Progressive Dream Of Making Humans Better By Executing The Small, Unwanted And Unfit
Sound of Trumpet
Making Humans Better
Running on a Platform of Executing the Small, Unwanted and Unfit.
By Leon H Wolf
Ed. Note - I had originally intended to hold this piece until after the
election; in light of the fact that Talent's Senate race has been
turned, in many ways, into a referendum on embryo destruction, I
thought that the more appropriate time might be now.
We civilized men do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we
build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute
poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the
life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that
vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would
formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of
civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly
injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care,
or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race;
but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant
as to allow his worst animals to breed.
-Charles Darwin1
Where am I going with this? Below the fold...
The central tenet of the philosophy of modernism is the belief in the
power of humans to "to make, improve and reshape their environment,
with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical
experimentation."2 The heady rush of the Enlightenment, which had
produced numerous laudible scientific achievements, began to create in
mankind a belief that everything in nature was subject to successful
human manipulation; that if only we tinkered long enough and retained
our commitment to dispassionate observation, we might find a cure for
all of nature's ills. Darwin's observation, quoted above, was
merely a passive Enlightenment observation about the way things were
- it was left to the modernists like Francis Galton to take the next
step and suggest that perhaps something could be done to fix the
problem of poorly designed humans.3 This suggestion would set in motion
an as-yet unresolved conflict between our commitment to modernism, and
our commitment to the sanctity of human life. The purpose of this
article is to suggest that, despite sporadic setbacks, the commitment
to modernism continues to make consistent and alarming encroachments on
our commitment to the sanctity of human life. Eugenics, the bold and
logical conclusion of modernism as applied to humans, has theoretically
been consigned to the dustbin of history, but the truth is that the
devotees of eugenics have merely become more subtle and devious in
their methods, and have thus succeeded in having their ideas accepted
by an unwitting populace.
Francis Galton and the Improvement of Humans
Sir Francis Galton was one of the foremost thinkers and writers of the
modern movement. Galton is known for many scientific achievements,
including the creation of the first weather maps, the discovery of the
significance of fingerprints as an index of personal identity, and the
development of the statistical concepts of correlation and regression
to the mean.4 Galton's primary fascination, however, was with the
work of his cousin, Charles Darwin:
In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood.
Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did
change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by
artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants
and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered,
"Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"
Galton thus made the leap from Darwin's observation about the way
nature supposedly operated, to the ever-present modernist question:
"May this be turned to our advantage?" Galton observed (to his
dismay) that human "civilization" tended to weaken the quality of
the gene pool by allowing its weak and unfit members to reproduce.
Interestingly enough, it was in this context that Dalton found
inspiration for the statistical concept of "regression towards the
mean" - it was originally intended to designate the tendency of
humans to experience a "reversion towards mediocrity" through
policies which allowed the "unfit" members of society to breed.6
Galton's famous work on eugenics, Hereditary Genius, opened by
proclaiming:
I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are
derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the
form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as
it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful
selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar
powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite
practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious
marriages during several consecutive generations.
Thus the science of eugenics was born. It is important to realize at
the outset that Galton realized that in order for eugenics to become a
successful movement, social norms would have to be put in place that
would discourage the poor and less intelligent from breeding, since in
his view they were already outbreeding the intelligent members of
society.8 The birth control movement of the early 20th century would
take up this mantle.
The Birth Control Movement and Eugenics
Perhaps no person was more central to the creation of the birth control
movement than Margaret Sanger, co-founder of the American Birth Control
League (which would later become Planned Parenthood). So great was
Sanger's influence on her day, and so far-reaching was her success in
mainstreaming eugenic beliefs, that H.G. Wells would proclaim in 1931,
"When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a
biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine." 9
Sanger was a tireless crusader for birth control, opening one of the
first "family planning" clinics in the country in 1916 in defiance
of state law.10 Sanger dedicated her life to making birth control
available, and was the central public figure for the birth control
movement in the early twentieth century. It is important to realize
that while some have erroneously claimed that Sanger engaged in her
crusade in an attempt to make sure that "women mattered,"11 and
were given equal freedom, the truth was that Margaret Sanger did not
perceive sexual freedom as a positive good - and in fact argued
against it.12 To Sanger and many other birth control activists, the
primary reason to make birth control more available was to advance the
process of eugenics. Sanger once declared "The campaign for birth
control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical
with the final aims of eugenics."13 Apart from more conventional
methods of birth control, Sanger also advocated "[a] stern and rigid
policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population
whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that
objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."14
It should be noted that these ideas concerning birth control came to be
very widely accepted during the first half of the twentieth century,
particularly among the intelligensia, and that notions of eugenics were
almost inextricably intertwined with birth control. For instance, in a
majority Supreme Court opinion upholding the validity of a forced
sterilization statute, Supreme Court Justice and legal giant Oliver
Wendell Holmes declared:
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie
Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate
offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized
without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that
of society will be promoted by her sterilization," and thereupon makes
the order... We have seen more than once that the public welfare may
call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it
could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for
these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned,
in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better
for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate
offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility,
society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing
their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad
enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of
imbeciles are enough.15
This opinion carried the day at the Supreme Court by an 8-1 margin;
Justice Butler offered nothing in his dissent to refute this damnable
doctrine.
