This is a tough incident to consider, especially because it brings up many other uncomfortable issues.
THIS incident SHOULD give people...especially "Liberal/Progressive" people pause for thought.
Ruben Houston was thought to be having a seizure on a bus on May 15th, 2019 but it turned out to be an overdose.
Police and Firefighters arrived on scene and Narcan was delivered.
Houston remained unconscious after the first dose of Narcan and required a second dose. He told the 1st responders that he'd taken some of his wife's morphine.
After that, things went down hill quickly, as Houston refused further medical treatment, but Wisconsin law requires an unconscious patient be brought in for observation.
Things escalated from there (see video within article) and Police bodycam footage released by the Appleton, Wisconsin Police Department shows officers engaged in a gun battle with the 47-year-old Ruben Houston last month. Officer Paul Christensen and Sgt. Christopher Biese exchanged shots with the Wausau resident on May 15th, outside of Appleton's downtown transit center.
Christensen was wounded, along with a bystander, and both were later released from the hospital.
However, Appleton firefighter Mitchell Lundgaard, 36, was shot and died as a result of his injuries at a hospital.
Worse still, Ruben Houston turns out to have been a career criminal and longtime drug abuser. Houston’s criminal record shows convictions for firearms possession, drug possession and other felonies dating to 1990. Other charges included fleeing an officer in 1990; robbery with a dangerous weapon in 1991 in Milwaukee County; and possession of a firearm in 1996, also in Milwaukee, according to the Post-Crescent. He served at least two stints in federal prison.
This begs the ethical question of whether simply withholding such extreme recovery measures based on a person's criminal background is the right way to go in such cases.
It's not as though we haven't broached that ethical question already.
When Ralph Northam (Governor of VA) recently responded to NBC Washington’s Julie Carey's question about whether he supported a bill proposed by Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran (D), which would allow abortions - up to the moment of birth, he answered; “In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” (https://www.cnsnews.com/…/virginia-governor-describes-how-p…)
So, the Governor clearly said that a baby born healthy and alive could be “kept comfortable” and then “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired” – the implication being that the baby could be left to die if the family decided they did not want to keep their child.
THAT is currently the Democrat standard ("Abortion until birth"), so, we agree in essence, that no life is sacred.
That said, the rest is entirely logical; such life and death decisions are legal and ethical.
For those who support "Abortion Until Birth," then it obviously follows that other such life/death decisions are legitimate, as well, like refusing to deliver Narcan to someone who has overdosed, but has a violent felony history.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment