Killing of disabled girl “wholly inappropriate” and “extremely troubling” says Autism group

The euthanasia of Nancy Fitzmaurice, a severely disabled child who was not dying has made international waves with disability advocates especially outraged. Nancy’s mother had requested that her daughter be killed and was granted approval by the British legal system. While the 12-year-old Nancy had significant disabilities, she was able to breathe on her own and did not require life support.

Following the starving of Nancy through the withholding of fluids, the Autism Self Advocacy Network has released a statement slamming this decision, calling it “troubling” and “concerning”.

They said that:

The decision constitutes an extremely troubling legal precedent, representing the first time the British legal system has allowed a child breathing on her own, not on life support and not diagnosed with any terminal illness, to be killed by the medical system.

Euthanasia of people with disabilities is an extremely dangerous and wholly inappropriate solution to inadequate pain management. In cases where painkillers are insufficient, a number of alternatives for pain management exist. A policy of euthanasia targets vulnerable people, particularly when it is applied to children. People with disabilities who experience chronic pain should have same access as others to life-sustaining medical treatment.

When parents and physicians have the ability to authorize the killing of disabled children, we see serious abuses. Recently, ASAN and twelve other disability rights groups filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the University of Wisconsin Hospital’s practice of counseling parents to withhold care from children with disabilities for treatable but life-threatening medical conditions. In one such instance, a child with developmental disabilities died after a hospital doctor advised his parents that they could withdraw his feeding tube – which provided fluids and nutrition – based on his supposedly low “quality of life.” The medical condition supposedly justifying this measure was treatable pneumonia. The child died the next day, after administration of morphine. Such actions demonstrate the results of a policy that allows families and clinicians to discriminate on the basis of disability in the application of life-sustaining treatment.

ASAN furthermore was, “concerned that the voices of people with disabilities with similar support needs were not heard in this discussion.”

ASAN hits the nail on the head, and especially so by calling out the media coverage of this story, which has been overwhelmingly positive.

Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise is portrayed as a loving, devoted, selfless, noble mother for making the decision to kill her daughter, because any child that severely disabled should obviously be put down, like a dog.

Yahoo News described it as “a mother’s fight to let her daughter die in peace” – because, you know, slowly dying of starvation and dehydration over the course of two weeks is just so peaceful. Salon described it as “powerful.” Australia’s talked about how Nancy had no quality of life and how her “heartbroken” mother knew that it was too much for her daughter to bear. And on and on it goes.

You know what all of these have in common? Everyone is presuming to know, without any input from Nancy herself, whether her life was worth living. They are all making that decision, that judgment, on their own – on behalf of a living, breathing person who could not speak for herself.

It is so profoundly disturbing, seeing so many people applaud this mother’s choice to kill her daughter and to call a slow, torturous death “dignified.”

What is dangerous about Nancy Fitzmaurice’s case is that it sets a horrific legal precedent. Now, can any parent go to court and claim that their disabled child is “suffering” and that it would be kinder to just kill them?

People with disabilities will be seen as burdens and drains on society, if the mindset that citizens must be productive in order to be of value takes hold. This obviously robs people of their inherent value, worth, and dignity.

Someone who has a disability is not less deserving of life than anyone else. Their lives are worth living.

As ASAN points out, these kinds of decisions are rife with abuse – their example of a disabled child put to death because they had pneumonia is horrifying, but not altogether surprising. There was also the Baby Doe case, where a baby with Down syndrome was allowed to be killed by starving him to death with his parents’ consent, even though multiple families offered to adopt the baby.

Plenty more parents kill their disabled children the old-fashioned way. If we open the door to allowing parents to kill their children because they have a disability, then we will undoubtedly see thousands upon thousands of children killed by their ableist parents who are prejudiced against people with disabilities. It will be a massive tragedy.

We cannot allow it to become acceptable to kill a person because they are disabled, or because someone feels they can decide whether their quality of life is good enough to merit their continued living.

