Texas Style right to life

[Pure]

Texas law on right to live and right to die says, essentially, that the hospital may make the decision to terminate treatment/life-support, regardless of relatives' wishes or patient's living will, though the latter has some weight.

Last week, a 5 month old, Sun Hudson, was so terminated against his mother's wishes.

What do people think of this Bush approach to 'right to life'?


Even as Doctors Say Enough, Families Fight to Prolong Life

By PAM BELLUCK

New York Times

Published: March 27, 2005

BOSTON, March 26 - For years, when families and hospitals fought over how to treat critically ill patients, families often pressed to let their loved ones die, while hospitals tried to keep them alive.But in the last decade or so, things have changed.Now, doctors and ethicists say that when hospitals and families clash, conflicts often pit families who want to continue life support and aggressive medical care against doctors who believe it is time to stop. [...]

...at least three states, Texas, Virginia and California, have laws that let doctors refuse treatment against the wishes of a family, or even a patient's advanced directive in certain circumstances. In other states, like Wisconsin, doctors are seeking such laws.

The Texas law, signed in 1999 by Gov. George W. Bush, allows doctors to remove life-sustaining treatment over the objections of families, provided an ethics committee agrees and the hospital gives the family 10 days to see if another facility will accept the patient. Dr. Robert L. Fine, an author of the law and the chairman of the clinical ethics committee at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, said that life support could be withdrawn even if a patient's living will specified otherwise, but that ethics committees would give great weight to such a document.

Virginia's law is similar; California's is much vaguer, saying physicians cannot be required to provide health care contrary to generally accepted health care standards. Now, in most disputes in Texas, "families look for an alternative willing to provide care and if none is available they say, 'O.K., it's time to stop,' " Dr. Fine said.There have been two recent exceptions.

Last week, Sun Hudson, a 5-month-old, died after a judge gave Texas Children's Hospital in Houston permission to disconnect his ventilator over the objections of his mother.

And last Sunday, the case of Spiro Nikolouzos, 68, was resolved when his family, who fought a Houston hospital's plan to remove his ventilator, found a nursing home to accept him.In the absence of laws like Texas's, hospitals often accede to a family's wishes because they fear being sued. They are reluctant to go to court because judges often rule that even if the hospital's assessment is correct, families' claims of what patients would have wanted take precedence. And doctors and ethicists in many states have not lobbied for a Texas-style law because of expected opposition from right-to-life advocates.

[... examples shifted in order]
"When [families are] asking for things that become absolutely nonsensical, then you don't have to do it anymore," said Dr. Kay Heggestad, who is the chairwoman of the ethics committee of the Wisconsin Medical Society and is helping draft a "futile care" bill in her state. "If someone marches into my office with normal kidney function and demands dialysis, I am not required to offer that."

Recently, several life-support requests have landed in court.

In October, when doctors at a hospital in Salt Lake City declared 6-year-old Jesse Koochin brain dead and planned to remove life support, Jesse's parents, Steve and Gayle Koochin, went to court. A judge ruled against the hospital and granted the Koochins the right to take Jesse home, where they kept him on a ventilator and said they were convinced that he could get better with alternative medical treatments. A month later, Jesse died.

[...] last November in Orlando, Fla., Alice Pinette insisted that her husband, Hanford, stay on life support even though his living will said he would not want to. A judge sided with the hospital, which removed the ventilator, and Mr. Pinette, 73, died.

"Medical advances give people greater expectations, and they're not willing to accept that death is inevitable; somebody somewhere can save Mom," said Dr. Forrow, of Beth Israel in Boston. "They have way more belief that the decision about that is partly up to them: my business, my body, my mom's body. Fifteen years ago, it was the doctor's purview alone.

"Some are wary that doctors may be truncating treatment because of soaring medical costs, and Dr. Dianne Bartels, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, said: "Sometimes there's also mistrust of the medical system. A doctor might have said, 'Your husband's never going to make it,' and he's already survived two or three times, so why should they believe the doctor?"

[end excerpts]

 

[Weird Harold]

"Some are wary that doctors may be truncating treatment because of soaring medical costs, and Dr. Dianne Bartels, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, said: "Sometimes there's also mistrust of the medical system. A doctor might have said, 'Your husband's never going to make it,' and he's already survived two or three times, so why should they believe the doctor?"

