Coma Patient Who Would Never Recover Has Recovered

Have you ever wondered why some people are opposed to euthanasia, and believe that as long as there is any evidence of life, that the date of someone's death is best left up to God?

Unless you're very young, or have been on Mars for a few years, you've probably heard of the Terri Schiavo case from a few years ago. She was the woman who was hospitalized unconscious under suspicious circumstances, and was diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Her husband, who had since moved on and produced children with another woman and stood to gain financially from Terri's death, lobbied the courts until they finally gave permission to starve this woman to death.

No one denied Terri had suffered brain damage, but despite videos showing her laughing, trying to talk, and responding to various stimuli, a judge in Florida determined her life wasn't living and ordered her feeding tube removed. After about 13 or 14 days, she finally died of dehydration.

Since then, we have heard of numerous cases where people in comas and vegetative states have come out, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently and fully functional.

We also continue to see more and more evidence piling up that points to life and brain activity even within PVS patients.

Now comes word from ABC News of Haleigh Poutre who was beaten into a coma by her stepfather Jason Strickland in 2005. She became a ward of the state and the Massachusetts Department of Social Services tried to have her life ended. Almost at the last minute was her death sentence by the state lifted, when her stepfather--probably trying to avoid a murder trial--petitioned the court to keep her alive, and before the state could remove her ventilator, she began breathing on her own.

Now, after doctors said she would never recover, the girl is awake and communicating.

Here is what the "experts" said:

"Short of developing a technique for a complete brain transplant, there is no hope that medical treatment will be discovered in the foreseeable future which could reverse" her condition, a doctor said, according to court records.

How many people--like Terri Schiavo--have we, in our vast wisdom, killed when life remained? How many have we killed who might have recovered, had we not taken life-and-death into our own hands?

Young Haleigh is another case that warns us not to be so quick to discard human life. Human life is precious, created in the image of God, each person unique, and once a person is dead, there will never be another one.

If we must err, we should err on the side of preserving human life. We used to understand that, before we became so enamored with death...or so inconvenienced by those dependent on us.

Private Business to Pay for Sexual Disorders?

It seems American businesses are getting tasked with doing more and more these days...and less and less of it has to do with "business."

Liberals in our government, who believe the average American is too stupid or otherwise incapable of doing anything for themselves, seem determined to make business the surrogate parent of the American people.

Why would I say such a thing? Think about it for a minute.

Our government has decided that employers and employees are incapable of negotiating the value of labor, so we've set a minimum wage standard so people have been relieved of this responsibility.

In many cases where unions have formed, our government has decided that businesses are incapable of rightly deciding whether they will negotiate with unions, and so forces businesses to deal with unions, whether they want to or not.

Our government has also decided that if a business is big enough not to be totally crippled by it, the business must give unpaid medical leave to an employee for up to three months...and hold a job for the person when they come back.

Now, according to the Family Research Council, socialists, er, Democrats in Congress are pushing for passage of HR 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.

This bill would require business offering group coverage to not only provide medical care for tangible illnesses, but for mental health problems.

While there are those who have genuine mental health problems, this is an area which is notoriously susceptible to fraud and abuse. In other words, it isn't that hard for someone to fake a mental illness. It's also pretty common to encounter people who suffer from an attention deficit (not that they lack attention span, rather they feel not enough people are paying sympathetic attention to them) and an unwillingness to simply pull their heads out of, uh, the sand and get their act together.

The FRC post lists some of the "mental illnesses" covered under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV):

- Circadian rhythm sleep disorder (jet lag type);
- Caffeine intoxication;
- Sibling relational problem;
- Substance-induced sexual dysfunction;
- Gender identity disorder;
- Necrophilia;
- Transvestic fetishism; and
- Pedophilia.

So if you're an employer, I'm sure you'd be thrilled at the prospect of paying for someone's "caffeine intoxication" syndrome.

Are you thrilled to pay for the counseling sessions (or surgery?) for someone who can't look between their own legs and figure out which sex they are?

Or getting the hots for corpses?

Or how about paying to treat someone's tastes for little boys or girls?

And who among us doesn't have "sibling relational problems?"