  • Basset_Hound

    Disabilities??? This could very well give an open door for a child to be killed for ANY reason. Say if a child isn’t the outstanding athlete, musical prodigy or scholar that the parents were hoping for, or if the mom’s new stud-muffin boyfriend doesn’t want to raise another man’s kids.

    • Lauren

      Really? You really think the legal euthaniasia of a little girl suffering in 24-hour agony opens the door for the euthanasia of healthy children who aren’t athletes or prodigies? That’s a massive leap in logic and makes zero sense.

      • Petrichor

        We don’t know if this girl was suffering 24-hour agony because she couldn’t communicate how she felt, and even if she could have I doubt she wouldn’t have been consulted,

        And this goes beyond euthanasia, too. Euthanasia is still incredibly evil, but it usually takes less than an hour for the standard euthanasia drug to kick in. This girl suffered from hunger and thirst–two of the most incredible pains known to humanity– for two weeks. This is murder whether or not some fool judge approved it. (Murder isn’t legal, by the way.)
        And what Basset said certainly made sense. Why? This girl wasn’t the daughter her mom wanted. She couldn’t play, or run, or go to school, or really anything that her mother wanted. Her mother didn’t like that her little girl wasn’t meeting her standards, and decided to LEGALLY kill her. What if, as Basset said, I wanted an amazing athlete for a kid, only to find out that my child was unable to walk? Am I allowed to kill the kid because they aren’t meeting my standards? I should be, according to Nancy’s mother and the judge that allowed her to kill her daughter.

      • Basset_Hound

        Um….it’s easy when the definition of “suffering” and “agony” becomes purely subjective, and based on a sliding scale. Belgium has legalized child euthanasia with parental consent, as long as the child “fully understands the implication of the decision”. A far more constructive solution would be to help ease the person’s suffering, not your form of lethal “compassion”. As for the child being in “24 hour agony”, that’s EXACTLY what would happen for two weeks while the child starves to death.

  • Petrichor

    This poor girl. This is even on the same level as abortion, except in this case there’s no denying that this is a living, breathing person that you’re looking at. You don’t have to look at a machine to see this kid and know that Nancy here is a preson who relied on her doctors and her family. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize, “Hey! If this ‘mother’ had starved her child at home without saying anything about it, she’d be in prison right now!” Why is it different to kill this child in a doctor’s office?
    Does being in a hospital make you worth less? Is that it?
    Or is it just that mommy dearest doesn’t give a crap about her kid because she’s too hard to care for?
    Humanity is FAR, far from flawless, but this woman and anyone who would follow in her footsteps won’t be remembered fondly.

    • Lexi

      Abortion is not even the same fucking thing.

    • Sara

      But even here humanity is questioned and even denied. It is as if disabled people, like fetuses, aren’t human to some people…

  • flora

    If foster parents did that to the child, foster parents will be locked up & be regarded as criminals. But …if a judge gives the ok, then the crime becomes tolerated and “ok”? Sick and perverted justice for the innocent people

    • flora

      What a great way to murder without going to jail for the crime! Sick laws, sick justice, criminal mom!

      • bluesuede

        Yes Flora, who is behind it?? What are “laws that protect the innocent” doing to stop this insanity? Who is the power behind allowing this mother to kill her 12 year old child without being a crime???
        Follow the money.

    • Basset_Hound

      “Foster child”? Hell!

      If i had killed my aged dog food by denying her food and water I’d face animal cruelty charges and I might be the lead story on the local newscast!

      One afternoon I went to a fish fry at the lake. On the way back the ONLY thingI cared about was finding a Sonic to pound down a Route 44 strawberry limeade, not the fact that I was doing 70 in a 40 mph zone! And this was only very mild dehydration. I shudder to think of what this girl went through!

      • Petrichor

        As a matter of fact, you would be facing 2 1/2+ years of confinement as well as a large fine and have all other pets seized (depending on location) if you murdered even the oldest, unhealthiest dog in this way.
        So apparently a disabled girl is worth so much less than a dog that it isn’t worth the hassle of sending her murderer to prison, much less stopping the murder from happening in the first place. //sigh

  • Penny

    Perhaps the “Quality of Life” most under consideration here was the mother’s?

