Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:32:46 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<1B6488747CF8D411801E0000F840E6D1608144@MCDC-ATL-1> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sunday 22 April 2001 4:25 am, Barber, Kenneth L. wrote:
> i think what betty is getting at, is that euthanasia will be
> administered to those of us who are disabled just as one who would
> make the desision for a old dog. the dog does not make the
> desision. betty doesn't think we who are disabled would get to make
> the desision.
>
I reckon Joy's hit the button on this one. Euthanesia has far wider
ramifications than just a disability issue. Granted, the person being
"euthanased" is likely to be "disabled" (in some way dependent on the
care of others - otherwise it's Murder One ("Book'em Danno")), but in
the vast majority of cases they have spent most of their lives as
able-bodied.
It is a mistake to term the Nazis slaughter of the disabled as
"Euthanasia", it has far more in common wth Ethnic Cleansing.
I also like Joanne's point that the Disability Issue is more to do
with persuading the medical profession to provide the same level of
care as the non-disabled (go get 'em Mags).
Cheers
Deri
|
|
|