Recently, we reported on the decision by Austria’s interior ministry to refuse entry to a suspected ISIS fighter from Georgia who required emergency surgery. The 19-year-old fighter, who was suspected to be connected to Chechen jihadi kingpin Akmad Chatayev, was shot in the head in a special forces operation and was in a coma.
Citing security concerns as the primary reason, the ministry also said the fighter’s entrance to Austria would increase the risk of a possible rescue or a blackmail attempt.
We then polled our readers about whether or not they agreed with Austria’s decision. Here are the results of the poll:
- 89.7 percent said, “Yes, why should resources go to people who want to kill us?”
- 10.3 percent said, “No, refusing treatment poses serious questions about medical ethics and opens the way to a slippery slope of government control over medical treatment.”
Here is a sample of some of the many comments we received:
Once the terrorist is healed, he will return and continue to kill us. So this is a self defense.
[The terrorists] want to destroy our way of life. They want to destroy other religions. They choose theirr way and then want their enemy to save you. Sorry …
If you treat an enemy combatant like this, their way of thinking still remains the same. Why then would I want treat such a person?
The 19-year-old should be treated medially and then put on trial for his crimes. I would in no way defend ISIS, but it is a tough question. As an individual I would want to treat this person as I would like to be treated if I was in his shoes. The only way to change people is by changing their hearts. Love is the greatest force that can overcome evil. This is what this young man needs to experience in order to have his heart changed. At the least, he needs to be given an opportunity to change. At the same time, he needs to face consequences for his action: justice and love need to meet in order to change hearts. If this young man can see the error of his way, he can help others see it also, and through that bring redemption to others. The young man is still human.
If the jihadis hadn’t destroyed all the real estate and resources they have touched, there would have been facilities where they need them.
Love your enemies, bless those who persecute you … Is not our duty is to save life whenever possible?
It makes absolutely NO SENSE to restore another human who will likely try to kill you … again.
If you choose to be a terrorist, you take your chances, and no country but their own should be obligated to help them in a medical situation.
If it is a fact that they are jihadi fighters, they are killers of innocent people! Let them die. They know the consequences of their acts.
There really should be a third option here. Terrorists should realize that their choices make them “an enemy of the people,” and that they’re “on their own” if their actions backfire. But ever refusing medical treatment is an extremely “slippery slope,” especially if made by the government.
Giving treatment is aiding and abetting the enemy. You can’t win an ongoing war by helping your enemy.
Wars are won by killing the enemy. Nation building and winning the admiration of people dedicated to total destruction of civilization is foolish.
This is a state of war. Save his life so he can kill you later? Nah.
Medical care has always been given to our enemies, and reciprocated often. They should not take precedence over care to our own, but we shouldn’t give up our humanity even though many of our enemies have proved to be inhumane.
While I agree that this person does not deserve the treatment based on his activities, he is still a human being and should we should not lower ourselves to his disrespect of human life. He must be treated because it is the right thing to do. But I wish it wasn’t.
Ethics be damned. These people are murdering scum. Use the resources for others in need of help.