By Kevin Abrams
In 1989 my father-in-law was hospitalized. Following numerous complications, and a after short time his situation had deteriorated. Becoming unconscious he was kept alive by a respirator. He was 85. The Doctor in charge of the intensive care ward called a meeting of the family members. We gathered and discussed the possibility of recovery, which was determined to be negligible. Some family members were favorable to the Doctors suggestion we consider removing life support and allow "nature" to take its course. Simple enough, and apparently compassionate for those present and accounted for. But there is a higher law than that which is enacted in the courts of man. This is in Godís Court, the highest Court of the land.
He, who permits that no man may determine the moment of death for another by either an act of omission or commission. Otherwise, man, in his finite wisdom, is not permitted to contribute passively or actively to the death of an innocent human being. And certainly Mrs. Terri Schiavo was, and still is innocent. In such instances, where measures have already been initiated to preserve life, they then may not be removed or discontinued due to some perceived inconvenience, or the self-pity and pragmatism which so often postures as compassion. Man is not an article of commerce wherein life can be bartered and measured in dollars and cents, even though many of the "guardians" of our present consumer society imagine this to be so.
In conclusion, any consideration to remove life support for my father-in-law was suspended upon the advice of our Rabbi who had been contacted to attend the meeting. My father-in-law passed from this world at his appointed time with dignity surrounded by family members, which to this day I am convinced brought about a proper closure for all concerned. As I understand it, most of the Courts in both Canada and the United States, are today Admiralty Courts, which are guided by Admiralty or commercial law. It is doubtful a common law court, acting on behalf of its citizens would or could have reached a similar decision. The reason being, common law courts must act within the spirit and letter of the American Constitution, whereas Admiralty Courts do not. In Admiralty law, persons have only privileges and licenses, which may be granted or denied by the Court.
In an Admiralty
Court, one is dealing with a tribunal, wherein the inalienable rights
to life, liberty and property can be violated and pragmatically weighed
and "scientifically" measured. In Admiralty Courts the life and dignity
of all Americans hang in the balance in many spheres of human endeavor,
be it in life OR death. That today, March 18, 2005, Florida Judge George
Greer would employ his position to order, or be implicated in any way,
in bringing about the death of an innocent and incapacitated human being,
is anathema to the sanctity of life. That he should now violate the
lawful boundaries, which have been established by the heavenly Court,
and the original spirit of the American Constitution, this should serve
as a warning and caution to all Americans. It is still not too late.
The number 18 in Hebrew represents Chai or life. So, Leí Chaim to you
Mrs. Terri Schiavo. In America, it is "In God We Trust." Time to reflect.
© 2005 Kevin Abrams - All Rights Reserved
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Kevin E. Abrams is not a product of Academia. Kevin refers to himself as a lay "psycho-historian," meaning, the study of "who," and the "why" of history. Over the past 20 years, he has written numerous articles on the "gay" issue, and in 1995 co-authored The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality In The Nazi Party with Mr. Scott Lively.