It's obviously way late in the day, but I think it worthwhile to point out again the extreme and plainly dishonest position Jean Schmidt promotes with respect to end of life issues. I posted much of this on another diary a few days ago, but hearing Bill Cunningham (WLW Radio) voice admiration today for her involvement with Right To Life almost gave me an aneurysm. And it wasn't about abortion; what bothered me was his spin that this group is a voice for mainstream America.
I expect we'd all agree that it is Jean Schmidt's right to hold beliefs about refusal of life support in accordance with her faith. What's more, there is no question that people of good conscience can hold differing views on the subject.
That said, voters have a right to know if Jean Schmidt will attempt to legislate her rather extreme religious convictions into binding law if she is elected to Congress. It seemed to me that the most resounding message mainstream America sent to its government during the Schiavo debacle was when a 76% majority told Congress to STAY OUT of that particular sphere of privacy.
From
Digby, as Armando pointed out a few days ago...this is directly from
Right To Life of Greater Cincinnati, for which Schmidt acts as President:
Why are Legally Binding Living Wills Unnecessary?
* People already have the right to make informed consent decisions telling their family and physicians how they want to be treated if and when they can no longer make decisions for themselves.
* Doctors are already free to withhold or withdraw useless procedures in terminal cases that provide no benefit to the patient. Some people fear that medical technology will be used to torture them in their final days. But it is more likely that the "medical heroics" people fear are the very treatments that will make possible a more comfortable, less painful death.
* Doctors do not need Living Will laws to be protected from malpractice suits. However, if Living Wills are legally binding an attending physician who fails to comply could be sued or prosecuted.
What strikes me as particularly odious about this is the misleading statement in bold above. Schmidt is perfectly aware that the Right To Life groups have been active in every state (and as we recall on the federal level) lobbying to give the government the statutory right to interfere with a decision by a family member to decline life support where no Living Will exists:
Not quite two weeks after Terri Schiavo's death, states including Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio have introduced end-of-life legislation to clarify proceedings for cases in which a patient has not left a living will. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the proposals have a pro-life slant; Alabama's bill is called the "Starvation and Dehydration Prevention Act...
Btw, take a wild guess here as to which national organization drafted this particular piece of model legislation.
But back to Ohio's proposed law on how to treat a patient where no living will exists:
...The sponsor of that proposal, Rep. Derrick Seaver, R-Minster, would give decision-making power to the first family member on the list who seeks to "sustain the life of the individual," provided that the family member in question is also willing to "incur the cost of [the individual's] medical care."
See Salon.
Jean Schmidt and Right to Life tell the public on one hand that Living Wills are dangerous and unnecessary, while attempting to pass legislation making the refusal of life support for anyone without a Living Will impossible.
The Right to Life types would substitute their religious convictions for your own sacred/secular beliefs on the issue, and take away your right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. They advocate laws that would actually encourage horrible conflict among family members in the aftermath of tragedy; laws that provide for government intrusion into painful decision making while a loved one lies unknowingly in a trauma unit.
This isn't a "culture of life" I would wish on anyone's family. Jean Schmidt is dangerously wrong, and mainstream America got it right just a few short months ago. Someone ought to point that out to Cunningham and his listeners. I would, but I'll be busy casting a vote for Paul Hackett and doing all I can to get the citizens of OH-2 to do the same.