Clicking on banner ads keeps JWR alive
Jewish World Review July 26, 2001 / 6 Menachem-Av, 5761

Debra J. Saunders

Debra J. Saunders
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

If disabled means expendable -- IF Robert Wendland, 49, had been a convicted killer on death row, there would have been legions of righteous do-gooders demanding that he not be executed because he was mentally retarded. Instead, he was in Lodi Memorial Hospital, brain-damaged and half-paralyzed by a 1993 car accident. Thus, when his wife Rose sought to cut off his food and fluids to allow him to die of thirst, her lawyer argued that death would be in his "best interests" because: "Robert is a man with no life that is meaningful to him.''

Wendland died of pneumonia last week as the California Supreme Court was about to rule on legal attempts by his mother Florence and sister Rebekah Vinson to keep Wendland alive. Now the court can and must issue a ruling that makes it clear that the state cannot allow relatives to euthanize the severely brain-damaged, or as the pro-dehydration folks put it, those in a "minimally conscious state." That term, which they applied to Wendland, glosses over the fact that, even if he could not walk or talk, he could toss a ball, maneuver his wheelchair and, according to a sworn affidavit, he would kiss his mother's hand and present his hand for his mother to kiss.

Courts have been correct in upholding the rights of patients to refuse unwanted surgery or to be hooked up to life-extending machines. Wendland, however, could not consent to withholding treatment -- if you call providing food and water treatment. Wendland left no written directive asking that sustenance be withheld in the event of a severe accident.

(Good for him: Many people think they would not want to live if disabled -- until they are disabled.)

Here's the real issue before the Big Bench: Should able-bodied Californians let their fear and revulsion at the thought of being disabled lead to policies that allow families to kill disabled people who are not competent to make medical decisions?

If the answer is yes, Californians will follow in the footsteps of euthanizing Nazis: killing retarded and brain-damaged people -- because it's best for them.

Or as Rose Wendland's attorney suggested to the court -- and he is hardly the first to do so -- withholding food and water would allow Wendland to maintain his "dignity." Diane Coleman, president of the disability-advocacy group Not Yet Dead, finds the "dignity" argument "so insulting to us as a minority group. To say that someone needs to be able to walk, talk and go to the bathroom by themselves to have dignity -- that's ridiculous. And those ideas don't come from within a (disabled) person, they come from people outside telling them that they don't have dignity."

I should advise readers that my husband, Wesley J. Smith, wrote a friend of the court brief pro bono for the Coalition of Concerned Medical Professionals that took the side of Wendland's mother and sister.

I have watched as others have impugned the motives of those individuals who dedicated countless hours to keep a helpless, profoundly brain-damaged man alive. The pro-death side speaks as if there is something noble and caring about trying to withhold water from a disabled man, and something twisted and busybodyish in trying to save him.

If the dehydration forces prevail, it will be open season on the cognitively disabled. But don't compare any beneficent dehydrations to what the Nazis did; the Nazis weren't as caring as modern Californians.

Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here.


07/23/01: Condit should not resign
07/18/01: Feinstein should learn her limit
07/16/01: A drought of common sense
07/13/01: The catalog has no clothes
07/05/01: It's Bush against the planet
07/03/01: The man who would be guv
06/29/01: Wheeled, wired and free
06/27/01: O, fearful new world
06/25/01: End HMO horrors
06/21/01: Either they're dishonest or clueless
06/18/01: Freedom is a puff of smoke
06/15/01: In praise of going heavy: Yes, you can take it all
06/13/01: McVeigh: 'Unbowed' maybe, but dead for sure
06/11/01: Gumby strikes back
06/08/01: Los Angeles' last white mayor?
06/07/01: Kids will be kids, media will be media
06/04/01: Draw a line in the sand
05/30/01: Just don't call him a moderate
05/29/01: Operation: Beat up on civil rights
05/24/01: Of puppies, kittens and huge credit-card debts
05/22/01: Bush needs an energy tinkerbell
05/18/01: Divided we stand, united they fall
05/16/01: Big Bench backs might over right
05/15/01: Close SUV loophole
05/11/01: Kill the test, welcome failure
05/09/01: DA mayor's disappointing legacy
05/07/01: If it ain't broken ...
05/03/01: They shoot civilians, don't they?
04/30/01: Executions are not for prime time
04/12/01: White House and the green myth
04/10/01: The perjurer as celeb
04/04/01: Bush bashers don't know squat
04/02/01: Drugging our oldsters
03/30/01: Robert Lee Massie exercises his death wish
03/28/01: Cheney's nuclear reactor
03/26/01: Where California and Mexico meet
03/16/01: Boy's sentence was no accident
03/14/01: Soft money, hard reform
03/12/01: Banks, big credit lines and consumer bankruptcy
03/09/01: Free speech dies in Berkeley
03/02/01: When rats have rights
02/28/01: Move a frog, go to jail?
02/26/01: They knew they'd get away with it
02/20/01: How Dems define tax fairness
02/16/01: The jackpot casino Carmel tribe?
02/14/01: You can fight school success
02/12/01: Hannibal -- with guts this time
02/08/01: A family of jailbirds
02/05/01: Reality's most demeaning TV moments
02/01/01: Justice for the non-Rich
01/26/01: Hail to the chiefs of D.C. opinion
01/24/01: A day of mud and monuments
01/22/01: Diversity, division, de-lovely D.C.
01/19/01: Parties agree: Give back the money
01/17/01: Get tough with the oil companies, or forget pumping more Alaskan crude
01/15/01: Mineta better pray that no attending confirmation senator has ever driven to San Jose during rush hour
01/12/01: Europeans should look in the mirror
01/10/01: Dems' reasons for dissin' Dubya's picks
01/08/01: Jerry, curb your guru
01/03/01: A foe of Hitler and friend of Keating
12/28/00: Nice people think nice thoughts
12/26/00: The Clinton years: Epilogue
12/21/00: 'Tis the season to free nonviolent drug offenders 12/18/00: A golden opportunity is squandered
12/15/00: You can take the 24 years, good son
12/13/00: Court of law vs. court of public opinion
12/08/00: A salvo in the war on the war on drugs
12/06/00: Don't cry, Butterfly: Big trees make great decks
12/04/00: Florida: Don't do as Romans did
11/30/00: Special City's hotel parking ticket
11/27/00: No means yes, yes means more than yes
11/22/00: The bench, the ballot and fairness
11/20/00: Mendocino, how green is your ballot?

© 2000, Creators Syndicate