All I know is if I can’t play hockey, work out, eat on my own, or fuck anymore then you might as well pull the plug on me.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
So the decision here is to quit feeding and sustaining her and to kill her via dehydration. A decision to kill someone is what he is invoking with the “playing God” quote. We’re seemingly comfortable doing this in a punishment context, but I am much more worried when we start making “quality of life” decisions.
That’s a big moral quandry to me.
why? Serious question. Is it just the battle between the death penalty and this? Or something else?
Because, personally I still don’t know where I stand on the death penalty, and I’ve been wrasslin’ with it seriously for 10 or 15 years. Every time I make up my mind, something new comes along.
[/quote]
To get totally off on a tangent, to me the difference is between punishing someone who has been found guilty of a crime that society has assigned a death penalty and making a theoretical decision of what would be better for a person.
In the punishment instance, the convicted person has chosen a course of action that he knew could end in a death-penalty punishment, no matter how remote that reality seemed at the time. So in essence, that convicted person made the choice.
In the other case, we are in essence “playing God” by making the choice for the person who cannot communicate.
Uhhh… I’ve been following this case and I’m kind of perplexed over certain issues that no one has really addressed.
-
Why do the “right to life” camps say that it is God’s will to keep Terri alive? If this were a purely natural situation devoid of human intervention (ie. a feeding tube) she most likely would have expired 15 years ago. In nature, if an animal is injured or sick, it is either killed by a predator or simply dies, according to nature’s laws, as intended by God.
-
How can having her languish helplessly in bed for 15 years with no hope of recovery, instead of freeing her spirit to ascend to heaven and be at peace be the wiser choice? If her parents were true followers of religious faith, I’d expect them to acknowledge this belief and do the humane thing.
-
A lot of pro lifer’s are crying out how cruel and inhumane starving and dehydrating Terri will be, but aren’t these the very same people who fought to block the rights of terminally ill patients from having end of life measure like lethal injections, which would make death quick and painless, instead of drawn out and perhaps painful?
-
How many here, either for or against removal of the feeding tube- regardless of political or religious affiliations- when placed in Terri’s position would want to live for 15, 20, or 30 years in such a state?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
So the decision here is to quit feeding and sustaining her and to kill her via dehydration. A decision to kill someone is what he is invoking with the “playing God” quote. We’re seemingly comfortable doing this in a punishment context, but I am much more worried when we start making “quality of life” decisions.
That’s a big moral quandry to me.
why? Serious question. Is it just the battle between the death penalty and this? Or something else?
Because, personally I still don’t know where I stand on the death penalty, and I’ve been wrasslin’ with it seriously for 10 or 15 years. Every time I make up my mind, something new comes along.
To get totally off on a tangent, to me the difference is between punishing someone who has been found guilty of a crime that society has assigned a death penalty and making a theoretical decision of what would be better for a person.
In the punishment instance, the convicted person has chosen a course of action that he knew could end in a death-penalty punishment, no matter how remote that reality seemed at the time. So in essence, that convicted person made the choice.
In the other case, we are in essence “playing God” by making the choice for the person who cannot communicate.[/quote]
okay. I thought those are the distinctions you were drawing. Now: what’s the moral quandry?
FYI, here’s some good info on Living Wills, from today’s WSJ:
Learning about living wills and advance health-care directives.
One-third of all Americans have a living will ( http://public.findlaw.com/healthcare/life_events/le28_3dying.html ), according to a recent survey conducted by FindLaw. A living will, also referred to as a health-care declaration or medical directive, is a written document that states the type of care and degree of medical intervention a person would want in the event of a life-threatening medical condition, including direction regarding the use of life-prolonging procedures, says FindLaw.
WHAT TO DO: Rules for living wills vary by state ( http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/med-advance/med&adv.txt ). Living-will forms generally are available from doctors, hospitals or long-term-care facilities. Download ( http://www.finance.cch.com/tools/poaforms_m.asp ) a form for your state ( http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111144394604885495,00.html ), then consider registering it for free, with the U.S. Living Will Registry’s Web site ( http://www.uslivingwillregistry.com/ ), so family members can have easy access to it. Remember, though, a living will doesn’t cover all the bases, says this WSJ article ( http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111145461058785821,00.html ). See what’s needed for a durable power-of-attorney for health care ( http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/book023.htm ), and a Do Not Resuscitate order ( http://public.findlaw.com/healthcare/life_events/le23_3ways.html?health/ok ). Learn about getting authority ( http://public.findlaw.com/healthcare/newcontent/flg/ch15/st7/st78/qa16.html ) to handle a parent’s affairs ( http://public.findlaw.com/healthcare/nolo/auntie/96105DD3-3656-4B6D-BD3D31AA5D469C1B.html ). Read a primer ( http://public.findlaw.com/healthcare/life_events/le23_2primer.html ) on informed consent. -By Lex Kaptik, 3/22/05
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
okay. I thought those are the distinctions you were drawing. Now: what’s the moral quandry?