Even if you consider these "ailments" to be legitimate need for "care," since when paying for it become someone elses responsibility?

And even if you're only an employee, this concerns you, too. Why? For every dollar your employer has to spend on unnecessary costs, that's one less dollar available to you in the form of a raise, break-room goodies, or other benefits you might have received. Or in an economic downturn, the extra cost of paying for this might mean the difference between your company (and your job) surviving, and being in the unemployment line.

If an employer wants to provide benefits such as these to their employees, then let them have at it. But to have the power of government mandate coverage, for something that in many cases is the own sufferer's fault and could be avoided by discipline and mature behavior, is completely un-American.

When did we become such a nation of babies? When did we turn from a people who could brave a vast ocean trip, endure the cold and deprivation, build a modern civilization where no roads or infrastructure existed...when did such a people turn into a people who can't think for ourselves or even figure out if we're boys or girls on our own? How we managed to settle the colonies and then the West without a legion of counselors, I'll never know.

Does a nation so incapable of adult behavior deserve to go on much longer? Can it?

Supporting Sin Doesn't Make You Less Christian

I have to commend Senator Barak Obama. He's given me the freedom as a Christian to live any way I please. Apparently it doesn't matter what God has said, what the Bible says, or whether I'm living or advocating things in opposition to what God has said: nothing can make me "less Christian."

A CNS News article brings this delightful information:

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." (See video here) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Oh, come on, Senator Obama! If it's going to be essentially the same thing as marriage, let's just go ahead and call it "marriage!"

As for the Sermon on the Mount, I somehow completely missed that part that said homosexual relationships were acceptable to God. I'm going to have to go back and read that; I don't know how I could have been so wrong all these years.

Obama's right about that obscure passage in Romans:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

In fact, Romans is one of the most obscure, inconsequential books to Christian living that there is in the Bible. How it could change the life of men like Martin Luther, I'll never know.

This passage is as obscure as the one in Leviticus 18:22 which says

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

And the one in Leviticus 20:13 which says

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

It's probaby as obscure as that text in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.

Or as obscure as that passage in Genesis 2:24 where some say God laid out his design for human sexuality:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Or where some say Jesus reaffirmed that design in Matthew 19:5

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'

Besides, we can't rely on the Bible to mean what it actually says! We'd be crazy to believe that. Thinking that the Bible means what it says would rob us of all our freedom to do what we want, unhindered.

Obama also gives us new freedom to look at abortion in a whole new way, one where we can murder our unborn children and still feel like we're in good standing with God:

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

In fact, if someone, in the womb or outside it, gets in the way of my self-fulfillment, I shouldn't have some "bureaucrat in Washington" telling me what to do with my life. If someone has something I want, or they stand in the way of attaining my goals, I should be able to abort their lives without interference from government officials, right?

All that stuff about human life being created in the image of God? Ahhh! We don't really need all that.

Never mind that by the time most women know they're pregnant, the child already has a central nervous system.

So what if the unborn child has unique HUMAN DNA from the moment of conception, making it (a) a human and (b) distinct and separate from it's mother.

So what if we see unborn children in the Bible responding to external stimuli.

So what if we are known to God even before we are formed in the womb.

So what if we hear the Psalmist tell of how God knit us together in the womb.

After all, what is all this obscure, Biblical drivel when we need to be free to pursue our sexual fulfillment?

I'm glad Obama has cleared all this up. Here I have been all these years, wasting my time trying to do what I thought God was telling me to do in His Bible, when I could have been living by my own standards, doing whatever I wanted.

Now I know who our next president should be! Who else could deliver us from the oppression and bondage of religious and moral duty?

Viva la Obama!

Jack Bauer and Just War

ON THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY

By Raymond J. Keating


I’m worried. Who the heck is protecting these United States of America from assorted terrorist threats?

After all, even though the Hollywood writer’s strike is over, Jack Bauer and “24” will not return to FOX until 2009.

I’m going through some serious “24” withdrawal.

For those who have never watched “24” over the past six seasons, where have you been? It is by far the most edge-of-your-seat show on television. Each episode plays out in a real-time one-hour period. Put 24 shows together, and you get one wild day. Though some seasons clearly have been better than others, each is jam packed with thrills, action, interesting characters, deception, and plot turns and surprises.

