The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
"Some genetically personalized treatments may well be signs of progress, such as pharmacogenetics, which promises drug regimes tailored to the patient’s own genome. If this new technology works, it could lessen the direst side effects of chemotherapy for cancer care; oncologists would no longer have to prescribe “one size fits all” regimes if patients who are genetically more receptive to the drug could be differentiated and given lighter regimes."
ReplyDeleteWell, now...isn't that interesting! Seems that the industry is finally catching up with me and my questions through the years, as I watched several friends and acquaintances battle cancers. Their reactions to the treatments went from bouncing through it like it didn't exist to being killed by the "cure" before it could take effect. Why has it taken so long for the industry to pose these questions? Something about "acceptable losses," I'm sure...
"Genetic tests, if properly administered, can save lives, but they also tend to create a feeling that the responsibility for your health rests with you, the individual patient."
Whom else? Seriously -- who else is responsible for my health if not me?
"...the legally doubtful view that we own our bodies..."
Hah! Not only "doubtful, but "legally doubtful?" Dickenson needs to answer the question, then: If I do not own my own body, who does?
Lady Janus: I suspect that you last question is rhetorical given that you would know the answer I would give.
ReplyDeleteIf I ever get to BC, I hope that I could take you out to dinner. I have appreciated your participation in the blog more than you could know. You bring color, grace and wit to these discussions. That's got to at least be worth a great 'creme brule'!!
Fr. Tim
Dinner would be wonderful, Tim! Just let me know when you're arriving, and I'll search out the best creme brulee in town! And, since you like fishing, I can arrange a day trip for sockeye or Chinook salmon with my always-gets-his-limit brother-in-law, if you get here in season. In all his fishing years, he has never come in empty!
ReplyDeleteBut as for the last question, no, I wasn't being rhetorical. I keep coming up against this argument that we "can't" do what we like with out own bodies because "someone-or-other" disapproves, and it's not "socially acceptable." I want to know who actually makes up these rules, and on who else's authority?