[/quote]
The quandry comes from the considerations that would lead one to consider such a decision in the first place – the quality of life issues.
To all of those who are insisting that this guy is a jerk who abandoned his wife for a new woman -
I’ve read that Terri was in this veggie state for 5-6 years BEFORE he took up with this other woman. This hardly convinces me that he ran right out and looked to get some ass after she became brain damaged.
And again, we come to the matter of his failure to divource her, despite being offered money. Does that sound like a man who neccesarily is out to “abandon” his wife, and just wants a good lay with someone else?
Didn’t Mr. Schiavo win a judgement of well over 1 million dollars to spend on Teri’s rehab? Surely Mr. Schiavo’s counsel had to convince the jury that rehab was possible, or why even bother? Why don’t just sue for loss of companionship or whatever else the jury will bite on for a large settlement?
How much money was spent on her actual rehabilitation? Zero. So what happened in the meantime? When and by what evidence was the premise, that money allocated and spent on rehab would produce any beneficial result, rendered invalid?
Interesting too is the notion that as the husband of Teri, Mr. Schiavo, is granted by the state the right to speak for her previous state of mind. No doubt she would have agreed that after banging some other woman for many years and having two kids with her, he is still faithful enough to her wishes as to have his word on them taken over that of her parents.
Analogous to the abilities of former Ass Party VP Candidate Breck Girl to channel the thoughts of dead babies in heaven for his taxed-on-the-plantiffs dime fourty percent of millions to be sure. If he has indeed moved on as some have said on this forum, why doesn’t he in fact go and leave her parents with the whole mess? Then again, look at Bubba’s arrangements with Queen Rodham. Get all the Lewinsky’s and assault all of the women you want- just stay legally bound for the pursuit of power and I will defend you to the end- of my term anyway. They do have interesting ways of redefining what is is on the left, don’t they?
Curious too is the assault on men and marriage and kids in the family courts. According to the leftist cant eminating from such regions, men are pretty much good for a stream of payments and nothing else. Well, except for deciding to pull the feeding tube that would end a life, based on a recollections of an event kept silent for six years. Culture of death indeed.
Who knows what her state of mind, or mind at all is, and can devine what she would have wanted? How can any of us know what we will want in a situation as grave as life and death not having been there? How can anyone presume to speak for others on such matters?
100 meters, after posting all of the idiotic nonsense that you have, you of all people should be the most wary of the slippery slope utilitarian arguments to end lives on account of low, make that extremely low, cognitive function. That is, of course, if we go on the very catholic assumption that you could comprehend them in the first place.
Well, I learned something interesting. Here I thought Congress was prohibited from creating any law that would apply to a specific person… I suppose I get this from classical liberal arguments of natural rights and the bounds of government. And yet, the Constitution (unless I missed something) only proscribes Bills of Attainder (legislating an individual as guilty of a crime).
I suppose any other abuses would still be covered as violating due process, but this is a little odd to me.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Well, I learned something interesting. Here I thought Congress was prohibited from creating any law that would apply to a specific person… I suppose I get this from classical liberal arguments of natural rights and the bounds of government. And yet, the Constitution (unless I missed something) only proscribes Bills of Attainder (legislating an individual as guilty of a crime).
I suppose any other abuses would still be covered as violating due process, but this is a little odd to me.[/quote]
They pass personal bills all the time. Mostly to pass special exceptions to things for people.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
They pass personal bills all the time. Mostly to pass special exceptions to things for people.[/quote]
Something about that just seems wrong to me.
This is such a sad story.
This would be over simplifying it, but you wouldn’t let your pet be in the same way.
now, thats not a direct comparison stating the the patient is like a dog, just that quality of life, being able to function as a working organism should be the primary reason for any decision.
Her parents understandably want to carry on. This is their offspring, and as such, they are bound by that.
The fact that the husband has a new life is of little consequence. Can you imagine if that happened to a loved one of your own. I would hope that i would have the fortitude to carry on as he has. he has to live with that decision for the rest of his life, in front of his children, his peers and their parents who will despise him.
As posted prior, “if it were me…” and i make no bones about this to my parents or girlfriend. as a motorcyclist it is a reasonable proposition and posibility, like it is to all of us.
Only through superhuman effort and technology has she be given the “privilage” to be wheelchair bound and in a vegative state. She smiles…this is no proof of anything, just a autonomic response to a facial shape and if this and such tests are what we will define as concious thought (actualy theory of mind defines a “conciousness”) then facial recognition software might be considered as having conciousness.
