Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
What if Sarah Scantlin had been starved?
Well, then she would be dead. But, the fact that she came out of a 20 year coma isn’t proof that Terria Shiavo would do the same. Each case is unique and if there is a doctor out there who has examined Terri and does not believe that she is in a “persistant vegetative state,” then why haven’t a single court found him or her credible?
On balance, I still feel far more comfortable with decisions like these being made by the closest relative, which in most states is the spouse for married adults, than by grandstanding politicians.
I spent some time visiting my grandmother after she had suffered her second stroke. Her eyes opened at times, but she made no sign that she recognized anyone or anything in the room. She could move, a little, but it was pretty much random shifting, like one might make while asleep. Once in a while, some sound would pass her lips, but mostly whistles or a moan.
Point being, she demonstrated what some might consider signs of “life.” Motion, independant of outside stimuli, expression of sound, etc. And my mother swears that once grandma squeezed her hand when my mother spoke her name.
Point being, people see what they want to see. I see images of Terri on TV and I see a body that’s got no brain motivating it beyond autonomous functions. Others see a very injured woman struggling to cope with the limitations of her injury.
In the case of my grandmother, she didn’t live long enough to really starve to death. Her body gave out long before that. But, in deciding to deny further care and attempts to ressusicitate, we effectively gave her to God, and if He wanted her to recover, she would. But it was our decision to make. And we would have been emotionally devastated if some Federal agent had shown up and forced us to use artificial means to keep her body alive longer.
So at what point/age is it ok to allow someone to die a natural death, rather than live an unnatural live? Post retirement, so the social security checks stop? When medicare ends? After 20 years of support? There’s no hard and fast answer that will satisfy everyone, which is exactly why the Federal government should just stay an observer.
From what I know of Sarah Scantlin, there were very significant different facts. First, Sarah exhibited some response/communication to outsiders, blinking once or twice to respond to yes/no questions. Terri, from what I have read, has been diagnosed as being “brain dead,” meaning the higher functions such as speech, deliberate movement, and communication centers no longer functioned. Sarah appears to just have been in a coma. Very different medical issues.
On the other hand, if Sarah’s parents had decided to deny treatment, I’d have supported their right to make that decision. And the blessing in that? If they had done so, they’d have never know that Sarah would have regained the ability to speak. And if they were of a christian faith, they’d be able to take solace in the fact that their daughter was back with God.
Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists.
“As opposed to the hypocrites who considered all life meaningless unless they are serial killers or known terrorists.”
Bûllšhìŧ.
Next?
PAD
Yeah, that basically sums up my response to the quote I posted of yours.
“Yeah, that basically sums up my response to the quote I posted of yours.”
My comment was based upon the indisputable track record of this Congress and its hypocritical leadership. Your comment was based upon your usual bûllšhìŧ.
Next?
PAD
Well, ok Ken, show us those people that consider all life, other than serial killers or known terrorists, meaningless? ’cause I’d figure that the only folks that would fit that bill pretty much ARE serial killers or terrorists.
I’m pretty sure you’re trying to implicate the so-called pro choice group. Which, if it were true that they considered all life meaningless, they’d be composed of homicidal maniacs killing whenever they felt the whim take them.
So, I’d say PAD’s call for a BS dismissal is pretty appropriate.
Saying it’s better to “err on the side of life,” from the same man that launced a war against Iraq on faulty evidence is almost a perfect example of hypocrisy. Where was Bush’s “err(ing) on the side of life” two years ago when he decided to take action that would and has taken thousands of innocent lives? It was in the pile of “things that would get in the way of my agenda,” and so conviently ignored. Now, it serves a purpose, mainly glomming onto a public issue that can score him points with the groups that he seeks support from.
Which is exactly why you’d not hear squeek one from this government if this were a case involving a gay couple.
People make it sound like the husband is the only voice being listened to and that the parents haven’t had a say… but they have. There was a court case. They got to present their arguements. They got to present their doctors. The simple truth is that the court listened to their evidence and found it lacking. They found the evidence presented by Michael Schiavo to be more credible. They found the evidence of her friends and the people that knew her to be more credible.
