DON’T LET THEM STOP YOUR FEEDING AND HYDRATION, THEY WILL TRY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WANT YOUR ORGANS

!!!!

vincentlambert2

Watch How This “Vegetative” Patient Reacts When He’s Told a Court Said He Can be Starved to Death

International   Dave Andrusko   Jun 12, 2015   |   5:02PM    Paris, France

NRL News Todayreported on the case of Vincent Lambert, a 38-year-old Frenchmen who was severely brain injured in a 2008 motorcycle accident. The European Court of Human Rights had ruled that food and water can be withdrawn from Lambert but his parents vowed not to give in.

According to the publication, thelocal.fr (a French newspaper printed in English), “Some of his friends and family who are against taking the man off life support uploaded a video to YouTube on Wednesday that they claim shows Lambert responding to them.” You can watch the video here.

The parallels to the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo, in some respects, are uncanny, beginning with a divided family.

As we noted yesterday, a multiplicity of descriptive labels are used as if they all mean the same thing; they don’t. For instance, in today’s thelocal.fr story, the headline talks about a “brain-damaged Frenchman” while Eric Kariger, the doctor who made the initial request in January 2014 to stop Lambert’s food and fluids, (and who dismissed the video as “manipulative” ) insisted that Lambert is “in a serious and irreversible vegetative state.” The caption on the photo describes Lambert as being in a “paraplegic state.”

According to the story

In the video, Emmanuel Guépin, one of Lambert’s friends, speaks of how the patient is “responding” to his surroundings. Lambert’s mother is heard on the phone telling him “the news is not good”, referring to the ruling from the European court.

Guépin notes later that Lambert “reacts very strongly” to his brother with facial expressions.

In 2014 the legal tug of war began when six of Lambert’s siblings and his wife, Rachel, backed a doctor’s request to withdraw food and fluid, appealing to France’s 2005 “passive euthanasia law” for authority to do so.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

But as NRL News Today reported last year, Lambert’s parents, half-brother and sister appealed the court decision authorizing the withdrawal.

The French supreme administrative court, known as the State Council, “ordered three doctors to draw up a report on Lambert’s condition and in June ruled that the decision to withdraw care from a man with no hope of recovery was lawful,” according to reporter Henry Samuel.

Lambert’s parents then took the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which ordered France to keep Lambert alive while they deliberated on whether the State Council’s decision was in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Kariger told France Info: “This is a small step for Vincent Lambert and his wife, but probably a giant step for our humanity.”

The parents vehemently disagreed. “It’s scandalous,” said his mother Viviane following the ruling. “They are condemning my son. We will remain by Vincent’s side and will continue to fight.”

Among other points Lamberts’ parents will raise is that Kariger has left the Reims university hospital where there son is being treated, Samuel reported.

And, as is also so often the case, Kariger made his recommendation “after Lambert appeared to resist attempts to be fed, suggesting he wished to die.”

Lambert now appears to be upset by attempts to starve and dehydrate him to death.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.

vincentlambert2

********************************************************************************************************************************

Society June 12, 2015

European Court Votes to “Kill a Disabled Person,” Says French Bishop

Like the mother of Vincent Lambert, two bishops and five of the 17 judges of the European Court of Human Rights howl with indignation at the ruling delivered by the Court on 5 June allowing him to be euthanized.

SHARES
180
do not use this image without contacting the image department © CITIZENSIDE/CLAUDE TRUONG-NGOC / AFP
After the confirmation of the death sentence pronounced against Vincent Lambert by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Vincent Lambert’s mother (pictured above, with his lawyer) expressed her grief, her anger and her unwavering desire to save her son: “Far from despairing because of the decision, this 70-year-old woman who sparked the legal battle against the medical team and Rachel Lambert, is more than ever ready to fight,” said the Journal du Dimanche. For her, a possible withdrawal of the tubes that hydrate and feed the former nurse is euthanasia. This would not be helping him to die, it would be killing him. (…) ‘Vincent is not at the end of his life. If they start again, we will go to court again,’ she promises.”

“We do not want to cause his death”

This is also the very clear opinion of the first religious leaders to react, Bishop Marc Aillet, Bishop of Bayonne, Lescar and Oloron, and Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon. Cardinal Barbarin did not hide his indignation when interviewed on RTL radio Sunday night: “The European Court’s decision offends me deeply because, in fact, this man is alive! His heart beats, he breathes by himself, his eyelids move, and he does not need a ventilator. They say, we must ‘unplug him’, but he is not plugged in (…) we, what we do not want, is to cause his death! Because we must respect his life. I have heard the lawyers’ opinions: ‘Human Rights for healthy people.’ And what rights does a man have if he is not in good health? What are his rights? The European Court of Human Rights was created at the end of World War II precisely to protect the disabled. I imagine that many people with disabilities and their families will be very upset by this completely incomprehensible decision.”  The day of the ECHR’s verdict, Bishop Aillet tweeted: “In Europe today, 12 people have voted to kill a disabled person #VincentLambert. And tomorrow?”

“Euthanasia under a different name”

No less explicit but unprecedented are the reactions by five judges of the European Court of Human Rights, in disagreement with the June 5 ruling, who criticize it for having authorized by a majority the decision to kill Vincent Lambert by depriving him of nourishment and hydration. They are the representatives of Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, Slovakia and Azerbaijan. For them, they write, “This case is one of euthanasia, even if under a different name.”

Their criticisms are written up in the same Annexes of the judgment, and they are “extremely severe” says Le Figaro, not only “against this judgment but also against the Court itself, that they now disavow even as far as its legitimacy to bear its name.” They also point out that although Vincent Lambert is in a “chronic vegetative state” and a “minimally conscious state”, “in no way can it be said that [he] is in an end-of-life situation.” And they launched this outraged appeal: “What, we therefore ask, can justify a State in allowing a doctor –in this case not so much to “pull the plug” as to withdraw or discontinue feeding and hydration so as to, in effect, starve Vincent Lambert to death? ” “In 2010, to mark its fiftieth anniversary, the Court accepted the title of The Conscience of Europe, conclude the five judges. We regret that the Court has, with this judgment, forfeited the above-mentioned title.”

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to DON’T LET THEM STOP YOUR FEEDING AND HYDRATION, THEY WILL TRY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WANT YOUR ORGANS

  1. I wish someone would do a rigorous study of how much a hospital makes – ie profits-ie Dollar$$s- from cutting off food and water vs hydrating and feeding; even if this is a study in which in both cases patients [in some cases Victims] die. Also, how soon does the bed become available for a more profitable patient in the no-hydration case vs the-food-and-water case. I mean this for the crass money-hungry greedy mean hospitals who are not in it for the “hospitality” but who are in it for the most cold hard cash, not the friendly, non-profit, charitable, face-of-Jesus-on-each-patient loving entities such as are all church-related and nun-sponsored places of love, care and mercy. And when they do keep someone alive out of pure concern for his or her wellbeing, and then sell organs for pure humanitarian motives, how much of a cut [no pun intended] does the family or spouse of the “donor” get of the million$s the non-profit hospital makes off the sale? Guy McClung, San Antonio

Comments are closed.