  • Frank Swart

    People just love to play God – life has no meaning to some.

  • magdaleni

    Why can’t she let someone else adopt her? I would bet there are willing people.

  • Bruclemom

    we fought Hitler and the Nazis for their brutal treatment of people like Nancy. They starved the Jews too. Now we are outraged with beheadings but how long will the outrage last if this type of behaviour is allowed. God help us all.

    • Petrichor

      You know, this is a rather excellent point. After all, Hitler did euthanize the disabled by lethal injection because they were supposedly a waste of money and too hard to take care of. Of course, he only did that until most Germans, including Nazis, showed displeasure at this particular movement.

      And even worse than the fact that this woman is killing this girl is that she is doing it in a more horrifying way than Hitler did–starvation, although they both ultimately lead to death, is a far more drawn out and painful way to go than lethal injection. Not only that, but even Nazis that supported the labor and extermination of Jews spoke out against this. Why is our “civilized” world supporting something that disgusted even Nazis?

      • TVpartytonight

        After 1941, many disabled people were deported to the death camps and killed there, instead of being killed in the german hospitals.
        The killing of disabled people didn’t stop until at least 1945.
        At least one hospital continued the killings in secret even until 1946.
        The mantra of the “Good German” folks towards the murdering of innocent people would rather be: “I wouldn’t believe that even if I knew it were true.”

  • Tony Farese

    The key to understanding the reality of this is the positive media response. This is just the beginning. The only antidote to this new world order is true principled libertarianism. Until you ground yourself in the absolute truth of self ownership these types of abuses will continue to accelerate. I know you will think that I’m crazy but Alex Jones warned about this years ago. He is sadly right about everything. The same people who brought you 9/11 are the ones applauding the murder of helpless children. I know that makes me some fringe lunatic but if you are against this torture and murder of innocent children and still believe that 9/11 was the work of 12 ding dongs w/ box cutters you better WTFU! If you want to have half a chance at stopping these evil operators you need to know what you’re truly up against. When the bulk of the MSM is going one way in an issue it’s like a banner. All the well “educated” (indoctrinated) folks just roll their eyes and shake their heads at us poor emotional saps not grasping the need for their mercy killing. What they don’t know is that their real masters know there’s nothing merciful about it. They were reveling in the torture. They worship evil and love the suffering of innocents.
    Do your self a favor and go check out Alex Jones and just skip ahead a year or two and just suspend your natural disbelief for the duration of his next radio program. No matter how bizarre what you hear may sound to you just pretend that it is all 100% true. Just imagine the implications of all that implies. Now wake up because every word he says is gospel and if it’s not it’s close enough and better for you just to convince yourself it is because that’s the only way you’re going to have a chance to change the future we are headed for. I’m done. You may crucify me now

    • rosememay

      Crucify you?! I applaud you! I love Alex Jones. If anyone out there thinks for even a second that euthanasia won’t happen in the USA, then think again. It’s been planned for YEARS. Already, seniors that go to doctors (especially psychs) they are asked if they like their quality of life. I know. I’m one of them, and I was asked. It won’t be long folks before your mother, father, sister, brother, grandparents, etc. will be “talked into” or even forced, to be done away with. You will have no say…..none of us will, that want to live. That decision will be made for us. Pick your casket, urn, or whatever out now. The time is coming soon. Oh, and I don’t care how “crazy” I sound. You will someday think back on Tony Farese’s and my warnings and realize we “crazy” people were right.

    • KendraBlair

      well said!

    • Gail Finke

      Your argument is all over the map. 9/11 aside — and I am not going there — “the absolute truth of self ownership” would, for many people, mean the freedom of the fully cognizant mother to determine whether her disabled and non-cognizant child’s life is worth living must be respected. It is the same argument that supports abortion.