I have some reservations about the potential for abuse, but far fewer reservations than I would have about some other approaches. The Texas law sems to have covered as many opportunity's for abuse as it practically can without becoming an ineffective and self-contradictory law -- at the very least, it would have prevented the Terri Shaivo fiasco.

 

[Guest]

Normally a thread i would stay away from, but i do want to know whats going on and sometimes, im appalled.
i can not pretend to know what if feels like to hold the hand of your 5 month old as a hospital decides its time to pull the plug...i can only imagine the heart break.
i do know what its like to let someone you love, slip away...to help ease their pain as they go...if someone had said to me, "Your mother is going to die and we dont see the point for easing her way into it.." i would have been mortified and outraged.
i think...what im trying so ineloquently to say is that it scares me to allow the hospitals to decide these things. Most of them are corporations...not there for the patients but rather for the dollar signs at the end of their stay. it scares me to think that someone may not be given the medication to ease their way into death when there might be another way....
it scares me that we are willing.... goddamnit... to pull a feeding tube and IV fluids from someone and let them dehydrate to death... how fucken immoral is that?!
sure, they may not be able to be cognizant but if we're so damn ready to pull life support, shouldnt we be willing to ease that pain? how horrid to lie there, not being able to communicate while your tongue sticks to the roof of your mouth and your body literally atrophies because of dehydration...fuck, we show more compassion to death row inmates.
what the fuck?!
sorry, i guess i feel more deeply about this than i knew.

 

[shereads]

The Texas law highlights an issue that's remained unspoken during the Shievo case: who pays?

The pro-life stance is in direct conflict with two other key issues of the Republican right: taxes for social spending (public hospitals and Medicaid) are considered immoral and oppressive; so-called tort reform would limit malpractice awards like the one that kept Terri Shiavo alive for 15 years.

Oops.

The Texas law must have seemed like a brilliant political solution until the death of that baby last week against his parents wishes, which happened to coincide with all those speeches about the sanctity of human life. As the president's spokeshead said last week when asked about the ironic confluence of events, the Texas law is actually a compassionate, pro-life law because it guarantees that families have some time to research alternatives.

"Your child's life is a sacred trust, Mr. and Mrs. Nobody, and Gov. Bush wouldn't dream of allowing him to be removed from the ventilator until you've had time to find a hospital that's willing to keep him alive indefinitely. There are some very nice private hospitals. You have money for a private hospital, right?"

It's all about the benjamins.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think, too, that it's fair to observe that there are many historical examples of doctors making poor stewards in this sort of situation. Not merely in pre-Nazi Germany, but also in Sweden and the United States there are ample instances of doctors advocating and/or enacting programs of euthansia, denied treatment, and/or medical experimentation on vulnerable populations, whether the elderly, the orphaned, the racially discriminated against, or the mentally or physically handicapped. This is not to say, of course, that no doctor is capable of being fair in these circumstances - only that history suggests that they have often been far from fair or disinterested parties. I don't see any fair way to safeguard the rights of the vulnerable other than to leave the decisions with them and their families. Personally, I'm willing to give up some of the luxuries in my life to be able to look the parents of a dying child in the eye knowing that I have not torn from them the last rags of their hopes.

Shanglan

 

[BohemianEcstasy]

I haven't read this thread, but I wanted to elucidate something for myself:

Texas-style right to life = You have a right to live if you haven't been born, yet. You have a right to live, even if you want to die. You have a right and obligation to die, though, if we suspect that you killed someone (especially if you're not white).

 

[Pure]

vella ms, said, (note to sher)

to pull a feeding tube and IV fluids from someone and let them dehydrate to death... how fucken immoral is that?!

I agree there. Having 'played God' for ten years, the parents, hospitals and doctors owe her better treatment. Though I did read that she is being given morphine (though not enough to hasten her death).

We are a very weird society; this reminds me of reviving those on death row who've overdosed in suicide attempts; so that they may be executed a few weeks up the road!

Sher said,
The Texas law must have seemed like a brilliant political solution until the death of that baby last week against his parents wishes, which happened to coincide with all those speeches about the sanctity of human life. As the president's spokeshead said last week when asked about the ironic confluence of events, the Texas law is actually a compassionate, pro-life law because it guarantees that families have some time to research alternatives.

Nice points. It's Texas style hypocrisy to say that this 'research period' meant anything to Sun Hudson's (presumably) poor, Black (likely single) mom.