It is amazing that all of this senate effort has gone into this. I am sure it is not the first, or will it be the last time this comes to the fore, i hope that some popularist or kneejerk legislation doesn’t muddy the water for those in need in the future.
(I must point out that we have limited resource re info on this case as reported in UK)
[quote]miniross wrote:
This is such a sad story.
(I must point out that we have limited resource re info on this case as reported in UK)[/quote]
then go read a couple of the links I’ve posted.
She’s got more going for her than a vague smile, according to an expert physician who spent time with her–as opposed to the court doctors who only looked at her chart.
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1111534939420.Dr.H.JPG
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
EmperialChina:
read this. I posted it a couple of pages ago. A well known dr who was nominated for a nobel prize in the field of working with people like her.
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html
[/quote]
Uhmmm some simple research on Dr. Hammesfahr would have let you known he’s not really a nobel prize nominee…he got his local congressman to write a letter to the prize committee. He’s basically a kook judging by his statements and claims,example:
LEVESQUE (10/25/03): In a 2002 order by Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer ruling that Mrs. Schiavo could not recover, Greer labeled Hammesfahr a “self-promoter.”
The judge noted that Hammesfahr testified that he had treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo yet “offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim.”
and more from Judge Greer:
“By the court’s count, (Hammesfahr) gave 105 commands to Terri Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional six commands,” Greer wrote. “He asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions.”
also this:
“By the court’s count, (Hammesfahr) gave 105 commands to Terri Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional six commands,” Greer wrote. “He asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions.”
also this:
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/FinalOrders/03-17-03/DOH-03-0182.pdf
witness our mainstream media at work:
SCARBOROUGH: So, what is Terri Schiavo’s true medical condition? Here to help us sort it out is Dr. William Hammesfahr. He’s a neurologist who was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine. And he’s one of the doctors who has treated Terri Schiavo.
and
HANNITY: Imagine being in his position and having a guy like a Nobel Prize nominee like Dr. Hammesfahr, who I’m looking at right now, who spent 10 hours with her and feels that, given the chance, he could rehabilitate this girl.
keep in mind the court appointed doctors totally disagree.
hey Joe! you can still support terri in your own way, but quit with the kooky facts already!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
He abandoned her 6 years ago - by moving in with another woman and having two kids with her.
He won’t allow her to be fed in any manner other than the feeding tube when she can be fed normally.
He won’t allow anyone to even attempt rehab, and there are at least 30 doctors that believe she is rehabable to a point.
[/quote]
What the hell? How long was he supposed to wait? Terri doesn’t have a cerebral cortex! This equates to not being a human being anymore, just the shell. She has only the reflexes and responses afforded her by the brain stem, like all animals. There’s nothing wrong when your wife’s been in a vegetative state for over a decade.
And she can’t eat because she’s not really conscious! If she could eat on her own, she’d be eating right now!
You already said you didn’t like the decision, so what’s up with the slander?
[quote]StevenF wrote:
All I know is if I can’t play hockey, work out, eat on my own, or fuck anymore then you might as well pull the plug on me. [/quote]
I agree.
[quote]100meters wrote:
What the hell? How long was he supposed to wait? Terri doesn’t have a cerebral cortex! This equates to not being a human being anymore, just the shell. She has only the reflexes and responses afforded her by the brain stem, like all animals. There’s nothing wrong when your wife’s been in a vegetative state for over a decade.[/quote]
Then if you feel he has this right to leave this ‘shell’ and start a new relationship and have a couple of kids, why can’t he transfer responsibility over to her parents? But he won’t. He wants her dead. What’s wrong with letting the parents have their daughter back?
[quote]You already said you didn’t like the decision, so what’s up with the slander?
[/quote]
Please show me this ‘slander’ you speak of. I honestly don’t know what you are talking about.
The woman is brain dead, and she told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive in her current condition. He is her legal guardian. Aren’t any of you “conservatives” worried about the federal government intervening in state decisions? What about a spouse’s role as legal guardian? Separation of powers? Hypocrites.
For every extra day Terri is kept alive, I’m going to punch a pregnant Christian in the baby.
here’s some interesting reading for both sides, it’s the report from the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb after passing Terri’s law.
includes:
Theresa?s husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers.
?
His [Michael?s] demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as ?a nursing home administrator?s nightmare?. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa?s collapse, she has never had a bedsore.
Thanks for the GAL link. Interesting info. The testimony given by the Schindler family on pgs 13-14 is quite concerning, and I can see how the court would have Michael continue on a guardian.