      • Tony Farese

        Thanks for your reply but I disagree that is the same as abortion because the fetus can only survive by the mother. Self ownership means that the child owns herself not the mother. The mother is the natural custodian. She may have the right to abandon that role but not to exercise executive authority over the right to live or die. I have children. I don’t own them. They own theirselves. One day I will need to answer to their adult selves for every decision I make on their behalf. I see my role as simply taking care of them for their heavenly Father. I’m honored to do so. I’m humble in that role and would never presume to know his will for them or to not respect theirs.
        Thanks again for your civil contribution to the discussion and choosing to just avoid the whole 9/11 thing. That was all the meant as sort of a hail Mary pass to the folks who were outraged by the murder of the child. Not as a debate with those who defend it.

        • Gail Finke

          Thank you for YOUR civil response! Please consider that “fetus” is simply a word for a child before it’s born, and that it refers to the same child — just as “adolescent” refers to the same child later in life. If you had aborted your children, you would have killed the same children you have now, not some theoretical future children. Their mother did not “own” them before they were born, they were human beings in her care just as they were in her care as infants. To say that they did not own themselves because of where they happened to be (inside the womb vs. outside it) is being disingenuous. An infant one minute after birth can only survive if others take care of him or her; the only difference is that the number of people who can do so has increased. So to say that a woman has the right to kill her children before they are born but not after based on ownership of one’s body is meaningless.

          • Tony Farese

            I wasn’t exactly defending abortion. I was just speaking to your point that killing a 12 year old is the same thing. I’m saying that it’s different because if the mom wants the fetus/child out of her body at the 4 weeks gestation there’s no one that can volunteer to care for it. The same is not true for any live birth & thereafter.

          • john lind

            I’m a hard core libertarian. The libertarian argument that supports abortion is a property rights argument, that the pregnant woman has the right to abort the child because it is, in essence, a trespasser, and she has a legal right not to allow another person to use her property against her will.

            However, this argument is flawed. There are two types of property occupiers. Type one consists of owners, and lessees with a contractual right to occupy the property.

            Type two includes trespassers and guests. A guest is included with trespasers, because a guest becomes a trespasser if he/she stays beyond the invitation period.

            If a type two comes onto a type one’s property, it’s a truism that immediately before coming onto the type one’s property, the type two was on property not occupied or owned by the type one.

            Pregnancy is unique from the fact that the ZEF (or fetus, if you prefer) can be distinguished from the above type two as the ZEF did not enter the woman’s body (her property) in a condition where it was immediately on other property before entering the woman’s property.

            The ZEF came into existence (at conception) inside the woman’s body. It did not enter into her body from the outside.

            At conception, the ZEF obtains a property right in it’s body under Natural Law. If it’s not a type two occupier, then it’s not a trespasser. If it’s not a trespasser, then it’s not initiating aggression and should thererfore, not be aggressed against through abortion.

            If the abortionist and the woman cause the ZEF to be killed through abortion, there is an initiation of aggression against the ZEF.

            The libertarian Non Aggression Principle states, “that it is always unjust to initiate aggression against another through force or threat of force.”

            As such, abortion is a violation of the libertarian Non Aggression Principle.

          • Diane Moffatt

            What is this “natural law”?

          • john lind

            “Law teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” —John Locke

          • Tony Farese

            Thank you. That is very helpful. I guess you could even make an argument for the fact that the woman enters into an implied contract when she voluntarily consents to participate in activities that can reasonably be expected to result in the conception of an independent life with rights of its own. Thanks for your insight.

          • john lind

            Tony, thank you for your reply. The problem that an ‘implied contract’ argument has is, “who was the second party to the contract?”

            The ZEF has not yet come into existence, so it’s hard to conclude that a contract was formed with somebody that’s not yet been concieved and might never be concieved.

            One could argue that there was an implied contract between the mother and father, but if one or the other is in favor of feticide, it would be hard to argue a contract between them.

            Another problem with an implied contract between the parents, is that a woman who was raped clearly did not enter into a contract with the father. This then leads to the unjust “rape exception”, that says a child concieved in rape is not afforded the same rights not to be aggressed against as a child conceived in any other manner.

        • El_Tigre

          And sometimes one has to return another person to the care of the Heavenly Father. Many times persons were taken off life support, expected to die, and didn’t.

  • Jill Maple-mackley

    Murder is murder. These people have not learned from the true gift they were given.