The underlying intent is to safeguard the hospital's finances (cost control), and as the article says, prevent lawsuits from the relatives of those on whom the plug is pulled. That said, there might be some framework where the 'medically futile' treatments are not undertaken, or, if taken, are stopped. And doctors should play a part, along with the loved ones.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I haven't read this thread, but I wanted to elucidate something for myself:

Texas-style right to life = You have a right to live if you haven't been born, yet. You have a right to live, even if you want to die. You have a right and obligation to die, though, if we suspect that you killed someone (especially if you're not white).

Sounds good.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There has to be some law involved. Not only to protect those not able to protect themselves, but to protect caregivers from being targeted by anguished relatives in court.

In the belief, that the best law in such cases is the least law, I have to feel any law dealing with end-of-life decisions should be as broad and inobtrusive as possible.

If doctors decide further treatment is not going to work, they are abiding by an injunction of Hippocrates, Know when an illness has mastered you. Likewise, relatives must be given freedom to try to follow the wishes of the patient. Neither should be consulting law books at that time.

I think doctors need the ability to say, we have done all we can, he/she won't be getting any better. I think relatives have the right to say, we can't accept that and want you to keep trying. Obviously, that creates a conflict and there must be some rules in place for dealing with such conflicts as they will arise.

I think the Texas law ackowledges something we would all rather not. Money plays a part. While it's not fair to tell a mother, we are taking your child off life support, neither is it fair to tell the tax-payer we are keeping such and such on life support indefintely, even though we know no treatment will work, here's the bill.

Objective consideration must at some point prevail in such a deadlock. A five month old could, theoretically be kept alive on a respiratior, feedingtube and defib machine for the next 80 years, with no substantial change in the fact they are brain dead and have been since they were 5 months old. At some point, someone, must decide that constitutes an unreasonable burden on the hospital, caregivers and the tax payer.

While that is evident, how in god's name do you codify it? Texas tried to codify it, by extending a grace period to the relatives to find another care giver who will take responsibility for the patient's care. I don't know if it's the right way to go, but I certainly don't have a better option ready made. Without one, it seems to me decrying it is the wrong tack to take.

 

[Weird Harold]

Objective consideration must at some point prevail in such a deadlock. ...

While that is evident, how in god's name do you codify it? Texas tried to codify it, by extending a grace period to the relatives to find another care giver who will take responsibility for the patient's care. I don't know if it's the right way to go, but I certainly don't have a better option ready made. Without one, it seems to me decrying it is the wrong tack to take.

Good post with good points, Colly.

I think any attempt to codify the issue of objective considerations is going to be opposed by those who wind up too far down the "table of responsibility."

The one thing that the Texas Law does is establish a hierarchy of where the final responsibility for the decision lies -- in this case, it's the "Ethics Board" and NOT the doctor, family, Living Will, or the courts.

Someone needs to be designated that "ultimate authority" to prevent the kind of squabbling that results without a clear line of priority about who decides such issues.

To me, it isn't so much an issue of WHO is the "ultimate authority" as it is that one exists and some safeguards are in place to prevent the abuse of authority. An "Ethics Board" works better for me than any specific individual simply because individuals are more likely to be sidetrcked by emotional considerations and ignore facts than a panel of experts should be.

 

[Pure]

Nice posting, boheme, in its sentiment.

I'd reformulate your statement a little:

boh: Texas-style right to life = You have a right to live if you haven't been born, yet. You have a right to live, even if you want to die. You have a right and obligation to die, though, if we suspect that you killed someone (especially if you're not white).

1.A fertilized egg has a right to life, even if it's NOT going to be implanted (in the course of nature).

2. A fetus, engendered by your father or a rapist, has a right to life, even if carrying it makes you very inclined to take your own life.

3. You commit a crime {Added: and are immoral and sinful}if you try to take your life.

4. You may have a right to life (or indeed an {added: legal and moral} obigation to it), even though you do not want to live, your reasons include intolerable pain, no long term hope.

5. You may have an obligation to die, if you're decided, by a hospital, to represent 'futile medical' treatment.

6. You may NOT have an obligation to die (-> no right to life), if one hospital decides it's futile, but your family can convince and pay another to keep you alive.