Eugenics also laid the foundation for other significant policies that
were popular in the early and mid-twentieth century, including laws
against miscegenation, and those supporting segregation and forced
sterilization.16 These policies were enacted into law in at least 27
states.17 Eugenics also laid the foundation for far more insidious
policies which would eventually be carried out in Europe. Edwin Black
discusses how eugenics laid the foundation for the Holocaust:
The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not
merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond,
blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to
inherit the Earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract
emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East
Europeans, Jews, dark- haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and
anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by
American raceologists.
How? By identifying so-called defective family trees and subjecting
them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their
bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive
capability of those deemed weak and inferior -- the so-called unfit.
The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the
population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.18
Black notes that the more extreme eugenicists theorized that the best
way to eliminate large sections of a population ("eugenicide")
would probably be the large-scale use of gas chambers.19 The
eugenicists also practiced cruel experiments in efforts to weed out the
eugenically "unfit" - many of these experiments were performed on
infants:
One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from
tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be
immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln.
Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide [allowing the infant to
starve for a predetermined amount of time to see if it would survive]
one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions
engaged in lethal neglect.20
Needless to say, Hitler was very impressed with it all:
Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-
Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable
pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more
followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his
side...
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the
progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great
interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states
concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in
all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenics leader Madison
Grant, calling his race-based eugenics book, "The Passing of the Great
Race," his "bible."21
Black also dispels the myth that the birth control movement had
anything to do with advancing the sexual freedom of women:
Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for
eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and
sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led
the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little
or no due process. In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation,
California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were
classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or
"sexually wayward." At the Sonoma State Home, some women were
sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or
labia.22
With the rise of Hitler to power in Germany, he provided the
eugenicists with a national laboratory in which they might test their
theories. In the pre-Holocaust years of 1934 and 1937, Hitler had an
estimated 400,000 "unfit" individuals forcibly sterilized on the
basis of physical or mental infirmity. The pace of German sterilization
prompted American eugenicists to complain vocally that the Germans were
"beating us at our own game."23 During the heat of World War II,
the United States Supreme Court was still issuing opinions which gave
explicit nods to the validity of eugenics as a science, and the
legality of forced sterilization to achieve eugenic ends.24 Eventually,
of course, the Germans took the further step of adopting the radical
eugenic policies of "forced euthanasia," executing millions based
on alleged genetic impurity, which they claimed could be identified (at
least in part) by race.
When the extent of the Holocaust became known, the public was horrified
by the result, and eugenics suffered a serious blow in credibility. It
was not, however, completely erased from the mainstream of American
viewpoints, as evidenced by its mention in the landmark 1972 case of
Furman v. Georgia, which resulted in the temporary end of the death
penalty.25 By and large, though, eugenics had been tainted by
association with racism and atrocity, and public espousal of eugenics
was to fade from national consciousness during the 60s and 70s. The
notion that humans could be made better by weeding out the less
desirable members of society, however, had not.
Eugenics and the Modern Birth Control Movement
The forces which gave rise to the birth control movement of the last
four decades are manifold and complex, and do not admit of easy
categorization, as the forces which gave rise to the early birth
control movement did. When the issue of birth control gained steam for
a second time during the early 60s and into the 70s, there was
undoubtedly an element of desire for lifestyle freedom, born in part
from the increased involvement of women in the workforce as a
consequence of World War II, and a desire for sexual freedom born of
the "sexual revolution" of the 60s. There is no doubt that,
whatever their worth, these forces played a significant part in the
movement to legalize birth control and abortion - a movement which
gained a series of momentous legal victories in the 60s and 70s, when
the Supreme Court declared that the government could not prohibit
married couples from obtaining contraception in Griswold v.