  • Kathleen McKay

    i have a special little girl….I would never presume to judge how or why others make their decisions or how they would live with them…I was not there….therefore it is not for me to judge another…REGARDLESS!

    • GMR


  • Peter

    So wait a second, your telling me if you were in her position where you were blind, couldn’t eat, drink, or do anything for yourself and were in extreme pain and needed constant care you’d rather live than die? Its all very well preserving a life, but what if it has no quality too it?

    • KendraBlair

      I think what we’re saying is that they went about it in the worst way: starvation here is the real issue. We put animals to sleep for Chrissake! If someone were to starve their deaf and blind dog they would probably go to jail. That’s the truth. We treat animals better than human beings. I can understand her mother wanting her to pass on, but the did this the wrong way. She should have (at least) been put on enough medicine to let her go to sleep peacefully.

      • Gail Finke

        No, that’s not what people here are saying. She was not dying, therefore putting her on “enough medicine to let her go to sleep peacefully” would still be killing her. Deciding that people should be killed is a very, very dangerous precedent.

    • GMR


    • GMR

      This girl apparently did NOT have a choice.

      • El_Tigre

        Do any of us have a choice?

        • Jan Kochmeister

          Most of us think we do. Most of us believe we do. Many people believe we have free will.

    • Powa to the People

      Basically, no one has the right to kill an innocent fellow human being, for any reason, period. It’s that simple.

      • El_Tigre

        Look. Just think. THEY DID NOT KILL HER. She ‘died’ a long time ago. What they did is cruel, they kept her alive artificially.

    • Silvia Aldredge

      If you are genuinely interested in answering this question. Consider an article by an author named Harriet McBryde Johnson in the NYT called ‘Unspeakable Conversations’. It might help you to consider this issue from a different perspective.

  • colleen10001

    What an unspeakable horror message this sends to the vulnerable in disabilities community. Prayers and action (education and more) to stop this direction. Prayers for this family that got caught up in unsound thinking and more.

  • ng


  • borgprotocol

    It all comes down to a lack of respect for life. There is also the prevalent notion perpetrated by “modern” society that our lives should not be difficult, free from pain, and any type of suffering or discomfort eliminated. Therefore, the attitude is that we should eliminate anyone who does not have a “normal” quality of life as some may see it, which includes: people who are disabled, unwanted pregnancies, pregnancies as a result of rape, terminal illnesses, and old age It is even seen as selfish to allow anyone who falls into any of these to exist because it is a “burden.”

    In reality, it deprives those who are more able of the opportunity to serve others, show compassion, and increase our love and understanding. Life is not perfect, and it will have pain, suffering and discomfort, but they often produce the best aspects of humanity. Is it really worthwhile to sacrifice those important tenements of our humanity for the sake of convenience?

    • bluesuede

      Follow the money.

      • borgprotocol

        Quite true. Money is a powerful motivation.

  • poor little girl. What is this world coming to? Sounds exactly like Nazi Germany.

    • GMR

      Elizabeth, you are right on! Hitler started with an idea, a philosophy. He persuaded others to embrace his erroneous ideas and to participate in facilitating those theories. Much unspeakable misery resulted on both sides of the fence.

      People,ideas have consequences. Work any idea out to its logical conclusion BEFORE jumping on the proverbial bandwagon.

      And, dear fellow human beings, be careful what you applaud and with what you agree. The consequences may come back to haunt YOU.

      Elizabeth, let us demonstrate by our lives and words the culture of life.

    • El_Tigre

      Did they introduce a foreign substance to end her life? No. Her life ended itself. Many people I know have filled out POLSTs requesting no permanent artificial life support.

  • Sheelagh Hanly

    How can any disabled child or adult feel safe in a country where the law allows a person with a disability to be put down like an animal? How can they trust anyone to care for them if a child’s own mother can do that?

    • El_Tigre

      She was not ‘put down like an animal.’ I witnessed my parent’s dog being ‘put down’ and it was peaceful unlike executions.
      What did happen was she was returned to a natural state and her own body wasn’t able to maintain her in that state.
      If you want to get upset over something, educate yourself as to what is done to children who are aborted. THAT is evil.