Bauer is a government agent who stops at nothing to foil evildoers intent on inflicting great harm.

England has James Bond. We have Jack Bauer.

The situations that Bauer and his colleagues confront, and their responses and actions certainly provide fodder for reflection about ethics and morality. Indeed, you could build an entire college ethics class around “24.”

From a Christian perspective, “24” lends itself to a Just War analysis during this time of war against terrorists.

Let’s consider the scope of what we are talking about over the six days (seasons) of “24.” By my unofficial tally, Jack Bauer has wracked up a body count of 167. That is, Bauer killed – or apparently killed – 12 people on Day One, 27 on Day Two, 13 on Day Three, a high of 41 on Day Four, 35 on Day Five, and 39 on Day Six.

Bauer’s lethal actions make James Bond’s license to kill look like an elementary school hall pass.

But the question is: How do Bauer’s actions hold up to the Christian Just War Theory?

Let’s first briefly review what the Just War Theory instructs. Rooted in Holy Scripture, the Just War principles teach that there must be a righteous, just cause for war, that is, for self-defense; to secure peace; and to establish justice, remedy justice, protect the innocent or defend human rights. In addition, a just war must be a last resort and rely on a formal declaration.

The Just War Theory also governs how war is to be conducted. The first principle here is proportionality, meaning that war should be the lesser of two evils, and should be what is needed to secure peace and improve conditions. The second principle is discrimination, i.e., war should be waged against enemy combatants and military targets, not against civilians and other noncombatants.

So, how does the Just War Theory gauge Jack Bauer’s actions? First, it is important to keep in mind that Bauer works for the government. Clearly, the state’s right to wage war and right to use force when necessary are affirmed by Holy Scripture. For example, St. Paul wrote: “Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.” (Romans 13:3-4) Bauer is a combatant or a bearer of the government’s sword.

Let’s consider each day (season).

Day One. Senator David Palmer, who is running for U.S. president, and Bauer are targets of a revenge plot by the family of a Serbian war criminal. Previously, Palmer had approved and Bauer led Operation Nightfall carried out against the murderous Victor Drazen. The Drazens kidnap Bauer’s family, and plant moles inside the Counter-Terrorist Unit (CTU), the agency where Bauer works.

Most of Bauer’s killings in Day One are justified as self-defense and in protecting his family. All, that is, except one. Bauer mistakenly believes that the Drazens have killed his daughter, and when Victor Drazen drops his gun and puts his hands in the air, Bauer nonetheless shoots him dead.

At the end of the day, Nina Myers, a CTU colleague and former lover who turns out to be a mole, murders Bauer’s wife.

Day Two. Eighteen months after Day One, Bauer and President Palmer face an imminent nuclear threat by terrorists in Los Angeles.

To stop the terrorists, Bauer undertakes a variety of extreme actions. Again, there are assorted justified actions that take the lives of terrorists.

But Bauer also shoots and kills an FBI criminal informant during an interrogation in order to present the informant’s head to the criminals so as to infiltrate the operation and track the terrorists. At various points, Palmer authorizes torture, while Bauer threatens Nina Myers and tortures a terrorist to get information about the nuclear weapons.

Day Three. Three years later, Bauer faces a bio-terror threat, as the possible release of a weaponzied virus looms. Bauer again is placed in situations where he must kill terrorists.

But there are two other situations worth noting. In the first case, the lead terrorist demands that President Palmer order the death of CTU official Ryan Chapelle, or the virus will be released. After exhausting all possibilities, Palmer gives the order. Chapelle accepts the sacrifice, and Jack has to carry out the order. Bauer says, “God, forgive me,” and then shoots Chapelle dead.

In the second case, Jack shoots Nina Myers after she killed several members of CTU and attempted to murder Bauer’s daughter. But while Myers is still alive on the floor, Jack shoots her three more times. Recall, again, that Myers murdered Jack’s wife.

Day Four. After another 18 months, Bauer is now working for the Pentagon. The secretary of defense and his daughter – Audrey Raines who is in a relationship with Jack – are kidnapped by terrorists intend to set off a series of meltdowns at nuclear power plants. Later, the threat shifts to a missile attack.

