Time to get a reality check. Who in the hell do we think we are to decide that a person should die because they are brain damaged. It really makes me sick to think that people think it is right to starve someone to death because they are brain damaged. I think some of you are pros at being sophists.
[quote]anakin7 wrote:
Time to get a reality check. Who in the hell do we think we are to decide that a person should die because they are brain damaged. It really makes me sick to think that people think it is right to starve someone to death because they are brain damaged. I think some of you are pros at being sophists.[/quote]
It’s not we, its the husband that has that right, and the courts that agree. The “we” are the people that think the husband knows his wife intentions best.
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1111464998555.fishwrapper-1.jpg
“BETTER DAYS: Terri Schiavo before brain damage required her to be kept alive with a feeding tube.”
An interesting and fair article for anyone interested.
[quote]Which is that the very same guys who are pushing the feeding tube back into Shiavo are pulling out the tubes from the health care system for most of America.[/quote] - http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-11-13/fishwrapper.html
[quote]100meters wrote:
anakin7 wrote:
Time to get a reality check. Who in the hell do we think we are to decide that a person should die because they are brain damaged. It really makes me sick to think that people think it is right to starve someone to death because they are brain damaged. I think some of you are pros at being sophists.
It’s not we, its the husband that has that right, and the courts that agree. The “we” are the people that think the husband knows his wife intentions best.
[/quote]
100meter is exactly right. And this illustrates the problem with cases like this. This case has been turned into a question of “should she die.” That’s the wrong question. The question that should be asked is, “What would Terri have wanted?” I don’t know what the full story is with the husband – could be he really is a scumbag, or it could be he is just fighting for he believes Terri would have wanted. As I mentioned, the courts weighed the evidence and found that the husband was credible when he said that Terri would have wanted to be taken off of the feeding tube. If things were reversed and the courts believed the parents when they said that she would want to be kept alive, then I would be on the parents’ side. Really. Even though I would not want to be kept alive if I myself were in that situation, and even though I don’t believe that Terri has even the slightest bit of cognitive capacity. I would not let my personal views interfere. This is the key principle here - the ability for the individual to make healthcare decisions without government interference, or at least without unnecessary government interference.
The correct answer to the question “Should she die” is “What would she have wanted.” No one knows, so the courts have had to make an educated guess. Their best guess was “yes, she would have wanted to die.” Some people disagree, and I can understand their disagreement. But it’s also none of their business, and their opinions are irrelevant, because they’re not the ones in the vegetative state.
I’m still waiting for a response from the conservative side in regards to the Texas baby mentioned by 100meters…
Let Terri live but let the poor black baby die, huh?
[quote]chadman wrote:
I’m still waiting for a response from the conservative side in regards to the Texas baby mentioned by 100meters…
Let Terri live but let the poor black baby die, huh?[/quote]
The infant died within SECONDS of removing the BREATHING TUBE. Terri breathes on her own. She has no breathing tube that is sustaining her. When they pull out the feeding tube, she won’t take a few breaths and expire, she’ll starve to death over the course of days.
Her husband has already started a new life, he has no reason to want Terri around anymore. Why won’t he let her parents take care Terri? If they are willing to take care of her, what is the problem? I can’t believe the bloodlust of the wacked out left. This is the same group of idiots who think that we should treat enemy combatants as if they have full protection of the constitution.
This really is an ugly case. What is sad is that it is being politicized, both by congress and the media and even members on this board. This is not a left/right issue. To put this on a left/right axis is really immature.
Another thing I don’t understand is why so many religious conservatives are against the idea of letting go and finally meeting Jesus. Doesn’t it say in the Bible “to die is to live”. If this is simply a material world of the flesh, why hold on for so long? I personally would not want to “live” in a hospital bed for decades. I would rather go to heaven.
What sickens me is that so many politicians see this as an opportunity to politicize an issue for elections.
I think this is a sad situation over all. I really don’t like the idea of someone starving. As mentioned in a discussion on Fox, this is a no win situation. Yet, political groups are looking to profit from the devisive nature of this.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
chadman wrote:
I’m still waiting for a response from the conservative side in regards to the Texas baby mentioned by 100meters…
Let Terri live but let the poor black baby die, huh?
The infant died within SECONDS of removing the BREATHING TUBE. Terri breathes on her own. She has no breathing tube that is sustaining her. When they pull out the feeding tube, she won’t take a few breaths and expire, she’ll starve to death over the course of days.
Her husband has already started a new life, he has no reason to want Terri around anymore. Why won’t he let her parents take care Terri? If they are willing to take care of her, what is the problem? I can’t believe the bloodlust of the wacked out left. This is the same group of idiots who think that we should treat enemy combatants as if they have full protection of the constitution.
You guys are some truly sorry motherf**kers.
[/quote]
Yes, why won’t he let her parents take over? Why not take the money offered, and/or divource her, and just get out of it? Why the desire to “see her die” no matter what?
