Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-11-18
Blazer Case as Precedent
Offers Puzzling Phases

world will sympathize with the Colo
RADIO doctor" the Erie Dspatch-Her-
aid declares. but the very safety OF
society dema nds that such sentiments
shall not establish public policy
We can sympathize with the Colo
RADIO father without letting our SYM
pathy create q precedent which would
be certain to encourage manifold
abuse thinks the Kalamazoo Ga
zette. which stands for the ancient
principle laid down by Hippocrate<.
to which the medical fraternity strict
ly adheres, ito prolong life whenever
possible" Putting the question. Has
any one except the Creator the right
to take life" the Quincy WhiC-Jour-
nal says: The law. of course. Sternlv
says no. and further quotes similar
opinion from recent symposium OF
medical authorities.
Y
Agreeing with this viewpoint the
Pittsburgh Gazette-Times contributes
the thought that If human beings
may he removed because they are
useless there will he little safety
for any one in the way of another
who is sufficiently unscrupulous and
cruel to kill incurable patients. The
Wichita Beacon believes lit would he
exceedingly dangerous for the law or
for public opinion TO sanction the
destruction Of the unfit" for one rea-
son, because many ghastly mistakes
might be made in drawing the line
of fitness" In this same connection
the Pocatello Tribune asks: Are our
laws far-reaching enough to qualify
the, average human to pass on any
such proposition"
On the other hand the Ann Arbor
Times News feels that there are
times, indeed, when it appears more
of a crime to permit afflicted human
beings TO live than it would be 10
sever the mortal coil. Perhaps some
day provisions will be made to take
care of such cases in the practical,
sensible manner" suggests the News.
Referring to the condition of Hazel
Blazer, the Canton Daily News says:
The man who would permit one OF
the dumb bruteS to exist in suffering
under like circumstances would he
held amenable to prosecution under
the humane laws" and considers that
mercy should have been applied. if
at all. at the origin of life rather
than after permitting 81 years OF
suffering.
Discussing the legal and moral
propriety of permitting attending ply
Slcl61S 10 destroy infant HE ct Oh III
when there are present such mai
formations as promise only a life of
physical helpessness. the Fort
Wayne Journal-GaZette offers as its
opinion that such permission would
be a great responsibility" opening mp
"a rather wide vista of possibility to
murders not so benevolent as might
be urged" In this connection the
Burlington Gazette believes the hui
name and Christian theory and prac-
tice is to permit these children to live
and to care for them until nature
mercifully removes them from this
earth"
Suffering may and doubtless does
develop the highest qualities of those
who minister to those too weak to
minister to themselves" acknowl
edges the Decatur Herald. but it sees
the other side of the question, and
says: But the rights of the sufferers
to be released from their sufferings
cannot be overlooked. 1t is a right
freely accorded to non-human ami
mails" AS to the question of the
souls of such victims of euthanasia.
the Kansas City Journal declares:
Souls cannot be killed, though bodies
may be deprived of the animating
principle which gives them what hui
man beings call life" However rather
Gliding who should thus be relieved.
the Grand Rapids Press believes lit
would be better for society to apply
the means Of painless death after care.
full deliberation.'