Bauer once more is justified in killing various bad guys given the circumstances. But in trying to head off this terrorist threat, Bauer also shoots a prisoner in the leg, roughs up Audrey’s estranged husband, and breaks the fingers of a person working with the terrorists.

In the end, Bauer winds up faking his own death in order to avoid being taken prisoner by the Chinese, who seek him after an incident at the Chinese Consulate. Bauer then must lose himself in society.

Day Five. After another year-and-a-half passes, former President David Palmer is assassinated, and Bauer emerges from hiding to head off a terrorist nerve gas attack and to expose a conspiracy leading to President Charles Logan.

Along the way, Bauer kills terrorists while defending himself and others. He also will not allow innocents to die, even though he is ordered by the White House and CTU officials to do so.

However, after an injured assassin admits to murdering Palmer, Bauer shoots him while lying unarmed on the ground. Jack also threatens to carve out the eye of a traitorous White House official to extract critical information, and shoots another traitor’s wife in the leg in order to uncover the plot.

At the close, the Chinese discover that Bauer is alive, and take him away to China.

Day Six. Bauer is returned to the United States after being a prisoner of the Chinese for 20 months, so that he can be turned over to a terrorist in return for information. The United States government is desperate after 11 weeks of terrorist bombings across the country.

In order to protect a former terrorist who is now looking to help, Bauer is forced to kill CTU agent and friend Curtis Manning. Jack then cannot imagine going on, until terrorists actually set off a nuclear bomb that kills thousands of Americans.

While again unwilling to allow harm to come to innocents, Bauer actually tortures his own brother, who helped the terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, to get vital information.

So, what do we make of Jack Bauer’s actions from a moral perspective via the Just War Theory?

First, Bauer clearly is partaking in a just war – acting in self-defense; securing peace; and establishing justice, remedying justice, and protecting the innocent – against terrorists.

The more challenging questions regarding Bauer pertain to how war is waged. Do Bauer’s actions meet the requirements of proportionality, i.e., that war should be the lesser of two evils, and should be what is needed to secure peace and improve conditions? When confronted by immediate and clear terrorist threats against civilians, it seems that Bauer’s actions meet the proportionality standard.

I would argue that even instances where Bauer tortures terrorists, it is justified. The threat of a massive terrorist attack is immediate, and Bauer is directing the torture at actual terrorists or their suspected allies. It is waged against actual combatants, and combatants whose stated objective is to do harm to civilians.

That, of course, does not mean his assessment was always correct, as was the case with Audrey’s husband, who actually was not involved with terrorists.

But what about discrimination? Here is where it gets even more dicey. Discrimination means that war should be waged against enemy combatants and military targets, not against civilians and other noncombatants. But Bauer raises a serious question when shooting the FBI criminal informant during Day Two, and clearly violated Just War principles when he shot the traitor’s wife in the leg in Day Five.

But there are even harder questions.

How does one gauge Jack having to shoot Chapelle in Day Three, per the order of the President in order to stop a terrorist attack? In the best light, it would seem to meet the proportionality mandate of being the lesser of two evils.

Finally, the big questions come down to the three instances when Bauer shot and killed an unarmed person of his own accord – Victor Drazen in Day One, Nina Myers on Day Three, and President Palmer’s assassin on Day Five. Those acts certainly would not pass legal muster. But what about the morality of such actions?

Well, in each case, Bauer doled out a death sentence to an individual guilty of horrific, deadly crimes. Holy Scripture clearly allows the government to use the death penalty, and does not get into due process.

Christians are free to disagree regarding Jack Bauer’s actions in each of these cases. But, as much as one can see the justice in death being the penalty for these moral monsters, few of us can probably say that we are comfortable with a government agent like Jack Bauer doling out such justice on his own.

In the end, it must be acknowledged that there are enormous evils in the world that government has the responsibility to confront on behalf of its citizens. And while every action taken in that defense might not be morally ideal, make no mistake, when confronting Islamic extremism – today’s most daunting evil – we need individuals like Jack Bauer who are willing to risk everything to protect innocent life.

Given the inevitable imperfections in any human endeavor, we still should thank God for the individuals willing to undertake such vital missions.

