I love this version of a living will! (It’s been modified from this original.)

If I wind up severely brain damaged you will perform all the tests. You will not rely on the word of some clown who’s too lazy or stupid to do a proper examination, you will do an MRI and a PET. Poking me with car keys does not constitute a proper test to determine my mental acuity. A slap to the forehead is not a valid measure of my pain threshold. Forty-five minutes is not enough time to make a diagnosis that will get me killed. Do it right, with a real doctor who has no connection to the Hemlock Society. I hate those creeps.

You will engage me in conversation. You will stimulate what remains of my mind. I will be taken outside for daily walks, given dogs and cats to pet (as well as I am able), and otherwise involved in the world. You will not keep me locked up away from the world, the better to expedite deterioration and death.

I will have rehabilitation. If there is even the slightest chance I can improve you will encourage that improvement.

Anyone who has no knowledge of my case who claims that I am in a persistent vegetative state shall be taken to court for defamation. The money gained from such suits will go to my support. The same applies to those who do examine me, and then lie about my condition. Especially if they have ever had any connection to the Hemlock Society, or Planned Parenthood, or the NEA (either NEA—I’m not choosy) (I would also include the ACLU in this list. -Ed). If it turns out they have had such associations, then sue those groups too. They have lots of money that would be better used making me well.

If I need a feeding tube any attempt to remove said feeding tube shall be considered attempted homicide and prosecuted accordingly. In addition, if said action was ordered by a court of law the judge presiding is to be charged on civil rights grounds and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Any pundit of any stripe who states that I would not want to be in such a state is to be stripped naked, his skin rubbed raw with scrubbing pads, salt placed on the wounds, and then tossed into a vat of carrion beetles. After being given drugs that heighten sensation. This action will be taped and distributed on the internet.

If provided with a guardian and said guardian petitions to have me killed, that guardian is to be charged with attempted murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. See above paragraph for hints of my other wishes involving said guardian.

I’ll die when I die. You will not rush matters. You will leave well enough alone. Death happens soon enough for us all, don’t be so damn eager to hurry it up.

Doggon! I wish I had written this. It’s just sooooo good!

It used to be that you needed a living will to tell the doctors, family and courts when to stop trying to keep us alive when we were dying. How the heck has our country gone a full 180 to the point where we need a living will to tell those same people (especially the courts!) to not murder us if we become disabled?

Here are some more excellent articles on Terri’s situation:

• Fearfully and Wonderfully Made from Agent Tim. An interview with a disabled woman.
• Bloggers’ Best for Terri Schiavo, Part Eight from Wittenberg Gate
• FOCUS: Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo Excellent!
• Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder
• Religious Bigotry in Action from Imago Dei
• Meet Judge Greer’s pastor from WorldNetDaily
• Jeb Bush is courting dereliction of duty by Alan Keyes

Update: Added two more articles to the list.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post recently participated in an online chat. He was pressed about why he considered Terri Schiavo’s situation to be similar to the death of Tom DeLay’s father:

Evansville, Ind.: You said, “As I wrote last week, there have been many, many cases like this (including, we now know, that of Tom DeLay’s father), that didn’t rate a paragraph in the paper.” But DeLay’s father’s had a brain hemorrhage and broken ribs; he needed a tracheotomy and ventilator to assist his breathing; and his body was full of infections. Terri Schiavo’s vital functions are working perfectly well; she simply needs a feeding tube because she cannot swallow on her own.

Unlike Terri Schiavo, he was in a state of steady deterioration and at death’s imminent doorstep within days of his accident. Unlike the Schiavo case, there was a family consensus among the DeLays and no dispute over what the father would have wanted. Moreover, DeLay was not the primary decision-maker in the family’s choice to withhold heroic treatment. That role fell to his mother and another brother and sister.

Why say they’re similar?

Howard Kurtz: Similar in this respect: The family had to make a decision on whether to end the life of a seriously ill person with no realistic hope of recovery. Obviously the medical details of every case are different, and in some cases family members are in agreement and in others they’re not. But the question, which the Schiavo case has underscored, is whether family members, in consultation with doctors, get to make the decision, or whether government gets to intervene.

There is one very vital difference between Terri Schiavo’s case and that of Mr. DeLay which Mr. Kurtz and his ilk are glossing over. Mr. DeLay was about to die within a number of days in spite of any efforts to the contrary. Terri Schiavo was in no danger of dying as long as her basic needs for food, water and air were met; needs shared by every human being on this planet.

Anyone who attempts to downplay this difference is either woefully ignorant, completely lacking in critical thinking skills, or they have an agenda. Those who are ignorant or thickheaded can be pitied. It’s those with an agenda who are dangerous. Their underhanded attempts to create a so-called “Right To Die” for those who are not actually dying is nothing more than demanding the power to have the weak and disabled “put out of our their misery for our their own good.”

There is a vast difference between ceasing to struggle when a battle has already been lost and actively killing someone who is not engaged in a battle for their life.

When death cannot be stopped, continuing treatment can only cause harm. That is the premise of a legitimate right to die. For example, a patient suffering from incurable cancer cannot be saved by doing chemotherapy. If they’re given chemo anyway, not only is the patient still dying, they’re also made more miserable by chemotherapy’s side effects.

When death is not near, as in Terri’s case, having a doctor stop food and water violates the cardinal rule of medicine: “First do no harm.” Without this rule in place, we set the practice of medicine back 2,400 years to the time before the Hippocratic Oath; a time when doctors might not have the patient’s best interests at heart.

Without a solid prohibition against taking life, it is one small step to move from a “Right To Die for the Living“ to a “Duty To Die” and society killing the unwanted and defenseless without regard for their “wishes.” This mistake has been made in the past with devastating consequences. I pray that our country realizes the danger of this path before we also reenter the meat grinder of history because we ignored its lessons.

(Also be sure to read this article on euthanasia.)

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

For Easter Sunday, I decided to post a story I wrote a few years ago. I also thought it would be cool to see what else other bloggers posted for the most important celebration in Christianity. What I found ranges from light reading through heavy articles on the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

• What the Resurrection Means for Believers from Rebecca Writes
• He Is Risen by Revenge of Mr Dumpling
• The Greatest News Ever Heard by Billy Graham
• One Sunday morning long ago by Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping
• Easter Challenge by Tod Bolsinger of It Takes A Church…
• The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Fact by Benjamin B. Warfield
• The Risen Jesus by Benjamin B. Warfield
• The Resurrection of Christ by J. Gresham Machen
• Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
• The Resurrection of Christ and the Reality of the Gospel by Albert Mohler

The Incredibles is a fabulous movie. So when Michelle Malkin pointed to a quiz which asks “Which Incredibles character are you?” I just had to go check it out. My result?

Which Incredibles Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I like that. (As long as my wife agrees!)  

A Texas rancher was bragging to the owner of a small farm in Illinois.

“I can get in my car at six in the morning, drive for six hours, spend an hour eating lunch, drive another six hours, and I still wouldn’t have reached the end of my property.”

“Yeah,” the farmer replied, nodding sympathetically. “I had a car like that once, too.”