I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the government can legislate me to have or not have a medical procedure without my expressed consent.
Next step: eugenics? forced sterilization? radical gene therapy to help those queers?
This is just another court vs government opportunity for this administration to make a grab for more power and control while marginalizing and limiting the power of the Courts and those “few radical judges” that they’re always complaining about.
This woman’s husband won’t even let the nurses open a window so that she can see the sun. It’s important to her that she be kept away from stimuli, despite the fact that so many medical professionals say she could benefit from therapy.
What really happened that night she “fell down”?
There’s only one possible upside, if this turns out to be a successful Federal coup of state authority:
When the Republicans finally lose control of the government, whoever replaces them will inherit all this power they’ve amassed. Hopefully, that group will take steps to undue this horrible precedent. But if they don’t, some part of me will take some satisfaction in watching the republican reaction to seeing someone else run willy nilly over their ideals and beliefs.
This thing is a huge mess, and barring the simple solution of a written and signed advanced directive, I don’t see an easy solution. While — initially — I sympathized with both sides, I think both the parents and the husband have been hijacked by exremists on both sides of the issues, and now can’t back down for fear of proving the other side “right.”
I DO sympathize with the parents, if this was my daughter, I’d likely be insane with grief, too, and unable to accept the generally acknowledged consensus that Terri was gone.
This is a little more complex than other right-to-die cases, in that Terri’s not dying. Yes, the lights are on, but no one’s home. The heart beats, the lungs breath, the stomach will digest food if it’s put there and the intestines do their job. But TERRI’s not there anymore. Whatever’s provoking the laughing and the crying and the reaction to stimuli ISN’T Terri. Someone dismissively referred to the person who called her a “houseplant,” but it’s a pretty apt metaphor. Houseplants react to stimuli (they grow towards the sun, for example), and I don’t doubt that if laughing and crying were in their repertoire, they’d do that, too, in responce to whatever stimulus triggered the reaction (cold water on the roots, maybe?). At worst, she’s a meat puppet. Even if it was possible that somehow her brain completely rebooted itself, and she’s at the level of an infant or severely brain-damaged adult, all the therapy in the world won’t recreate the Terri that existed before her heart attack.
On the other hand, I can totally understand how painful this has to be for Michael, as insane as I would be if this was my child, I would be equally devastated if this was my wife, and even the thought of her having some rudimentary awareness of her situation would be heartbreaking to me.
All that being said, 15 years of hindsight brings the whole thing into sharp focus: Michael should have bitten the bullet, divorced Terri, and let her parents have custody of her body. The Terri HE wants to put to rest is just as gone as their daughter. She doesn’t know what’s going on anymore, and if letting her parents play vegetable dress-up makes them happy, then so be it.
But that will never happen. Both sides have dug in deeper than the Maginot line. I bet a dollar the tube goes back in, and we have this discussion again in 15 years.
despite the fact that so many medical professionals say she could benefit from therapy.
I’ll ask this question again since you haven’t seen fit to answer it: Who are these medical professionals, and if they are so sure about her benefitting for some kind of “therapy,” why hasn’t any court from the lowest trial court to the Florida Supreme Court found them credible?
More to the point: Where is the compelling federal interest for Congress to intervene? The federal courts have already declined to intervene because they found there is none. The same politicians who routinally attack “activist judges” for sticking their noses where they don’t belong are now calling on those same judges intervene when they can score political points.
I admit, I probably overstated the “how **DARE** they” part, but I was kinda tired & the last line of Jeff in NC’s statement seemed like a shrugging of the shoulders with a ‘so what’ approach. It can be hard to tell from plain typed text.
Jeff in NC, not to belittle your mother’s condition, because I do sympathize, but it sounds as though your mother can still get around some, which is different from Terry’s case, where she is no more than an empty shell being kept alive by a feeding tube.
As for the opportunistic politicians, if they’re doing this because they think it’s right, then why don’t they show similar concern for ALL Americans? How many hundreds or even thousands of people are turned away from hospitals every day because they don’t have health coverage? How many more don’t even go to a doctor/clinic/hospital because they can’t afford the medical bills? How many thousands of people, mostly seniors, have to choose between food or medicine?
