Alpine Summit

Thursday, January 04, 2007

For Your Consideration

I found this article from Drudge and thought it was interesting if not horrifying. I'm going to have to say this is not something with which I can agree. First off, her mental condition's cause is unknown. Who's to say that her brain can't "catch up?" I would imagine some Doctors have deemed that impossible, but I'm usually, if not always, against limiting options for people.

Where do we stop with this? Could a quadriplegic child be given this treatment against their will? Even if they were mentally mature and protested, being a minor means they have no say in what their parents do. One would argue that having such a procedure done for them would be in their best interests in the same way it's in Ashley's best interest. Mary Johnson, editor of Ragged Edge, an online magazine for disability activists had this to say.

She said she felt for Ashley's parents and could understand why they had made the decision. But she feared that the treatment would open a Pandora's box that could have adverse effects for other children. "What will now be said in the case of a child with spina bifida, who you could argue has the same physical challenges but whose brain is fully functioning? This is very troubling."


People should consider the implications of their actions on ethical dilemmas like this because from what I've read, yeah Ashley's parents are having a hard time, but don't they owe it to their daughter to give her the best opportunities they can? I'm sure they think they have, but I'm afraid they made the wrong choice.

|

Monday, January 01, 2007

Media Touting "Milestone" Again

I'm so sick of hearing about this so-called "milestone" of honored dead reaching another round number. MSNBC is talking about it on their channel and it only betrays their self-proclaimed objectivity.

The article starts off "Now the death toll is 9/11 times two." This is said only to tell people "we would have been better off not going to war because now twice as many people have died." I'm not sure about that, but the idea that such a liberal, biased reporter would so coldly talk about the numbers of dead as a justification for their petty view sickens me. The source is (not surprisingly) the AP.

That MSNBC would run this kind of story though makes them just as culpable. Why is it that round numbers of our honored dead are more special than any of the other who have died? Talking about "milestones" reduces the sacrifice of 999 others who gave their lives to nothing more than helping to get to an arbitrary number on which the media can jump to tell us all how the war was wrong.

Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed, too.

Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.


They mention how this isn't how the success or failure of a war is measured according to people who actually KNOW how to do their job, but then imply exactly the opposite by the very nature of this story! Amazing. Opinion masquerading as objective reporting at its finest.

|