Ethical quandary?

This is the story I wanted to write about yesterday but didn't get around to it. It is really important to understand this situation and what exactly it means. I also feel the need to explain what it means to me.

Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

Story Highlights from CNN:
• Fight over baby's life support pits mom against hospital, divides ethicists
• Texas law allows hospitals to withdraw life support against family's wishes
• Hospital says treatment is painful, futile for 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales
• Mom acknowledges son is terminal but wants life support continued

First off I want to display the ridiculous logic displayed here:
Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, on the other hand, is fighting to keep her son on the ventilator, allowing him to die "naturally, the way God intended."

OK next is where I surprise all of you. I morally disagree with keeping this child on the ventilator. Yes, taking the child off is euthanizing the baby, but the facts are the facts. This infant is experiencing a quality of life that is next to torture. OK.... you are probably not surprised by me saying that. Here it is: If the mother wants to keep her child on life support she should have the right to do this. I believe that this is the mother's choice, and I think Texas law is wrong. It is hypocritical of the state of Texas to allow life support to be withdrawn against a family's wishes, when a terminal patient who wants to die, can't even legally make that decision for themselves! Here's my pet peeve with government: They should not dictate morality beyond the universals. By universals I'm talking about the universally accepted ideas of heinous acts, murder, stealing, vandalism, creating disorder etc. What makes this worse is this isn't about right or wrong. Who ever put this law into effect likely did so because insurance companies (some of the most powerful institutions out there) were paying out more than they wanted. The only person who should be able to pull the plug is, the individual them self, or a parent or spouse if the individual in question is incapacitated to do so. Allowing the hospital to do this is just asking for abuse, and I'm certain that it has and it does occur on a regular basis.

I believe this mother is morally WRONG to keep this baby alive, however I understand why she is doing it. Her faith tells her that there's a chance for a miracle, that the doctor's don't know what they are talking about. Even though the facts show otherwise, who am I or any one else to tell her what to do? It isn't as though she is purposely abusing a child she is doing this out of love... and unfortunately it isn't the right choice. It is similar to an expecting pregnant woman who is told a few months into pregnancy that she has a high chance of dying while delivering, and that the fetus may die too, but she refuses to consider abortion out of moral beliefs. In my opinion, it would be immoral of any one not to encourage her to do the right thing and save her life, rather than have her family and her significant other lose not only a potential new family member, but one that is already alive and should have a long life in front of her. But can we as a society force people to make what we feel are the RIGHT decisions in these circumstances? NO... I have no business, and no one else has any business forcing these people to do something they are against. Live and let live, do right by your own family and by your friends and loved ones and set an example rather than force people to be like you. At least that's how I think we ought to live.

Now a part of the article I find REALLY ironic, I don't know about you.

The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate" -- even if the family wants the medical care to continue. The statute was inspired by a growing debate in medical and legal communities over when to declare medical treatment futile.

This from the same president who sided with Terri Schiavo's parents to keep her alive in a vegetative coma against her and her husband's wishes, this from the same president who is against stem cell research because it is immoral, this from the same president who ran in 2000 with a hands off attitude against Roe vs. Wade, and has worked rather openly to abolish abortion ever since. GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED A BILL AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO EUTHANIZE CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. Now if that isn't irony I don't know what is.

Perhaps this lends legitimacy to David Kuo's "Tempting Faith" Kuo formerly of Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" claims that W's Christian Conservatism is all an act.

According to Kuo "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.'"

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

Yes booze is the answer....

Fruity cocktails count as health food, study finds Mmmmmmmm fruity booze. Now we just need a study that beer is a health food. How about Pete's Wicked strawberry blond? One of those blueberry beers? At least give me hard cider... come onnn!!!!

Physicist Hawking experiences zero gravity Just a real cool story. Pretty inspiring if you stop and think about it. The power of the mind can take you wonderful places, search for your quest and grab a hold the reins!

MY THURSDAY

Tonight I actually made it to the gym. Then I went to Qdoba and had a nice chicken burrito with Kate. Kate had gone to a book reading at the book store in Porter square (Where Bally's is) so it was convenient for us to meet up. We had a nice evening and took a walk back to Harvard Square from Porter where we got on the train.

TGIF!