If these politicians truly cared about people, these problems would be eliminated, or at least greatly reduced. Instead, the programs that could help, Medicare, Medicaid & the V.A. are having their budgets cut.
Starvation is barbaric. Yes, it is. How many homeless people starve? where’s the Congressional action to stop this starvation?
“Nurses have claimed she has “good moments” which would likely expand with therapy” (& other related quotes). I know that nurses are trained professionals, but when it’s a matter of what doctors say & what nurses say, I’m going to have to side with the doctors, because their training is far more extensive.
Also, much has been said of the husbands common law wife. Anyone know how long they’ve been together? If it 12 to fifteen years, then yeah, it sounds like he wasted no time replacing his wife. But if it’s only like 5 or 7 years, then it sounds more like he was getting on with his life after the wife’s death.
I agree this is a horrific situation to be in. But I don’t think the husband should have just capitulated. Imagine how horrible it would be to know that your wife’s wishes were being denied by her parents, and that she was being kept alive for their benefit, not hers, and contrary to her expressed desire. It’s just as easy to say that the parents should have just accepted reality and allowed their daughter to go to God in her own way.
The really sick thing is that after Terri was released from the hospital following immediate treatment for her mysterious fall, it was assumed that her husband would follow the advice of the doctors and take her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center. Everyone thought she had a good chance. But instead he locked her into a little closet at Sable Palms Nursing Home, ordering the nurses not to address Terri directly or open the blinds.
The really sick thing is that after Terri was released from the hospital following immediate treatment for her mysterious fall, it was assumed that her husband would follow the advice of the doctors and take her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center. Everyone thought she had a good chance. But instead he locked her into a little closet at Sable Palms Nursing Home, ordering the nurses not to address Terri directly or open the blinds.
Mr. Race, in the words of the Straight Dope Message Board:
“Cites, please.”
JSM
Everyone seems to obsess over the million that was given her and what happened to it. I want to know where the parents are getting the funding to keep challenging the courts in front of 19 judges! Schiavo has stated a number of times the parents started acting like this when they were informed that they wouldn’t get one cent of her settlement. So considering Schiavo has supposedly spent over $400,000 being on the defensive, the parents have had to spend more than that being on the offensive. So who’s paying their bills?
The more that I’ve heard about the parents int he last few weeks the more I’m of the opion that this isn’t about their daughter’s life, it’s about publicity and money. And whoever posted that Terri’s Rights Crap, the trials are a matter of public record and browsing thru them your faq is wrong about most things.
The real fact of this matter is this woman would be long dead at any other point in history except the last several decades. It’s time to let nature follow it’s course. God pulled the plug 15 years ago and we stuck our finger in the dike to try and block his decision.
PAD keep up the good work.
I definitely need to have a living will put together — of course, I don’t really have the kind of money that would allow me the honor of a lawyer sneezing on me but I need to find a way to deal with this soon.
I’m not going to argue the particulars of this because it’s possible that both sides want what’s best (the husband who doesn’t his wife to live in that condition and the parents who can’t give up hope because their love is so great).
However, I wonder how the parents in this forum would react in such a situation? No matter what side you take, I imagine it must be tough for a parent to suddenly lose the ability to make these sorts of decisions for their children after years of having done so — from the first minor accident to something like this.
My comment was based upon the indisputable track record of this Congress and its hypocritical leadership.
It is very disputable that the track record of Congress and its leadership show any form of hypocriticism.
It is your usual BS to state something as fact that is not. Conservatives don’t state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent. Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that.
It is your usual BS to state your opinion as right and state others opinions as BS.
No matter what side you take, I imagine it must be tough for a parent to suddenly lose the ability to make these sorts of decisions for their children after years of having done so
All parents lose the right to speak for their children on their child’s 18th birthday. Most get over it.
For the record, source http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
In seeing the allusions to the husband’s involvement, somehow, in Terri’s injury, I tried to so some independant research into it. Other news stories I’ve read said that her collapse was connected to a chemical imbalance related to an eating disorder. Short of poisoning, that’s not your typical injury that smells of foul play.