      • GMR

        so? that justifies murder?

      • mica

        Dehydration is very painful. This child suffered through dehydration for 2 weeks. That is not quick.

  • Esther Rose Bush

    This poor excuse for a human being (the “mom”), and the doctors need to be locked up. They obviously can’t function in normal society. I’m sure they’re going to hell.
    That little girl is with God now, who truly loves her.
    Breaks my heart the audacity of some “people”..
    R.I.P. Nancy..

    • El_Tigre

      Judge not lest ye be judged.

      • Jan Kochmeister

        Practice what you preach and do unto others as you would have done unto you.

  • colleen10001

    Things had gotten bad in this “death culture” direction, but this epitomizes a very seriously dangerous direction that has to be stopped. The affect of this is more severe then many realize. i.e. the affect on the disabled community is something we can all be completely ashamed of. How dare we judge the VALUE of another person.

  • Tony Farese

    Yeah, it seems like pretty much across the board the masses on FB are in favor of killing the kid (and people in nursing homes, etc.). Their only hang up is the method used. That’s kind of what I was expecting here. Is this a Christian forum? Sorry, I’m not familiar with this site. I just followed a link here from FB.

    • MamaBear

      This is a pro-life forum that everyone, religious or nonreligious is welcome at.

      • Tony Farese

        Thank you. No wonder the comments here are so much more sensible. The people here are operating from a moral view point. Thanks for letting me share.

  • Jan Kochmeister

    This is humane?? In which century, exactly, are they “living”?

    • El_Tigre

      I got new for you. LIFE is not ‘humane’, nor fair, nor always wonderful.

      • Jan Kochmeister

        That is neither new or news for me. You assume and presume you know what I think and feel and believe without knowing me, my journey, my experience nor what I do before stating my opinion. You must learn to be open to the opinions of others even though they may differ from yours, and learn more… only then can you make balanced statements rather than lecturing.

  • 441019

    No one has the right to “play God”–to decide whether someone should die. I believe there is a reason for everything. Suffering is a form of purification, for one thing. There have been great saints and mystics in the Catholic Church who suffered all their lives, and they offered it all for the salvation of sinners. This life is only a few moments in comparison to eternity, and (to be blunt) it is better to suffer in this life rather than spend eternity in hell. But tragically, many people today think that this world is all that there is and that suffering should be avoided at all costs.

  • Cecil Pelt

    What I understood she was in extreme pain I don’t know that for sure but don’t you think she is better off now I don’t agree with starving her to death because there is medicine they could have given her now I don’t know for sure if she was in pain just what I read from her parents

    • disqus_uT17Jgr4Hl

      Evidently she was in good health for the condition she had, severe autism requiring constant care. I’ve seen a post from an MD discussing this case, and starvation would have been pretty painful had she been awake during the two weeks she continued to live.

  • Sharon Jeanguenat

    Sounds like her mother was too lazy to care for the child. But, what goes around comes around, so the mother WILL reap what she has sown!

  • disgusted57

    It’s the Totalitarian Socialist Agenda hard at work…… The Courts, heavily weighted with Socialist Appointees, can now make the decision to terminate a life based on what is basically that life’s ability to “contribute” to society.
    That is NOT a society in which I wish to live.
    We need to take back our country from these Communists and their Corporatist cronies.
    We need that would-be Dictator’s henchmen out of office, off the benches, and out of the bureaucracies.
    We need God back in our lives, and we need the Christian Values upon which our Great Experiment was based, back in our Culture.
    I’m tired of Hollywood and the Mainstream Media marginalizing our mothers, wives, and daughters lives, and subjecting them to objectivism based on how big their tits are and how skinny their waists.
    I’m tired of the mumble mouthed rappers bragging about killing Law Enforcement Officers, stealing, cheating, and raping women.
    I’m tired of the Public School System ignoring our Christian God and teaching about that pedophilic murderer, Mohammed.
    Get out and VOTE, good people; throw these monsters out of our government!
    Let’s TAKE BACK our Country!
    Let’s TAKE BACK our Children’s FUTURE!

