Terri Schiavo Update

This is not a black and white issue. It is a form of killing, but I would categorize it as a mercy killing, or youthanasia, if I may use those terms. I know you may have a problem with it, and want things to be black and white, so if you say it's killing, then yes it is, but its much more than that.

What I was referring to in your previous post is that you are referring to those who think people have a right to die should be allowed to as killers. No one here has said that they are on their way to personally pull Terri's tube out of her mouth. No one her (I'm assuming) has gone out and murdered anyone. I was referring to the fact that you just feel like you can say we are all killers.

 

Sure there's a pattern.

You asked for my "stand". I told you. So it was appropriate for me to preface statements with "I", something you now ridicule.

Apparently you want to run from your own words. You made the Hitler/Nazi comparison and now you hide from it.

Don't try to lecture me on Scripture. Save it for your own church.

You defame my commitment to the beliefs and practices of my church. Don't play games about Luther. Your ignorance is unbecoming.

Now you call me a Nazi and say I am adopting a Nazi philosophy. How shamefully you rail against everyone.

Let me say again that I have no quarrel with those on either side who are posting in a responsible manner (Kansasbaptist and Deb are but two examples on the two "sides"--there are others, too).

If you want to hear my arguments on the issue, come to my church. I do like what North said and the civil way he said it.

If you want me to rebuke your abuse of others on this board, keep doing it.

If you want me to call other posters Nazis in order to validate my Christianity in your eyes, you will have to wait a very long time.

I have too much respect for the survivors of the Shoah I have known to bandy such language about.

You will doubtless be more upset about my civility than you are about your horrible labeling people as Hitlerian and Nazis.

My apologies to responsible posters on this thread for this interruption of the Schiavo discussion. Those who practice defamation should not go unrebuked--especially by those who happen to agree on the issue with those who defame. It doesn't require much to zap defamation by those with whom one disagrees, after all.

My apologies to newbies and lurkers if they get the idea that fanaticism and evil rhetoric characterize this board. They don't, and they're intrinsically wrong. Please observe how civilly most of the posters on this thread manage to conduct themselves.

Peace to those of good will.

Janko Preotul

 

Re: Bad analogies.....

You define death by the very strict terms of breathing and heart beating. What is your take then on brain dead? We just had a 17 year old girl on campus in a car accident. She was on life support but had no brain activity. But she was breathing and her heart was beating. Is that life? The parents elected to unplug the machine. Did they commit murder or just let the body die since their daughter was already dead?

I know that Terri's case is not like this. She has rudimentary brain activity, enough to keep her heart beating and breathing. But if you agree with some of the doctors there is no consciousness - and we are once more into the territory of what constitutes life and death; what defines a person?

 

Janko,
What is unbecoming are your gross exaggerations of my posts. You're moving from silly to ridiculous.

BLD

 

Bink,
I'd be interested in your elaboration on the "much more than that" part of your post. I'd also like to know what is "merciful" about pulling a feeding tube out of a person so that they starve to death over several weeks period of time?

BLD

 

Isn't that a pot and kettle situation?

 

It's more than that because it's not a black and white issue! And also, I never said that starving her would be a god idea. If death isn't instantanious, then some other way can be used, whatever a doctor finds appropriate.

What's ridiculous is that you don't see anything wrong with your posts. They are extreme, and leave no room for debate. Others with differing opinions are offering their thoughts, and you resort to name calling. Janko is right.

 

Scripta manent.

 

Bink,
What you appear to be failing to realize is that removing Terri's feeding tube and allowing her to starve to death is the way they are going to kill her. That is the only option that has been given, which is one of the reasons I find this whole thing so repulsive. I would be against it regardless, but this makes it even worse. They are not going to leave it up to a doctor to decide what might be "appropriate." In addition, Terri has had her feeding tube removed twice prior to this and did not die instantaneously and they know they she will not this time either.

I know that you think I'm being extreme, but I actually view your stance as the extreme one that leaves no room for debate. Again, you are arguing for starving a human being to death, whether you realize it or not.

BLD

 

I accidently went to the Political board. I've never read a single thread on it, and I haven't read a single post on this thread. But I've been struggling with this issue.

I find it abhorrent that the state government has gotten so involved in what is clearly a medical decision. I never understand it when government wants to interfere with medicine; they almost always mess it up. But....

I have serious misgivings in this case. I claim no expertise in such matters, but from what I've heard and read, does she really meet the definition of someone who has no real life? When life is reduced to brainstem activity, sure. But this doesn't seem to be the case. So, while I'm normally against politicians trying to be physicians, I have to wonder if the husband should be allowed to make this decision.

There, now back to the shill-filled pages where I belong!

