Another Democrat

Brainless Boy.

One related case that has received more exposure than most is that of Andrew Vandal, who was born on 12th July 1984. In the early stages of his development in the womb a cyst appeared on the stem of his brain. Known as an atelencephic aprosencephaly, this destructive event left the boy with a cranium containing nothing but fluid. In some cases, it can even leave victims with no detectible brain at all - a condition known as anencephaly or 'brainlessness'.

Cases like Andrew's are again usually terminated before birth, but in this instance the subject was born and then put up for adoption. He was adopted by a paediatric nurse, Kaye Vandal, from Wallingford, Connecticut, US, who, when last asked about Andrew's welfare, stated that she remained devoted to 'giving him the best quality life for however long he lives.'

At the same time, Kaye stated that, against doctors' predictions, Andrew was able to laugh, giggle and smile and, has a 'glowing, outgoing, bubbly personality'. Kaye also stated that her young charge was able to respond to stimulus and was maturing mentally; both of which doctors believed to be impossible, considering his complete absence of brain matter.

Andrew was, however, unable to speak, and was cortically blind; that is, he could see images, but was unable to interpret them. Andrew was also incapable of walking, but did manage to drag himself along on his back.

Andrew voted in his first Presidential election in 2004. Like the rest of the brainless he voted for Kerry.

Andrew voted in his first Presidential election in 2004. Like the rest of the brainless he voted for Kerry.

As to the original article- I remember reading this somewhere before. It's amazing the little guy was able to find a loving home. His condition and improvement/capabilities were even more amazing. Great story.

 

As to the original article- I remember reading this somewhere before. It's amazing the little guy was able to find a loving home. His condition and improvement/capabilities were even more amazing. Great story.

No story here... Just your average democrat.

A drain on society and should have been terminated.

That is all.

A drain on society and should have been terminated.

 

That is all.

Ok, Hitler.

Hitler... huge drain on society and should have been terminated.

That is all.

Ehh.. I say put a slug in his head, he is a shit factory and nothing more.

.

.

At the very least, you assholes can be grateful someone assumed responsibility for this "piece of shit" so your tax dollars can go to something more worthwhile.

Like more bullets for the troops ??

.

.

Again... those tax dollars are going to support the food and healthcare of the prisoner who wasn't adopted.

A .38 slug only costs a few cents. I'd vote for that bill.

Do you really think that the couple is footing all of the medical care on their own dime? I don't know... but unless I did, I wouldn't point to it as a "tax break".

Do you really think that the couple is footing all of the medical care on their own dime? I don't know... but unless I did, I wouldn't point to it as a "tax break".

I don't know and I don't care. lol BUT... I read that when you adopt a child, you are on your own in terms of medical treatment. Also, being that she is a nurse probably means she does a lot of the care herself.

Regardless, this isn't Nazi Germany and the infirm shouldn't be killed because they are infirm.

Why?

Why shouldn't they?

If they are damaging to society, why the hell shouldnt they be removed from it? Don't have to shoot them. Put them on an island. If they cant feed themselves then nature will take its course. Of course I think shooting them is a more humane solution.

Why should I have to pay to subvert nature so you can feel like a good person? Why?

Why should I have to pay to subvert nature so you can feel like a good person? Why?

I guarantee you that her decision to thwart natural selection was based on religious dogma.

Regardless, this isn't Nazi Germany and the infirm shouldn't be killed because they are infirm.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Phanny, but at what point does the infirm become a burden? The second they are brought into this world to suffer and be kept alive unnaturally.

Michael Schaivo was villified in the news media and by the religious right for making a humane decision. Wait until this boy is sick and dying or goes comatose, it will overshadow the whole Schaivo case.

If they are damaging to society, why the hell shouldnt they be removed from it?

Thanks for making me sound like a bleeding heart liberal tree hugger. If you truly want to round up some useless people, start with welfare moms, crack addicts, democrats, and Muslim extremists.

Why should I have to pay to subvert nature so you can feel like a good person?

It sounds like the nurse is the one assuming all financial responsibility- not you, not me, not the American public.

I guarantee you that her decision to thwart natural selection was based on religious dogma.

You are right. It is partly based on my Christian beliefs but mostly due to just being a decent human being with some form of compassion.

At what point does the infirm become a burden? The second they are brought into this world to suffer and be kept alive unnaturally.

Yes, although I hate to say it, the infirm is a burden. If they cannot take care of themselves, then they are a burden by definition. However, many "burdens" were not born as such. I know your injuries were not that serious during the war but let's say the shrapnel did more damage than it did and you were now paralyzed from the neck down. Should you be killed? You were born naturally, paid your taxes, served your country, and were a productive member of society until that point. Although you would probably rather not live that way, for argument's sake, let's say you wanted to live. Should someone step in and tell you that you were going to be euthanized because you were no longer able to contribute to the greater good?