  • disqus_Sb0Tz4ZxB0

    Not only did Nancy lose in this act of “mercy,” but her parents lost as well, as did all the people whose lives she would have touched throughout her lifetime. This child was a gift from God, and all the difficulties and challenges of raising her were a means for her parents to grow in strength, integrity, character and grace. There is no excuse for starving healthy disabled people to death, not when there are so many caring and compassionate people who would happily love them and see to their needs. Shame on those who think otherwise.

  • ennasus

    Very wrong and immoral! on many levels!

  • Silvia Aldredge

    Yesterday the President of the United States announced that staying home with children is a ‘choice we do not want people to make’. Reducing the value of mothers below that of their track record as paycheck earners. This reductionist view of people and families is exactly the mindset which allows individuals to be executed for their disabilities. If you aren’t “productive” then you need to die. I fear it is too late to change the culture.

    • disqus_Sb0Tz4ZxB0

      Don’t despair, Silvia; remember, with God all things are possible.

    • Diane Nielson

      Is that REALLY what you thought the President was saying? REALLY? Or are you just trying to twist his words and sentiment by taking snippets of his speech out and presenting the to the world as singular clauses because they serve your agenda, your political beliefs.

      Hopefully there are more trustworthy interpreters of VIP speeches than you.

      • Silvia Aldredge

        He really did say that. It really was part of the speech. But if you want to pretend he didn’t, lets look at his track record on life and family issues. Obama supports abortion and euthanasia, across the board. The so-called Affordable Care Act does, in fact, encourage states to create panels to determine who gets medical treatment based on criteria like ‘quality’ of life and ‘earnings potential’. Obama has never made much of a secret of having a reductionist view of the individual, particularly those individuals who are dependent upon others for their care. Why are you defending him from something that he doesn’t hide or deny at all? I’m not presenting myself as a “trustworthy interpreter of VIP speeches”, I’m saying this latest gaff or however you want to spin it, is part and parcel of the cultural malaise that causes people to choose to kill their children in violent and hideous ways to save them from ‘suffering’.

  • Eleanor Turner

    I think that maybe the people who belive that abortion is right during all the pregnancy is because they are terrifies of the idea of being inside someone else and depend of someone else by umbilical cord. They are terrifies because they are not an independent being. It’s a fear that drives them. If in the future you can develop a human being from a zygoto to man, they would still belive that a 30 year old person can be kill if he is not ” delivered” from the artificial incubator because they have a fear of ” how they are” inside ” who they are”. I am a human being when I am ” free ” from someone else body and can live my life, when I can walk, I can run, I can love, etc.
    That is something you can notice if you read their opinions and you stay totally neutral ( something that is not easy). Of course not all them but some.

  • ConservativeSenior

    She was murdered by a cold blooded mother and a legal system that sounds more islamic than British.

  • Margaret

    This sounds like the 1930-1945 in Germany under Hitler when they first started killing. It was the disabled, mentally ill or insane then working their way to killing political, gypsies, and then the jews. Give your rights to the child if you don’t want the responsibility of being the parents of a disabled child

  • Diane Moffatt

    She was screaming and writhing in pain 24 hours a day and morphine and ketamine were not helping.
    Would you allow your child to live like that?

  • Jay7027

    Death by starvation all because she was a lot of work…wow. If being productive is the measure of life then every American on welfare needs to be starved to death. And of course anyone on the Dole in England needs to be as well. And if starvation is so humane then I say we use that on death row inmates. Evil, evil, pure and utter evil. God help us. RIP little Nancy I’m so sorry you didn’t have people in your life who really loves you.

  • bluesuede

    This Hilter-type extermination is not resisted enough.

    Soon, it means that we will hear about “just” reasons to kill a person at any age if we find them to be a burden to us even against their will or ability to survive on their own. A spouse, a child, a sibling or an elder who have sustained a livable disease, illness or injury in the course of their lives, will be looked at as a possible candidate for termination.

    Wake up, this means you and me at any stage in our lives!

