Terri Schiavo Update

My feelings exactly on this subject. How can anyone determine how they will feel in a given future situation that has been previously unencountered. No one knows what these people feel while they are in that "state". I'm sure that anyone who has ever recovered from this would say "I'm sure glad you didn't kill me".

BTW, I had always heard that suicide is a crime. Is this true, or just an urban legend? If so, has anyone devised a punishment for it?

 

I am against the thought of her starving to death. I would prefer another method. But if there was an identical case to Terri's, and they had a DNR and other documentation that they would want to die, then I would be alright with that, as they have made their wishes made and that is the only way.

With that being said, if Terri truly did want to die, then that's the way she will have to die, If there is no other method.

 

At common law, suicide was a crime. Most states have de criminalized it, however.

Laws against suicide are often pointed at as examples of stupid legislation. Not by lawyers, however.

When an act is declared to be a felony, it automatically becomes a crime to ATTEMPT the act, to CONSPIRE to perform the act, to SOLICIT someone to do the act, or to AID someone to commit the act. All of these crimes are obviously susceptable to punishment.

Furthermore, insurance and inheritance rights can be affected by whether a death is criminal homicide (including suicide) or not.

 

Agreed.

Me too, like natural causes.

But Terri has not done that. There is no record whatsoever of her saying she wanted to die.

In other words, you wouldn't choose starvation, but you aren't against it either. Bink, I know I'll be labeled as "extreme," but that is sick.

BLD

 

You have posted several times that you are all for the death penalty. To me what you are saying is that the courts are always right when they decide that someone is guilty - but in this case, when they weight the evidence and decide in favor of what they see to be Terri's wishes - they are wrong.

If we try to drag every moral / political argument into this one, ie aboration, right-to-die and the death penalty, we will be going in circles. Why don't we stick to the one case? If someone wants to start another thread for each arguement we can take it over there.

 

>>Me too, like natural causes. <<

Nothing that happens to Terri from here on will be natural. She will always be kept alive by artifical means.

BLD [/B][/QUOTE]

 

Deb,
I'm sure you know what I meant.

BLD

 

All the same

If we try to drag every moral / political argument into this one, ie aboration, right-to-die and the death penalty, we will be going in circles. Why don't we stick to the one case? If someone wants to start another thread for each arguement we can take it over there.

I suggest that the same element of state sanctioned murder of humans runs through all of these issues, and so they are linked. The Schiavo's personal struggle over Terri is just as political as an abortion or as the execution of a cop-killer in Pennsylvania. In every case the personal is political.

 

In Terri's condition, according to nurses I have spoken with, the most likely cause of death would be kidney failure. Could be years from now, could be next month.

So, if her kidneys go, do we consider that natural causes and let her die or do we put her on dialysis and drag it out further? Kidney failure is also a slow way to go. But, as in the present case, the doctors would keep her comfortable.

 

Re: All the same

Of course, they are linked. But it is easier for the sake of arguement to keep to one topic. When you start putting too many sticks in the fire, things get too hot and even more personal.

 

Euthanasia....

This is most definitely a black and white issue. I bet you whine like a little girl if you skip a meal. Try skipping two weeks worth of food and water. You call that mercy? I call that cruel.

 

Murder as Mercy

I don't buy into "mercy-killing". Sparing someone's life is mercy; killing them is murder.

 

Better be careful Rob. Deb, Bink, and Janko will be calling you an extremist!

Until I came here I never knew it would be considered "extreme" to value life...silly me...

BLD

 

No, he expressed his opinion that there is no such thing as mercy killing.

There are those on this list who disagree. We value life enough to let people make their own decisions about living and dying.

 

Does that also apply to babies in the womb? Who makes that decision?

BLD

 

I will be happy to argue that one with you too. I'd suggest another thread though so that people who are burned out on this one can avoid it. Let me know what you are going to call it.

You realize of course that like this thread no one is actually going to change anyone's mind or feelings over any of these types of issues. I think that has been very aptly demonstrated here.

 

Deb,
I'm not going to start a new thread, as this is completely consistent with the subject on this one. Are you pro-abortion? If so, do you consult the infants first, or just kill them?

BLD

 

The death penalty is not analogous to the situation here. In capital cases, defendants must be convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt (our legal system's highest standard), for committing first degree murder.

First degree murder is defined as: the willful killing of another human life with deliberation and pre-meditation. This also encompasses those situations where life is taken during the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of specified felonies. (Aspen Casenotes, Criminal Law).

Defendants facing death are provided with all of the protection of the criminal justice system. They are entitled to, among other things: legal representation; probable cause determinations; trials by jury; sentencing phases; pre and post trial motions; and drawn out appellate processes. They are presumed innocent until prosecutors can prove otherwise beyond a resonable doubt.

Terry has not been charged or convicted of murder, nor has she been afforded the same protections (not even close) that a criminal defendant facing death would receive. No one has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that recovery is impossible or that Terry would want to die. In fact, there seems to be evidence showing that she has been denied rehabilitation, and that if she receives rehabilitation, her situation could improve.

Further, the courts and Terry’s husband are attempting to kill her in a manner that, if used in a criminal case, would almost certainly be considered an 8th amendment cruel and unusual violation. Imagine what would happen if we tried starving a known terrorist to death. Civil liberties groups would be all over it. Where are they now? …..

"Friday :: October 24, 2003 ACLU to Join Fight in Terry Schiavo Case The ACLU announced today that it will assist Michael Schiavo in his attempt to have the new Florida Law preserving feeding for his mentally disabled wife declared unconstitutional. http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004134.html"

I actually heard one civil libertarian say that the earlier court ruling sentencing Terry to death by starvation was a victory for civil liberties. The ACLU: protecting the guilty from just deserts, while promoting the taking of innocent life! Hypocrisy!

Unlike capital punishment, I believe that abortion is definitely relevant to this discussion. This is because, like here, innocent life is being taken. I can understand how one could oppose the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. This is because their position is consistent. However, I can not understand how someone could oppose the death penalty, but support abortion and/or death by starvation. At least those who support the death penalty, but oppose abortion and the murder of Terry, are consistent in their belief that innocent human life deserves protection.