And back in the fictional realm, I can’t wait until Jack Bauer is back in action next year, battling evildoers.


Raymond J. Keating, also a columnist with Newsday, is the editor and publisher of the “On the Church & Society Report.” This column is from the latest issue of the “On the Church & Society Report.” To receive a free four-issue trial of “On the Church & Society Report,” send an e-mail request to ChurchandSociety@aol.com.

When figuring legislative spending, perhaps naivete is part of the problem

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: South Dakota's legislators are now on their two-week hiatus before they return March 17 for the real, final day of this year's session.

It appears the two big issues facing this session and getting the most press were the Governor cutting $2 million from the Highway Patrol's budget and how much money was going to be sent to the k-12 schools in the state. Of course there were other spending issues as well, including what the Regents are going to get to run our public colleges, but we didn't hear much about them.

SOUTH DAKOTANS won't learn until March 17 what new laws the state will have and which ones will hit the trash can with the magic touch of the Governor's veto. Whatever happens March 17, it is obvious that the honeymoon between Governor Mike Rounds and our legislators is now over. Is it a case of "What's in your wallet?" Whether or not they will be able to kiss and make up by that wizardry day remains to be seen.

We say there is a rift between the two branches of South Dakota government because of the battles during the past 34 days or so. For example, early in the session most of the legislators signed onto a bill that would put back $2 million into the Highway Patrol's fund. However, by the time the fat lady got through last Thursday singing the verse about the replacement of these funds, the legislators, or most of them, anyway, decided maybe the governor was right and, consequently, none of that $2 million was going to be replaced.

However, the prime sponsor of that bill, Sen. Gene Abdallah, from Sioux Falls' District 10, appears to have fought to the end, but to no avail. This appears largely because of one of his District 10 counterparts, Rep, Shantel Krebs, wife of Mitch, the Governor's chief of staff.

IN THE CLOSING arguments in his attempt to regain the Patrol's funding, Abdallah wondered if S. Krebs was representing the Legislature or the Governor's office. Needless to say, Mrs. Krebs didn't much like that crack and let him know in no uncertain terms that she represented just about everyone in South Dakota.

There are two bottom lines to this battle: First, South Dakotans won't be seeing as much of the Highway Patrol as we should this next fiscal year and second, I suspect we won't see Sen. Abdallah spending much in Rep. Krebs' two Sioux Falls boutiques for some time to come...

THE UNFORTUNATE thing about the Legislature's appropriation for education is that it traditionally comes on the the last day, instead of getting the job done earlier in the session. This year it was no different. It, too, again proved the honeymoon between Governor Rounds and the Legislature has been strained. This showed on several fronts. First, they couldn't decide how much money was going to be spent during the fiscal year that starts July 1.

Rounds' staff estimated there would only be $1.84 billion available from tax revenues while the legislative economic pundits predicted there would be about $11 million more in the state's kitty, putting their guess at $1.95 billion. This certainly had to be another bone of contention with the Governor.

Then, when the Governor suggested just a 2.5 percent increase for both our K-12 students and state employees, that had to stick pretty hard in someone's gizzard. From there, there were all sorts of proposals for these groups. They ranged from a flat $1,000 raise for state employees to as high as a 4.25 percent increase in the state aid to education spending package.

THE FINAL NOTE came when the (figurative) smoke finally cleared and the hoopla was coming to an end about 11 p.m. last Friday, when our legislators approved a $3.6 billion budget, the other funds coming, of course, from the feds and other sources. Its budget settled at $4.9 million higher than Governor Rounds had recommended.

So, what's it going to do for our teachers? It boils down that there will be a 3 percent increase in state money going to education, which at least one-half percent must be used to raise teacher salaries above their normal raises. What this means in actual dollars and "sense" will come from the school districts, themselves.

In the meantime, as the curtain came down on the main part of this session, it looks like the Governor is unhappy with the legislators; the legislators being unhappy with the Governor; the House members are upset with the Senate members and the Senate members are upset with the House members; and the Democrat legislators are ruffled at the Republican legislators and the Republican legislators are ruffled at the Democrat legislators. So, what does all of this mean? It means this was another session as usual, but more on that next week....


Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.