  • We arrest people for withholding food and water from animals. This is one of the most agonizing ways to die. Torture and murder writ large, and done to a helpless, trusting, loving child.

    • cranemaker

      Passively killing a helpless person by dehydration is one of worst methods of torture if not the worst. Nancy’s mom should be punished for torturing Nancy to death and efforts should be made to educate the general public torture by dehydration is more inhumane and evil than active euthanasia. I see no difference between her last days and Mrs. Schiavo’s. No one should treat animals or condemned convicts that way let alone someone’s wife or child.

  • JnnyBGood


  • El_Tigre

    It is not murder to return a person to a natural state. If she cannot live without artificial aid, removing that aid is not ‘killing’ her.

  • Martha Wrightis

    I hope this mother rots in Hell

  • JustAnOldBear

    Shame on the parents!! If they feel no shame now, they will.

  • WriteandEarnaLiving

    Notice the word-doctoring: withholding of fluids/nutrition, when in reality, this was starvation and dehydration. In any other situation, if someone did this to someone else, it would be considered a horrific way of murdering them because of the suffering involved.

    Perhaps this child suffered terribly, perhaps her medical condition was inconsistent with any possible quality of life. If and only if that was a proven scenario, why didn’t they put her to sleep and then administer lethal injection? Why is it serial killers, by this method, receive a more humane death?

    I’m not advocating that this should have been done to this little girl but once they had made the decision to terminate her life, surely to God doctors should have acted to make it as painless as possible.

    This sounds like a coward’s way out. We won’t actually DO anything to cause death, so therefore, we aren’t guilty. We will instead withhold life-giving fluids. Disgusting. Medially inappropriate and medically irresponsible.

    • Lynne RN

      This child was suffering from an intestinal disorder that made it impossible for her to absorb nutrients (she was previously fed through a tube). The decision to withhold fluids was made so that her suffering through the dying process would last only weeks and not months. this was not an issue of quality of life, but of end of life suffering. People make these decisions about their loved ones all the time. I hope you are never faced with having to make such a selfless act.

  • Jamie Garcia

    Why is starving the child legal but ODing her not?

    • Lynne RN

      because people have a knee jerk reaction to euthanasia, they don’t really understand why it could be a benefit and so they vote against it. 5 states in the USA allow euthanasia, if I ever am diagnosed with a terminal illness I will be moving to one of the 5 states.

  • Yes, The weak and the defenseless, are victims of our Victorian greed and conservative philosophy of, “survival of the economic fittest”. Joseph Wagner

  • Lynne RN

    I am wondering if any of you even read the facts about this case. Or if you have ever watched a person suffer through the end stage of life. From what I read and what I have experienced in my career as a critical care/trauma nurse, the mother DID care about her child and wanted her to die with dignity and without the pain and suffering that she was bound to endure over the next few months. she was going to die anyway, due to her intestinal problems and her mother did not want her to suffer needlessly for months. In my opinion this was a very selfless act of kindness that was very difficult for this mother to make. Please get the facts before you make ass-umptions about another person’s character.

  • WriteandEarnaLiving

    And, if that decision had been made, why not lethal injection? which would have been quick and painless, while she was asleep.

    This is medical malpractice in its worst form because her manner of death caused her suffering.

    I know that if I had a loved one and there was no other alternative, I would choose for them to be put to sleep and then lethal injection, instead of having them linger and suffer, as this little girl did and as elderly people do when the same type of end of life “care” is imposed on them.

  • Lauren

    Did you miss the part of the story where the little girl’s disabilities were accepted by and cared for by her family, and the euthanasia was sought out because she was in agony following a botched surgery and had become immune to all painkillers? This wasn’t a severely disabled child that was willy-nilly offed by her caregivers, this was a young girl is a terrible situation suffering constant pain with no options for relief. I don’t think the mother should be cast in a heroic light because the decision she had to make or that the way the euthanasia was carried out was dignified or kind, but your sensationalist reaction that she chose to kill her child because of her daughter’s disabilities is ludicrous.

  • Robin Liu

    feelz for nancy