 

Rich,
One of the factors that is so problematic is that Terri's husband has acquired a girlfriend and produced two children with her since Terri was incapacitated. He refuses to divorce Terri, as that would leave him out of the loop for gaining the insurance money. Her parents have agreed to be sole guardians for her, leaving her husband completely free of any responsibility, but he refuses because he would be out the big bucks. It is obvious he doesn't have Terri's well-being in mind.

BLD

 

I just wonder

I'm coming into this late, but I wonder how many on this board would have different feelings about this issue if the state of Florida were executing convicted and condemned prisoners by starvation/dehydration instead of one innocent and helpless woman.

Having said that, the media coverage of this event motivated my wife and I to travel directly to our attorney and document our wishes.

 

I have not argued for starving her to death. I am in favor of letting her die via another medical way, such as a lethal injection of some kind, or whatever method a doctor would use.

What you have failed to grasp, mainly because I haven't been able to say so, is that I truly believe that she wanted to die, and did not want to be in this situation. Why else would her husband be fighting her parents and the state tooth and nail, and have spent thousands of dollars in lawsuits and legal fees.

I would never suggest allowing her to die if she didn't want that, and I believe she would. I never said that we should kill her simply because she is no longer any use to society. And to tell you the truth, every time I've been wanting to say that, I have had to respond instead to your nonsensical insults and extreme remarks.

My whole point from the beginning is that if she wanted to die, or if someone else did in her situation, then I think the person has a right to have their wish granted.

 

Robb,
I would be against killing anyone in this way, even condemned murderers. It is cruel and unusual in anyone's book (other than a few posters on this thread who don't have a problem with it).

BLD

 

Bink,
Please read my response above concerning her husband.

In addition, there is no record whatsoever that Terri wanted to die in this situation.

Again, the problem is no other choice is being offered. In this particular case, if you are for them taking the life of Terri you are for them removing her feeding tube. I'm not saying this would be your first choice, but it is the only choice being considered.


BLD (The "extreme")

 

Dr. Douglas,

Yes, it SHOULD be a medical decision. The trouble is, the Courts are our systemic device for resolving disputes.

It is all very well for Bush04 and me to argue about what the rule should be. What we forget is that doctors, lawyers, Judges, and family members are actually faced with making this horrendous decison in real cases.

So, since the Courts alone have the physical power to enforce their decisions, it is to the Courts that we repair when we disagree. And in our system, a Judge not only has the power to decide, he has the obligation to decide. He isn't allowed to simply throw up his hands and say. "I don't know!"

The Courts are, however, astonishingly ill equipped to decide such cases! Judges at the trial level avoid creative thought whenever possible. They are only happy with a rule already well established, not just by the legislature or the constitution, but by an appellate Court decision.

Now, there appears to be a rule, the living will rule, that allows the Judge to decide based upon the expressed or constructive will of the patient. That also is the test proposed by many who have posted here.

This rule is "nonsense on stilts", of course, since there is no rational way to impute a past wish to a present, radically altered situation and also because assisting suicide is a crime even though suicide itself may not be.

But it is a rule. So the Judge will apply it without any enquiry into its logical, ethical or moral soundness. That's why I say that the Courts are completely ill equipped to deal with this kind of decision.

The real issue, I think, lies in the definition of "living". That is a question for philosophers and ethicists, not lawyers. However, because of the clear religious implications, NO ONE wants to touch it!

 

What evidence do you have that she wants to die?

I don't know if the footage of her that has been shown on TV is current. But if it is, she is NOT a vegatable. She looks at people around her, she smiles, she appears to resond to people.

She may never recover beyond that, but how could anyone be in favor of letting her starve to death? Actually, she would die of dehydration before she starves. I can't imagine that either would be a very pleasant or dignified way to go.

You mention lethal injection. That will never happen. Doctors aren't in the business of killing people. I wonder how many people are opposed to lethal injections for murderers, but are in favor of killing this innocent woman?

 

Exactly! And what is even more hypocritical is that most of these folks are FOR abortion on demand of innocent children but AGAINST the death penalty for convicted murders.

BLD

 

I do not have any evidence that she wants to die, just as you or anyone else has any evidence that she wants to live. It's just my gut feeling.

Her medical condition is still subject to debate, and if her cerebral coretex is completely gone, then her reactions are just neurological impulses. You or I will never no, neither one of us has personally obnserved her, nor do I think will we get the chance.

I know what you meant about doctors not being int he business to kill anyone. That is a method I would prefer.

As I have stated before, there are many issues to consider here.

 

But Bink,
The issue here is that if she is killed it will be by starvation. There are no other choices. Are you for that or against that?

BLD