According to the above source, Terri suffered a heart attack, and had to be ressusitated. Her cerebral cotrex was so badly damaged that over the years, it deteriorated and has been replaced by spinal fluid. Which, if I understand that correctly, means not only is she “brain-dead,” she’s in fact missing the physical aspects of the brain associated with higher brain functions. The words doctors have used in support of adminstering therapy have said that there are treatments that could “improve” her condition. Not cure her, not revive her, not heal the injury.
So, if I’m understanding that correctly, Terri now has less brain functions than my cats. And unless we suddenly develop the ability to perform brain transplants, or cause the body to regrow lost brain matter, she’s not going to advance much beyond the basic level she’s at. It’s like a car with the engine running, it’s in drive, but no one’s in the car. It could idle, maybe creep forward, will turn if someone leans in and turns the wheel, etc. But Terri’s not coming back.
Next step: eugenics? forced sterilization? radical gene therapy to help those queers?
Didn’t we do that already, I mean that’s sooo twentieth century.
It is very disputable that the track record of Congress and its leadership show any form of hypocriticism.
**cough**TomDeLay**cough**
On living wills, or just wills in general, you don’t need a lawyer to get one. It’s a good idea to consult with a lawyer, especially one that practices in estate/probate law, in order to make sure your will complies with the requirements of your state.
Wills are like contracts, in that they reflect private law-making. Most require some form of witnassing, and there are individual state requirements as to who can witness, who can prepare, and who can benefit from a will (such as, often, the preparer of a will cannot be a beneficiary, usually). Most states don’t have strict form or language requirements for a will to be legal. There are computer programs available that contain forms and examples that run about $15, or free if you buy income tax software with it.
If all else fails, write yourself on Word or Wordperfect a Will or living trust document, and check with your state attorney general’s office on the witnessing requirements.
Then, and this is the most important aspect, TELL YOUR FAMILY. Tell them about the will, what’s in it, and make your wishes known if you want a living will/do not treat condition honored. And it’s never too early to do this. The more family members that know, the less likely it will be that someone can challenge your wishes. You can tell friends, too, but they don’t have any legal standing to support or enforce your wishes, unless you marry or adopt them or something.
Hey, does anyone else wonder why Congress couldn’t be bothered to focus this kind of attention on the Jessica Lunsford case? Where was all of their concern about the “sanctity” of that life?
The only concern Congress has for Terri is how she can be used for political hash and talking points. If you ask me, life ain’t so sacred if it’s only sacred by political mandate.
Then I start to wonder if stem cell research could be a help to Terri…
What really happened that night she “fell down”?
She must’ve voted Republican.
Now, to be serious about this:
It’s bad enough that far too many people are assuming that the husband has an ulterior motive, but now you’re going out on a limb to say he’s done something criminal?
Great, what a wonderful thing to suggest.
Now that that’s out of the way, I think Bush obviously called Osama to approve of 9/11. I mean, if we’re going to make pathetically asanine suggestions about šhìŧ we know nothing about…
Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent.
Except when we execute an innocent.
But we can just sweep that aspect under the rug, yes?
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I absolutely agree that everyone should get a living will. That would obviously have resolved this a long time ago.
PAD’s comments, however, are absurd. It SHOULD be the governments job to protect innocent life. If there is ANYTHING the government has a responsibility to do, it is this. Obviously, there will be moments when we disagree on the best way to do this. For example, I believe the death penalty, when fairly applied, is a legitimate method of protecting other innocent life from being killed. Many of you disagree because of the fear of taking the innocent life of a person wrongly convicted. I can respect that. Both sides are wanting to protect innocent life.
Which takes us to this case. There are so many lies and distortions, it is hard to get to the heart of the matter. But here is how I see it:
1.) FACT: There is no living will. There is no way to know what Terri actually wants. The fact that the majority may all agree that they would not want to continue in such a state is irrelevant. We don’t know what she wants. And if there is any doubt, then you MUST err on the side of life. (And yes, that would apply to the death penalty. I am fine with the death penalty being used in a more limited fashion rather than accidentally taking the life of an innocent person.)