Connecticut, and when the Supreme Court declared that
abortion-on-demand was a constitutional right in the twin cases of Roe
and Doe. To neglect these forces is to miss the whole picture; however,
it would also not be appropriate to neglect the role eugenics played
for many of the proponents of the modern birth control movement. For
instance, Ron Weddington, the victorious co-counsel in Roe v. Wade,
wrote a letter to then-President Bill Clinton in January of 1993,
declaring his support for social eugenics:
He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely
educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."
Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating
some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs
and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers
are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies
to people who can't afford to have babies.
"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only
whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we
view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as
discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican."26
The statistics with respect to abortion present troubling racial
implications. According to the CDC, black women are approximately 3
times as likely as white women to have an abortion.27 The abortion rate
for black children is an astonishing 491 abortions per 1000 live
births.28 Indeed, one could scarcely invent a policy short of active
eugenocide that would more effectively stagnate and/or reduce the black
proportional population than legalized abortion. The effect of abortion
on the black community is so pervasive that Jesse Jackson once
exclaimed:
That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then
whites further dehumanized us by calling us "n*****s." It was part of
the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us
as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and
not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of
taking. life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call
it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that
would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus.
Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.29
Numerous public supporters of legalized abortion - too many to count
- have also publicly made the eugenistic argument that abortion must
remain legal so that there will not be a sudden influx of poor children
in society.30
Perhaps just as troubling, the advances of modern science combined with
the legalization of abortion-on-demand have supposedly created a world
in which the truly unwanted can be eliminated before they are born.
This reality is especially insidious because it provides the so-called
"benefits" of eugenics, without forcing people to confront the
reality of what means are necessary to produce those benefits. Before,
someone had to leave the child born with Down's Syndrome outside to
starve; a choice not many have the intestinal fortitude to make. Now,
the mother can just get an amniocentesis, and have the "unfit"
child eliminated before anyone has to look it in the face and make the
conscious choice that it does not deserve to live. The evidence
suggests that as many as 80 per cent of children who are prenatally
diagnosed with Down's Syndrome are aborted today,31 which suggests
that we have come to the a priori conclusion that those with Down's
Syndrome do not deserve to live. When those sorts of decisions are made
a priori, rather than on a case-by-case basis, monstrosity is never far
around the corner.
For instance, Britain recently legalized the practice of screening out
embryos which carry certain genetic mutations that increase the risk of
cancer.32 The specific mutations listed in the article are the BRCA-1
and BRCA-2 mutations - mutations which run in my immediate family. I
am certain that at least three members of my immediate family have this
mutation, and I may indeed have it myself. The only effect of this
mutation upon the life of those who have it is an increased risk of
breast cancer. I will not air the personal struggles of my family
members in this article, but suffice it to say that none of them has
ever expressed to me that they would rather have never been born. It
appears clear, however, that we are moving toward a world in which the
smart and sensible thing to do is improve the gene pool of the human
race, and preemptively eliminate all those who do not fit the genetic
mold of "perfection." Such a solution might make the human race
"better," as some would use that word, but I doubt that it would
make us better humans for the monstrosities we would commit seeking it.
The latest modernistic attempt to improve the human race does not
involve eugenics at all, but deserves mention in this article because
it may yet be the most insidious. I am talking, of course, about the
destruction of human embryos for the harvesting of Embryonic Stem
Cells, which we are constantly assured will provide the cure for
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, paralysis, cancer, heart disease,
and maybe hemorrhoids. The potential efficacy of the science is beyond
the purview of this article - the implications of the policy itself
are not. Like eugenics, this particular foray into the improvement of
the human species involves killing some humans in the hope of making
the human race better. However, unlike eugenics, the humans who are
chosen for elimination are not chosen on the basis of some supposed
genetic defect, but rather solely on the basis of being unwanted.
