying is not a crime."(1) Dr. Kevorkian in 2008 while speaking to nearly 5,000 students at the University of Florida stated, "My aim was to end suffering. It's got to be decriminalized." (2)
Regardless of your take on voluntary euthanasia, there is no denying the turning point the case brought to the medical field and to the way we in the US view medical care. Since then, the debate over an individual's rights to be taken off of life support and the rights of one's family to remove them from life support have been further debated. The medical marajuana push has picked up steam and in some states become legal, the reason being to ease the pain of those suffering from certain illnesses and diseases. It does seem like people today have moved from "surviving at all costs" to "living only if I can really live."
In London, England today, what could possibly be the next chapter in the euthanasia debate is being presented to the British courts.
A mother and father, whom both due to a court order cannot be named, are fighting, literally, over the life of their one-year old child. The child, known as RB, suffers from a severe medical condition known as congenital myasthenic syndrome or CMS. There are three different types of CMS and despite testing it is not known which type the child has. All forms of CMS have varying degrees of respitory issues, muscular weakness, including the muscles in the eyes and throat, reduced mobility, and in some cases severe curvature of the spine, and further, it is a progressive disease. The mother, siding with doctors at the hospital where the child is currently located, believes that it is in the best interest of the child to diconnect the respirator and allow the child to die, while the father believes the child should receive further treatment in the hope that it can lead some sort of life.
Lawyers for the hospital said in court today that the child's life is "miserable, sad and pitiful," and that his lungs continue to fill up with fluid every few hours -- giving him the sensation of choking -- and that doctors then must suction the fluid out causing the child additional pain. So far the child has been taken off respirators three times. The first time he was able to breathe on his own for 40 minutes, the second time for 30 minutes, and the third time for only 5 minutes.
Lawyers for the father however contest that the child can play and recognize his parents and plan to show videotape proving that he is aware of and responds to the world around himself. According to The Mayo Clinic's Web site, "different forms of CMS vary widely in their symptoms, from mild to severely disabling. With accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy, even potentially fatal forms can usually be treated successfully."
The case just got underway today and will most likely take some time to be decided. So far an independent doctor has been asked to examine the child and determine if a tracheostomy would help the baby to breathe better. His determination could be the catalyst for either side of the battle.
As I think about not only the precedent the decision in this case could set, (remember, this child is a year old, not a newborn) and about what these two parents, both of whom I believe are doing what they feel is best for their child, I wonder what I would do in this situation. No doubt, their are thousands of parents who raise children with all forms of physical and mental disabilities and illnesses, despite the difficulties, the trials, and the hardships. But I also cannot imagine the heartbreak of a parent having to watch their child suffer incredible pain their entire lives. And then there's the issue of the parents themselves and their own motives. Would my own selfish feelings or maybe even resentment of a life devoted so intensely to my child sway my decision? Should it even be legal to euthanize your child, regardless of the physical or mental condition they are born with? And who decides? Doctors? Parents only? Both? There are medical advancements everyday, who's to say the next one won't be the breakthrough needed to help your child?
Personally, I know a number of couples with children that require additional work and effort because of their physical and mental state. Some of those children are older, in their thirties and forties and will always need to rely on their parents, some are my age, some are newborns. Some are constantly in severe physical pain, and will be, barring a medical breakthrough, for their entire lives. As I've watched those parents, their interactions with their children, and their children's interactions with them, I know neither one could imagine life without the other, and whatever extra trials they have had to endure, they rejoice in having their family. I also am aware of a staggering number of children whose family life has only compounded their personal pain and struggles from diseases, illnesses, and physical and mental handicaps.
If it were your child, what would be the "right thing"? What would be your motivations? Mercy? Perhaps selfishness masked as mercy? Despite being stewards and guardians of our children, do we have the right to decide whether their life will be worth living?
1 Betzold, Michel,"Appointment with Doctor Death" Troy, MI: Momentum Books 1996
2 "News - - Gainesville.com". Gainesville.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)