7. You have an obligation to die, even if your trial was unfair or you were poorly defended.

8. You may have an obligation to die, if you kill and are early teen or retarded, esp. if you're black or poor.

9. You may NOT have an obligation to die (=you may have a right to life, outside of prison) e.g., if you kill, but are rich, well connected, and well-represented. Your shame may be adequate punishment in such cases.
---

I welcome any assistance, esp. by southerners, those like Joe W., on formulating the basics of Texas 'right to life' and 'right to die.'

It would be interesting to see when this belief and value system came to represent that of a main portion of Christians....

 

[BlackShanglan]

Pure, call this a little gift from me. I know you were finding today dull going, so here's something pleasantly incendiary to play with. I'll take your list one at a time and make some massively unpopular statements. Enjoy -

Shanglan

1.A fertilized egg has a right to life, even if it's NOT going to be implanted (in the course of nature).

Practically speaking, there's really no need to distinguish here. That is, if it's going to be implanted, then it will become a life; if it's not, then at least in terms of abortion it's rather a moot point. For the record, however, those who believe that life begins at conception do believe that the fertilized egg is alive and should not be destroyed or made the subject of experimentation.

2. A fetus, engendered by your father or a rapist, has a right to life, even if carrying it makes you very inclined to take your own life.

Yes. The rapist's, pederast's, or or parent's actions are the source of the suffering, not the fetus's. One who believes that life begins with conception believes that the fetus is a human life; that assumption made, the conclusion logically is that, like other humans, it should not be killed because its life makes another human unhappy, even if suicidally so, unless it had committed some crime for which the penalty is death. If one assumes that the fetus is hunman, one logically assumes that it has the same basic rights other humans have under the Constitution.

Note that I do understand - although I do not agree with - the position that a fetus is not a human life. If one makes that assumption, then naturally the concommitent assumptions about rights will be different. I would argue that this is why the abortion debate has no clear end in sight; there is no definitive answer (as in accepted by all parties) as to what constitutes a human life. This is not because we can't measure or examine fetuses, but because the word itself is the elusive party.

3. You commit a crime if you try to take your life.

I cannot speak for other denominations, but my church believes that one commits a sin if one takes one's own life. Sin is the sphere of the church; crime is the sphere of the government. I am not familiar with local legislation about suicide, but certainly it seems very silly to attempt to prosecute it since a successful crime would leave no one to prosecute. I am personally opposed to making attempted suicide a crime of any form unless it places other people at risk. There are any number of things I believe to be immoral that I would not wish to see illegal.

4. You may have a right to life (or indeed an obigation to it), even though you do not want to live, your reasons include intolerable pain, no long term hope.

Again, in the area of morality, I believe this to be true. In the area of legislation, I believe that the government should not regulate individual, personal actions and decisions on this topic.

5. You may have an obligation to die, if you're decided, by a hospital, to represent 'futile medical' treatment.

I think this an exceedingly dangerous precedent to set. See my post above. Historically, humans have handled this sort of situation very poorly.

6. You may NOT have an obligation to die (-> no right to life), if one hospital decides it's futile, but your family can convince and pay another to keep you alive.

Naturally, one prefers a living will in which the desires of the individual are clearly spelled out. I think that something we all must consider seriously in an age when medical technology is capable of creating some confusing and painful situations. In the absence of a living will, I think the wishes of the relatives should be heeded. If the relatives disagree, I think it preferable to choose life, as the least irrevocable option.

7. You have an obligation to die, even if your trial was unfair or you were poorly defended.

My recent reading about representation in capital offences is extremely disturbing. I cannot but agree with the judge who stated that in his opinion, indigent persons accused of capital offences were some of the worst-represented people in the legal system. I think more than anything it shows a very clear need for some substantial overhauls to the ways in which public defense is provided and funded.

8. You may have an obligation to die, if you kill and are early teen or retarded, esp. if you're black or poor.

"Retarded" is a very difficult label to pin down; IQ tests are notoriously inaccurate when given to adults, and it's difficult to find an unbiased and effective way to evaluate someone with so much at stake. But, agreed - the rate at which the capital penalty is applied to persons of color is disturbing, and one has severe qualms about the ethics of applying the death penalty to persons who may not have understood the consequences of their actions.