“Illogical” isn’t it? The only logical conclusion that I can draw from this, and the simplest conclusion that noone seems to want to accept is that perhaps this guy is telling the truth, that his wife wanted to be let go and not suffer life as a veggie.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Yes, why won’t he let her parents take over? Why not take the money offered, and/or divource her, and just get out of it? Why the desire to “see her die” no matter what?
“Illogical” isn’t it? The only logical conclusion that I can draw from this, and the simplest conclusion that noone seems to want to accept is that perhaps this guy is telling the truth, that his wife wanted to be let go and not suffer life as a veggie.[/quote]
I think your are absolutely right. Even though I dipped into the partisan pool, I think this travesty of the human condition is divided over the perception of the husband.
Some think he is truly acting in the best interest of Terri. Others think he is Satan’s spawn and just wants to collect some cash.
Who’s right? I guess there’a only one person with that answer. He acts one way and talks another.
The politization(is that a word?) of this case just sickens me. Marriage (a sacred cow of the conservitive cause of late) in our society holds that the spouse is the one to make these sorts of decisions. That is one of the responsibilities to come with marriage. Now we are supposed to rewrite the institution of marriage because we don’t happen to agree with the decision in this case? If we allow a “line item veto” of marital responsiblities to occur in this case, any of the institutions we we profess to hold so dear will be meaningless. There is obviously no middle ground in this case, so we do as the Consitutional thing in this case and err on the side of indivdual rights. Since Terri is unable to speak for herself, Micheal Schiavo is to speak for her, as the law and society at large obligates him to do.
Aside from the legal issue, people continue to ask, “Who are we to starve this woman?” Well I would ask, “Who are we to keep feeding her?” If this woman is capable of concious, abstract thought(a moot question having seen the CT scan), can any of us fathom the hell of being trapped inside her head? Her parents are trying to keep her alive so they don’t lose their daughter. Selfish. I say allow nature (or God’s will, which ever you prefer) to take it course. What is that course you say? Well, we all seem to know what will happen if she stays off that machine. The hand of God works with absolutely no input from us.
[quote]100meters wrote:
anakin7 wrote:
Time to get a reality check. Who in the hell do we think we are to decide that a person should die because they are brain damaged. It really makes me sick to think that people think it is right to starve someone to death because they are brain damaged. I think some of you are pros at being sophists.
It’s not we, its the husband that has that right, and the courts that agree. The “we” are the people that think the husband knows his wife intentions best.
[/quote]
why does the husband have the right? He abandoned her. He kept asking “is that bitch dead yet”. He got another woman. He’s got kids and a house.
[quote]chadman wrote:
I’m still waiting for a response from the conservative side in regards to the Texas baby mentioned by 100meters…
Let Terri live but let the poor black baby die, huh?[/quote]
Give me a bloody break. This is an assinine comparison.
There is a huge difference between removing machines that are keeping someone alive who has no chance of survival (the baby’s lungs were too small for his body, and they were never going to be able to sustain him) versus choosing to starve someone who would otherwise live.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Yes, why won’t he let her parents take over? Why not take the money offered, and/or divource her, and just get out of it? Why the desire to “see her die” no matter what?
“Illogical” isn’t it? The only logical conclusion that I can draw from this, and the simplest conclusion that noone seems to want to accept is that perhaps this guy is telling the truth, that his wife wanted to be let go and not suffer life as a veggie.[/quote]
THis is an excerpt from the article I posted – I think it’s a fair guess:
These differences are of decisive importance. When death will occur soon and inevitably, the patient does not starve to death when life support ends. Since there was no chance of our mother living more than a few more days, what my sister and I did could not be called murder. When death will not occur soon, or perhaps for many years, and when there is a chance, even a very small one, that recovery is possible, people who authorize the withdrawal of life support are playing God.
And in Terri’s case, they are playing God when they do not have to. Her parents have begged to become her guardians. Her husband has refused. We do not know for certain why the husband has refused. I doubt that he wishes to receive for himself the money that still exists from her insurance settlement and, apparently, he has offered to donate that money to charity. Perhaps, being a Catholic, he would like her death to make him free to marry the woman with whom he is now living. Or perhaps (and I think this is the most likely case) he does not want his wife to live what strikes him as an intolerable life.
from NRO online.
??
The facts of this case suggest that existing safeguards are dangerously inadequate. The evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted the removal of the tube that brings her food and water appears sketchy at best. Even if we granted that she said both that she did not want to be on life support and that she would not want to be in a coma, it would not establish that she would not even want food and water when she is not in a coma.
Terri Schiavo has had no MRI or PET scan. Only a CT scan has led some neurologists to conclude that her cerebral cortex has liquefied; other neurologists dispute the possibility of reliably making that inference from CT scans. Many of the initial determinations of fact under Judge Greer relied on the testimony of Dr. Ronald Cranford. He is certainly a medical expert; but he is also a right-to-die zealot who advocates the removal of feeding tubes for patients with Alzheimer’s dementia.