The public hypnosis with the promise of human betterment through the
use of Embryonic Stem Cells has reached an alarming level. If polls are
to be believed, a significant portion of individuals who do not favor
the legalized killing of an embryo implanted on the uterine wall do
favor federal subsidization of the killing of embryos located in Petri
dishes.33 The primary difference, of course, is that the former does
not offer the promise of the betterment of the human race, except to
those with eugenic sympathies. The latter, however, offers the siren
call of modernism - things can be made better, we can improve
everything, even human beings, if you give us the chance. In the midst
of a heated Missouri Senate race this year, Michael J. Fox appeared in
television commercials for Democratic challenger, visibly shaking from
his Parkinson's medication, pleading on behalf of a candidate who
will stand aside for the march of modernism. Why? Because Michael J.
Fox is talented, he is an actor, he is beloved by society, and those
who must be sacrificed in the hope of curing his disease are so very
small and besides which unwanted, and they'll never make a show like
Family Ties for you.
Under countless circumstances, we have heeded the call of modernism,
and justly so. We have, however, allowed ourselves to believe that we
will not listen to that call when the cost for the betterment of
humanity is the lives of selected human beings. The current debate over
the destruction of embryos suggests that if only the human beings are
small enough that they can be safely ignored, we are perfectly capable
of ignoring them and reverting to our old practices. Perhaps we have
not come so far from the 1940s after all.
Modernistic Eugenics in a Postmodern World
A full examination of this issue must include an examination of why
people today are instinctively bothered by a recounting of the history
of eugenics, yet seem strangely content to ignore the de facto effort
to eliminate children with Down's Syndrome or other genetic
abnormalities, and the (conscious or unconscious) elimination of poor,
black children in this country. This is to say nothing of the commonly
accepted practice of destroying the youngest members of our society
that we might harvest their stem cells to cure the diseases of the old.
Why, we should ask, are we comfortable with the latter, but not the
former?
It might first be objected that today's efforts at improving the
human race do not involve the elimination of individuals based on race.
However, to concede this as a legitimate point is to say that the
efforts of the eugenicists were legitimate, but overinclusive since
genetic undesirability does not perfectly correspond to race. Surely,
the rejection of eugenics involves more than a complaint that eugenics
swept up some good with the bad. Is our society really ready to accept
that the eugenicists had the basic principle right, but merely lacked
the science to accurately target those whose very existence affronted
our species? This argument also ignores the reality that the
eugenicists of old did not specifically target race qua race, but
rather believed that certain races were populated with many more
genetically unfit individuals, and hence were subject to greater
scrutiny. Thus the Holocaust swept up Jews, gypsies, homosexuals,
physically and mentally handicapped individuals, and others. In the
same way, the modern statistics regarding abortion tell what should be
a very troubling tale about the gutting of a particular economic class,
especially as it implicates a particular race.
Whatever the case, the inevitable march of science has made available
new avenues of testing our commitment to the worth of each individual
human life. Against this commitment, science has raised the possibility
of better days on the horizon for the whole human species; the unending
modernistic promise that if we just tinker with human beings enough, we
can make humanity better. The only thing that stands in our way is the
foolish insistence on commitment to the worth of each individual human,
Will we continue to let this commitment stand in the way of the
ultimate fulfillment of modernism?
1 Stephen R.L. Clark, Deconstructing Darwin, Address at Alan Richardson
Lecture (Mar. 04, 1999), in Instilling Ethics (Rowman & Littlefield:
Lanham, Maryland 2000), 2000, at 119.
2 Modernism, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
(visited Oct. 23, 2006).
3 Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Darwin, PBS.org, at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html (visited
Oct. 23, 2006).
4 Human Intelligence: Francis Galton, University of Indiana, at
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/galton.shtml (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
5 Kevles, In the Name of Darwin, supra note 3
6 See Eugenics, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
(visited Oct. 23, 2006), citing Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in
Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge
(Edinburgh University Press 1981).
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Gloria Steinem, Margaret Sanger, The Time 100, at
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/sanger.html (visited
Oct. 23, 2006).
10 See Margaret Sanger, Wikipedia, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
11 See Steinem, Margaret Sanger, supra note 9.
12 Sanger, supra note 10 ("Though sex cells are placed in a part of
the anatomy for the essential purpose of easily expelling them into the
female for the purpose of reproduction, there are other elements in the
sexual fluid which are the essence of blood, nerve, brain, and muscle.
When redirected in to the building and strengthening of these, we find
men or women of the greatest endurance greatest magnetic power. A girl
can waste her creative powers by brooding over a love affair to the
extent of exhausting her system, with the results not unlike the
effects of masturbation and debauchery.")