Personally, I believe that there is a place for the death penalty. Its place, in my opinion, would best be for those criminals too dangerous to keep alive - like, for example, PeeWee Gaskins, who tried to put a firebomb hit on his prosecutor's daughter while in jail, and who also attacked guards and inmates. This was a good example of a man who had shown that even life, the first and foremost right, could not be given to him without risking someone else's existence. In such a case, I think the death penalty merited. But it is a surrender. It is a sorrowful occasion on which we admit that we have created a monster that we can neither contain nor reform. I do not believe that it should be used to destroy panicked 17-year-olds who participate in a robbery that goes horribly wrong. They should pay, and severely, for their terrible destruction - but I do not believe that they merit death unless they show more clearly that there is no other solution.

9. You may NOT have an obligation to die (=you may have a right to life, outside of prison) e.g., if you kill, but are rich, well connected, and well-represented. Your shame may be adequate punishment in such cases.

As above. I think this has less to do with the nature of penalties than the nature of representation, which I agree requires fresh vision and new thought.

It would be interesting to see when this belief and value system came to represent that of a main portion of Christians....

I'm not at all convinced that it does. I suspect, for instance, that relatively few are familiar with statistics on death penalty representation and minority population. I think, too, that it's important to remember that there is not a single, monolithic voice that supports each of these issues, any more than there is a single voice that objects to them. Some of the ideas I support; others I reject. At any rate, Pure, I hope I amuse.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Those are some interesting points, Shang, and of course each issue could spawn a thread ... or a book.

My questions was when the list has come to represent the views of a substantial portion of Christians, esp. the social conservatives and evangelicals, esp. in the South.

Shang replied: I'm not at all convinced that it does. I suspect, for instance, that relatively few are familiar with statistics on death penalty representation and minority population. I think, too, that it's important to remember that there is not a single, monolithic voice that supports each of these issues, any more than there is a single voice that objects to them.
----

Pure: I think they do cohere as a weird 'pro life' package, that exhibits the irony of the label. I'd agree there are gray areas and persons who fit only partially. Especially I would think that some Christians aren't that happy executing 14 year olds, and the severely retarded. So I think 8 is possibly questionable as being in the package, and no one seriously SAYS 9. except us who criticize, so that could be dropped, too (though everyone knows they are damn few rich folks in prison).

So I think the Dobson group, the pro family are pretty much captured in 1-7, with some possible to and fro around rape and incest exception in anti abortion laws. On the one hand, some make the incest exception; on the other hand some are stricter than my list, and will not permit many abortions when the pregnancy would seriously put the mom at risk, or even cause her--as an incidental result-- to die (Catholic position).

The general point, though, is that it's a pretty vengeful and confused bundle of positions that now call themselves 'pro life.'

----
PS. I clarified a couple points around suicide: I was not just talking about the law, but the morality and 'sin' status of suicide.

 

[cantdog]

Unless you're Joe.

Most of this stuff is entirely outside the sphere of the U.S. constitution, too, and should be left to the states. No consideration of this kind seems to stop them, when it comes to baseball, of course.

I think Bubba Bush just likes to kill people. I think it makes him feel powerful to do it. He has yet to turn down an opportunity.

 

[Pure]

Just to throw the ball back in your court, shang, let's look at 3 and 4., the moral angle.

Is there any reason to suppose that suicide is always a sin? is 'playing God'? is always immoral?

(You may if you like, assume there is a God, and that life is God's gift.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

on the other hand some are stricter than my list, and will not permit many abortions when the pregnancy would seriously put the mom at risk, or even cause her--as an incidental result-- to die (Catholic position).

This is not the stance of the Catholic church. They permit self-defense when the mother's life is in danger.

The Catholic church has also opposed the death penalty fairly universally.

The general point, though, is that it's a pretty vengeful and confused bundle of positions that now call themselves 'pro life.'

The only things I see as "vengeful" are some applications of the death penalty - but again, many who support elements of the death penalty don't support wide-scale application or the execution of the retarded or under-aged. Where do you see confusion?

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Just to throw the ball back in your court, shang, let's look at 3 and 4., the moral angle.

Is there any reason to suppose that suicide is always a sin? is 'playing God'? is always immoral?

(You may if you like, assume there is a God, and that life is God's gift.)

It's interesting you mention this, as I just finished re-reading Paradise Lost. Milton's take there, specifically as related to Adam, is that he declines to committ suicide after being cast out of Eden because he realizes that God is punishing him and he decides to submit to that punishment rather than try to elude it. This fits into the Puritan concept of man as inherently sinful; man owes it to God to suffer through life, and so suicide is an attempt to escape God's just punishment on mankind.