It should have been a decision between the parents of Andrew and the woman who chose to adopt him. Government should not pay for his sustenance. Socialism be damned. Government certainly should not have the power to kill an innocent for the so-called greater good. Utilitarianism, be damned.

Thank you, Hugo. Again, you said it better than me but in few words. lol

You are right. It is partly based on my Christian beliefs but mostly due to just being a decent human being with some form of compassion.

Ok... let's just say everyone has a huge amount of compassion. When and where does mercy come into play? After the infirm has writhed in pain?

I know your injuries were not that serious during the war but let's say the shrapnel did more damage than it did and you were now paralyzed from the neck down. Should you be killed? You were born naturally, paid your taxes, served your country, and were a productive member of society until that point. Although you would probably rather not live that way, for argument's sake, let's say you wanted to live. Should someone step in and tell you that you were going to be euthanized because you were no longer able to contribute to the greater good?

No... the USMC instilled in me not to fear death. I do not fear death, but what I do fear is a cage. The bed would be my cage and I would greatly desire to be released from bondage.

Now to stop dancing around the "what if?" question you posed; I would hope that if I wanted to live I could mumble the words "kill me".

Ok... let's just say everyone has a huge amount of compassion. When and where does mercy come into play? After the infirm has writhed in pain?

That is a good question. Although it still leaves room for abuse (like greedy relatives wanting their inheritance), things should be up to the family members. In this case, the family gave the boy up for adoption and another took on the responsibility. As long as it is left in the hands of the family and not the government, that would make things a little more fair.

Honestly, euthanasia has been a sensitive issue for years. For me to offer a definite solution to the problem would be foolish. Personally, if they are in pain or would prefer death, then they should be allowed. Not many would prefer to be in a comatose or paralyzed state. However, if they cannot choose for themselves, then it should be up to the family.

No... the USMC instilled in me not to fear death. I do not fear death, but what I do fear is a cage. The bed would be my cage and I would greatly desire to be released from bondage.

I had a feeling you wouldn't want to live so I tried to switch the hypothetical situation over to you wanting to live. If someone wanted to live, it should be their right. If someone wanted to die, that should be their right. If someone is incapable of making the decision, then it should be up to the family.

Now to stop dancing around the "what if?" question you posed; I would hope that if I wanted to live I could mumble the words "kill me".

Most people would probably prefer death in a situation like that.

An interesting article,

In the Blink of an Eye: A Look at Locked-in Syndrome

Shadia Bel Hamdounia

"Twelfth Night", "Freaky Friday"--we are all familiar with the many scenarios that depict a common fear—being trapped in another's body. But there exists a bigger nightmare. Imagine the horror of being trapped in one's own body. For those with locked-in syndrome (LIS), that fear is a reality.

 

LIS describes one of the most debilitating conditions in which a person retains consciousness. The result of head injury, brain-stem strokes, or neurological diseases like ALS, locked-in syndrome is caused by a lesion in the nerve centers that control muscle contraction or a blood clot that blocks circulation of oxygen to the brain stem(6),. First introduced in 1966 by Plum and Posner, the term has since then been redefined as "quadriplegia and anarthia, with preservation of consciousness".(1). (Anarthia refers to the neurologic inability to speak, as opposed to an unwillingness to speak.) Unable to either move, or speak, yet fully cognizant of the world around them, these individuals are virtually locked in. An accurate diagnosis of LIS depends on the recognition that the patient can open his eyes voluntarily rather than spontaneously in the vegetative state.(4). Although horizontal eye movements are usually lost, the ability to open their eyes and blink is retained.(4) Therein lies the key to communication with the outside world.

 

I first learned about this extremely rare condition while helping a friend with a French paper. The subject, Jean-Dominique Bauby's, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", piqued my interest. On Dec. 8th, 1995, Bauby, a 42-year-old father of two, was test-driving a new car when he suffered a massive stroke. He awoke from a coma two months later to find himself paralyzed and speechless, but able to move one muscle: his left eyelid.(3) Due to his privileged position as an author and editor of a popular French magazine, he was afforded the opportunity to do the unimaginable—share his experience with the outside world. With the aid of a secretary and an elaborate alphabet in which each letter was recited to him in the frequency with which it occurs in the French language, he was able to blink his novel.(3)

 

It was Alexandre Dumas who in 1820 first described LIS when he created Monsieur Noirtier de Villefort in his novel, The Count of Monte Cristo. He described his character as a "corpse with living eyes"(1), but Bauby's tale contradicts this commonly held notion. He recounts his struggle with the realization that he is trapped within a paralyzed body—the diving bell—in which his mind flies like a butterfly:

 

"I am fading away, slowly, but surely. Like the sailor who watches his home shore gradually disappear, I watch my past recede. My own life still burns within me, but more of it is reduced to the ashes of memory. Since taking up life in my cocoon, I have made two brief trips to the world of Paris medicine to hear the verdict pronounced on me from medical heights. I shed a few tears as we passed the corner caf