Reply #326: I read that it was [View All]

[Joe Chi Minh]

looked like the husband who was hoping to be left a tidy sum by curtailing the treatment.

But, you know, it doesn't have to be "either", "or". Everyone in our societies is entitled to full medical care, free at the point of delivery.

Our forefathers fought, sometimes at the cost of life or limb(s), for their family and their country. It was not so that the ultimate beneficiaries would be an ever smaller band of ultra rich villains, who are content to see the children and descendants of the former living and dying on the streets, or from untreated illnesses.

It is a fundamental axiom of Christianity that God made the world and its bounty for *all* his children. And it is a fundamental axiom of the Roman Catholic Church's "best-kept secret", its Social Doctrine, that capital was made to serve man, not man to serve capital. There can be no excuse for anything less than full employment with adequate remuneration, so that everyone can live in security and dignity. We don't all need to be rich; but we do all need the means for security and dignity appropriate for a child of God.

The logic of this "euthanasing" is its extension to badly injured servicemen and women, once peace reigns again and recruitment is no longer a problem. Maybe some would welcome it, but I suspect there would be others who wouldn't. We know from the body-armour and the "DU shells" scandals in both our countries, if it was ever in doubt that the lives of the ordinary serviceman and servicewoman aren't worth a cracker in their eyes. For that reason, I wouldn't allow *any* politician, even a veteran, to come within a ten-mile radios of the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. A war hero like Kerry would understand it, I'm sure.