Thank goodness I don't believe that! Sounds horrible. Who wants to wake up to that every day?

Some less punitive reasons why one might think suicide wrong:

1) It can be selfish and bring misery to others.
2) One might believe life to be God's gift, and rejection of it ingratitude.
3) One might believe that physical suffering teaches some important lesson or imparts some special discipline, either to oneself or to others.
4) One might believe despair to be a sin.

All of those, of course, I think very open to argument. I'm not trying to persuade anyone that they are true - only to explain why some people regard suicide as sinful.

Shanglan

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Texas-style right to life . . . It would be interesting to see when this belief and value system came to represent that of a main portion of Christians....

Texas Right to Life, Second Amendment

You also have a right to own, and in many cases carry (even concealed about your person) as many implements of death as you can afford, and to use them protecting yourself against others whom you imagine might not be willing to respect your right to keep your life, or even – especially – your property.


If I'm not mistaken, that was originally stated as: Do unto others before they get enough ammunition to do unto you.


I belive it came from the Sermon on The Might, just before Napalm Sunday.


'Nother question gone a-begging: Why is it that only Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts know exactly what GOD's WILL is?

Could He not have told some suicides that it was time to take themselves out of the game?

 

[cantdog]

If the point of the death penalty is revenge, then one should kill retarded and five-year-old killers. It would not then matter if they were capable of understanding what they'd done, since it made little difference to the victims, who died all the same. Revenge is entirely about the victims.

If the point is to feel powerful killing people, then Bush has your answer. Kill. Killing for the thrill is killing for the thrill.

If the point is deterrence, then it makes little sense to kill killers who don't have the capacity to understand their actions. Such killers won't understand the deterrence, either.

If the point is to thin the population of colored people, then ask only of their skin color.

Much depends on the point of the exercise.

There is little logical connection across the issues of death penalty and abortion. To use "right to life" as a bridge term is to ignore some very basic considerations. One position in either sphere does not logically result in one in the other sphere. With a few exceptions.

For instance, if the objection to abortion is that its agent is acting as only God may justly act, then by the same logic, there must be no capital punishment. Someone has to pull the switch, and act in a way only God may do. And God has had uses in the past for killers, and even for capital punishment. Famously, in the case of Jesus. It is perhaps only God who may justly inflict death.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There is little logical connection across the issues of death penalty and abortion. To use "right to life" as a bridge term is to ignore some very basic considerations. One position in either sphere does not logically result in one in the other sphere. With a few exceptions.

Agreed

For instance, if the objection to abortion is that its agent is acting as only God may justly act, then by the same logic, there must be no capital punishment. Someone has to pull the switch, and act in a way only God may do. And God has had uses in the past for killers, and even for capital punishment. Famously, in the case of Jesus. It is perhaps only God who may justly inflict death.

*nods* My position derives from the general recognition of most religions that killing in self-defense is understandable. I support the death penalty for people who pose a continuing threat to others.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

Similarly, life cannot be shown to begin at conception. The idea is difficult at best to defend. The gametes themselves exhibit many of the features which define "life," for example. The Biblical view is that the unborn are the equivalent of property, too. It's right there next to the "eye for an eye" rule. The fellow who attacks your wife and causes her to lose the baby she carries must pay a fine, not lose his life. The potential labor of the new citizen is lost to the family and must be compensated, seems to be the logic, whereas a killing warrants a death in return.

Life beginning at conception is a relatively new idea.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . *nods* My position derives from the general recognition of most religions that killing in self-defense is understandable . . .

The real question is, from what authority do the religions derive this recognition: The Sixth Commandment or The Golden Rule?


Speaking of which, isn't it hypocritical to insist on posting the Ten Commandments in any court where the death penalty may be pronounced?

 

[cantdog]

The commandment states that you shall not do murder, not that you shall not kill. King James version strikes again.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The commandment states that you shall not do murder, not that you shall not kill. King James version strikes again.

The 1631 Edition of the King James Version is my favorite.

 

[cantdog]

I love the language of it. The hipster versions and the Bowdlerized ones make me shudder. If you are going to translate poetry, it should become poetry in the new language. But then, I don't plan to worship the book or let its pronouncements guide my life in any significant way.