13 Id., citing Margaret Sanger, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control
Propaganda, 1921 Birth Control Rev. 1, 5 (1921).
14 Id.
15 Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (U.S. 1927).
16 Edwin Black, Eugenics and the Nazis -- The California connection,
San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2003, at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/1....
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Eugenics, supra note 6, citing Selgelid, Michael J., Neugenics?, 19
Monash Bioethics Rev. 9 (2000).
24 See Skinner v. State of Okla. ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (U.S.
1942). The court overturned the sterilization statute in question on
equal protection grounds, but gave such a blessing to the principles of
eugenics that Justice Jackson felt it necessary to point out in a
concurrence that, while he was in agreement with Buck v. Bell, supra,
"There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented
majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of the
dignity and personality and natural powers of a minority -- even those
who have been guilty of what the majority define as crimes. But this
Act falls down before reaching this problem, which I mention only to
avoid the implication that such a question may not exist because not
discussed. On it I would also reserve judgment." (at 546-47)
25 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 342 (U.S. 1972) (Marshall, J.,
concurring) (Justice Marshall's mention of Eugenics is not exactly
favorable, but neither is it condemnatory, and it leaves open the
proposition that a state might defend the use of the death penalty on
eugenic grounds).
26 Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor', WorldNet Daily, at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50191 (last
modified May 13, 2006).
27 Lilo T Strauss, Joy Herndon, et. al, Abortion Surveillance ----
United States, 2001, CDC.gov, at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm (visited Oct. 23,
2006).
28 Id.
29 Jesse Jackson, How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue,
Right to Life News (1977).
30 See, e.g., http://www.balancedpolitics.org/abortion.htm#no.
Presumably, it is better to not exist than to be poor.
31 George F. Will, Eugenics by Abortion: Is perfection an entitlement?,
Washington Post, April 14, 2005, at A27.
32 Rick Weiss, Human Embryos in Britain May be Screened for Cancer
Risk, Washington Post, May 11, 2006, at A12.
33 See, e.g., Jesse F. Derris, Life Support? Stem Cell Backing Holds at
Six in Ten, ABCNEWS.com, at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010803.html
(visited Oct. 24, 2006).
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
> http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/life_issues/making_humans_better
>
>
> Making Humans Better
>
> Running on a Platform of Executing the Small, Unwanted and Unfit.
>
> By Leon H Wolf
>
>
The small, unwanted and unfit eventually become Evangelicals, Pentecostols and
Babtists. The wise, loving and healthy are more likely to become Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
chi.l...@gmail.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.redstate.com/stories/culture/life_issues/making_humans_better
>
>
> Making Humans Better
yeserday on CNN -- humans go belly up on Friday, many at home
subscribers will lose service
marika
chi.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> yeserday on CNN -- humans go belly up on Friday, many at home
> subscribers will lose service
I can't comment much on this because I don't want to confuse you more
than I'm sure you already are, but the belly has NOTHING
to do with edema/dyspnea/congestive heartfailure, at all. So it is
difficult
for me to understand what the hell is going on here. I agree if someone
needs
angioplasty, they should get it, but that's not related to the belly.
Blocked coronary arteries = angina, angioplasty, heart attack,
death/loss of
sections of heart muscle which are affected, due to lack of blood
flow/oxygen
TO the heart. Bits of heart muscle become ischemic and die, because
their blood
supply is restricted.
Congestive heart failure = weakness of ENTIRE heart (weak muscle) which
causes
heart to have to pump extra hard to get all blood through to rest of
body,
results in back-up of fluid to lungs and ankles because heart is trying
really
hard to push blood but doesn't have enough strength so it backs up as
fluid in
the body, heart enlarges and muscle becomes "flappy" due to increased
workload,
valves might not close completely due to "stretched out" heart, and
more fluid
backs up. Pneumonia results, person "drowns". It has nothing to do
with
coronary arteries. There is no "surgery" to fix a weakened heart, only
positive
inotropes to try and help contractility of heart so it doesn't have to
pump so
hard to move all the fluid around the body.
I have no idea why they are recommending angioplasty for the belly
(unless they have
both problems at once) so I don't want to answer you and confuse you
more.
mk5000
"To Law that bids them be;
O holy freedom! final faith!
O sacred certainty!
I sometimes think the road to it
Lies through Gethsemane."--peace on earth, Bevington, Louisa Sarah