While several courts have been involved in litigation surrounding that case, the other courts have deferred to Judge Greer’s questionable factual findings. The legal findings built on those factual findings do not inspire great confidence, either. It is hard to see how Mrs. Schiavo could be found to be in a “persistent vegetative state” when Florida law defines that term as including “the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.” (Some of the doctors the judge consulted did not believe that she was in a persistent vegetative state.)
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
why does the husband have the right? He abandoned her. He kept asking “is that bitch dead yet”. He got another woman. He’s got kids and a house.
[/quote]
Prove this statement. Prove that this man said what you just wrote that he did.
This is a marriage. In this case, his views stand as her opinion…or at least they should. I want you to prove how evil he is. Being with another woman when your wife is in a vegetative state with no medical hope for recovery isn’t exactly evil. The fact that he won’t divorce her should speak louder than anything you just wrote.
[quote]barbos01 wrote:
The politization(is that a word?) of this case just sickens me. Marriage (a sacred cow of the conservitive cause of late) in our society holds that the spouse is the one to make these sorts of decisions. That is one of the responsibilities to come with marriage. Now we are supposed to rewrite the institution of marriage because we don’t happen to agree with the decision in this case? If we allow a “line item veto” of marital responsiblities to occur in this case, any of the institutions we we profess to hold so dear will be meaningless. There is obviously no middle ground in this case, so we do as the Consitutional thing in this case and err on the side of indivdual rights. Since Terri is unable to speak for herself, Micheal Schiavo is to speak for her, as the law and society at large obligates him to do.
Aside from the legal issue, people continue to ask, “Who are we to starve this woman?” Well I would ask, “Who are we to keep feeding her?” If this woman is capable of concious, abstract thought(a moot question having seen the CT scan), can any of us fathom the hell of being trapped inside her head? Her parents are trying to keep her alive so they don’t lose their daughter. Selfish. I say allow nature (or God’s will, which ever you prefer) to take it course. What is that course you say? Well, we all seem to know what will happen if she stays off that machine. The hand of God works with absolutely no input from us. [/quote]
So…what about Chris Reeve, Stephen Hawking…?
The question of “who are we to keep feeding her” smacks of the worst kind of Stalinism. We’re judged by how we treat those less fortunatate, less strong, less able.
And dammit, starving someone to death is not a cool thing to do. Take the politics and go to hell with them. I don’t care. Like I’ve said before, as recently as last week I was firmly in the “pull the damn plug and shut up camp”. Then I started reading and actually thinking about it. And the idea of a judge ordering the death of someone who couldn’t speak for themselves–while at the same time we live in a country where heinous murderers get more consideration, and the same people who are editorializing in favor of the poor woman’s death are jumping up and down with rage about someone who tried to kill Americans being “tortured” by wearing panties on their head…well, I just can’t stand it.
I’m a conservative and I don’t see why she is still alive. I can’t believe some of you people would actually want someone to live like that? Like I said before, why live if you can’t LIVE?? Unless she can come up with ideas to start a business, give a hug, or can take up a hobby, why live? Honestly, can someone give me 1 GOOD reason to live in her situation? I wonder if its a “pride” thing. If the parent’s let her die, then they think they “lost” to the husband.
Are the parent’s atheist? It sure seems like it. Terri will be A WHOLE LOT BETTER on the other side. She’s just being tortured here on earth.
I am amazed by the people lining up to send this crippled woman to the afterlife.
Her wishes are not clearly spelled out…no one can say otherwise. If she had a living will, I would have no problem with this at all. Other than the husband’s words, no evidence exists at all. How can there be any question about erring on the side of a helpless life? Respect her parent’s wishes as they plan to care for her. Who knows…perhaps one day medical advances could provide some hope for her condition. If we continue on this present path, we will never know.
I wonder if all the mercy killers will be lining up outside the prisons to protest the execution of a child raping murderer? Is the moral compass that destroyed?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
anakin7 wrote:
Time to get a reality check. Who in the hell do we think we are to decide that a person should die because they are brain damaged. It really makes me sick to think that people think it is right to starve someone to death because they are brain damaged. I think some of you are pros at being sophists.
It’s not we, its the husband that has that right, and the courts that agree. The “we” are the people that think the husband knows his wife intentions best.
why does the husband have the right? He abandoned her. He kept asking “is that bitch dead yet”. He got another woman. He’s got kids and a house.
[/quote]
Because the husband is her legal freaking guardian Joe Weider, and the court has confirmed that again and again.
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html
dr. hammesfahr was nominated for a nobel prize for his work in rehabbing people like Terri. He thinks she’s fine. He spent ten hours with her. He says she can in fact eat and swallow, the only reason she’s been forced to be on the tube is because the husband has insisted.
That way, he can pull it and kill her.