2.) FACT: Terri is neither brain dead nor in a coma. Medical experts agree that she has some level of awareness. It is not much. And it is unlikely she will recover. But we are not talking about someone who has no brain function. We are talking about someone who is limited. Someone who has some awareness of what is going on. There is a huge difference. (It should also be noted that, while unlikely, others HAVE recovered when medical experts have sworn it was impossible. While I realize the parents may be setting themselves up for only years of further grief, medical experts cannot say with absolute certainty that recovery is impossible.)
3.) FACT: Terri is only on a feeding tube, not on extraordinary means to prolong her life. That has two important ramifications:
a.) What if Terri COULD eat on her own, but otherwise was exactly the same. Would it be allowable to starve her to death? Because that is what is truly happening. And that is why this is such an issue to conservatives. This is what I find so ironic. PAD accuses conservatives of being hypocrites, but I think it is the other way around. Liberals like to say they are the voice for those who have no voice (such as for civil rights). Yet when there is truly someone who has no voice and whose life is about to be ended, the liberals are saying it is better. Obviously, this is a complex issue. I can understand that the thought of her staying this way for another 30 years is a horrible concept. Yet she has NOT stated her wishes in a way that can be verified. If she was not on a feeding tube, would you be ok with them simply starving her to death? I think that should be unthinkable, but clearly it is not.
b.) If I did to my cat what is being done to Terri, I would be put in prison. Yet we are doing this to a person who IS concious and has some level of awareness. Starving someone to death is an excruciating way to die. And make no mistake, she WILL feel this distress. She may not have full mental ability, but she will go through distress. This is not like taking her off life support where she quickly slips away. This is allowing her to linger for a week or more, experiencing a distress that you cannot dream of. You want to talk about “hëll on earth,” starving her to death is exactly that. While I in no way advocate it, there are far more humane ways to end her life than just removing a feeding tube.
Yes, the GOP is interfering. And rightly so. They are acting to protect an innocent life.
Iowa Jim
Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents’ authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I’d let the parents make this decision. As it stands…nuh-uh.
At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person’s life. Period.
Iowa Jim
Somebody mentioned earlier about what would happen if Terri “woke up” and wondered why the hëll her husband was trying to let her die.
What would happen if she “woke up” and wondered why the hëll her wishes weren’t carried out?
Neocons would be forced to stick their head between their legs and crawl back into whatever latrines they came out of.
Jim,
In the instance of a healthy cat, yes. However, if your cat had no mobility and you had to force-feed it each day, then you would likely put it to sleep and no one would second-guess you for it – let alone make a federal case.
Out of morbid curiosity…if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she’d been on life-support and basically said “WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?”
…how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?
Actually, it has happened. More than once. And the person was usually grateful to be alive and to be again with their family.
Obviously, the circumstances vary. But I believe you have no choice but to err on the side of keeping someone alive.
Jim, I haven’t seen any indication that she’s conscious. And based on the “her cerebral cortex is gone” evidence I’ve found, I find it hard to believe that she is in any state that anyone would describe as conscious.
Second, the law has years and years of prior legal precedent for exactly this case. Living wills are a relatively new creation, since only in recent memory (40 years, say) has medical science developed to the point where we can artificially sustain life far beyond the body’s natural ability to do so. Before there were living wills, legally, a spouse had total and absolute say over the treatment their injured partner received. If it’s ok in the case of an 80 year old stroke victim that has no chance of recovery, it has to be ok in the case of a brain dead woman with no brain to recover from. And I’m not being flip about that. From what I’ve read, her cerebral cortex is gone…not just lost function, but physically gone. Correct, we don’t “know” what she wanted. But there is evidence. There’s her her legal guardian, her husband, saying he knows. And there’s not one single, tiny, miniscule piece of evidence contracting him. So, there isn’t any doubt, because there isn’t any legally important opinion to the contrary of what we DO know. There’s no “erring on the side of life,” because there’s no contradictory evidence in existence, other than the opinions of her parents, who were 7 years removed from being her legal guardians at the time of the attack that left her like this. That’s their opinion. It’s not based on conversations they had with her. It’s based on their understanding of how they raised her.
If you did this to your cat…well, that’d be called humane. If your cat couldn’t exhibit independant movement, and had to be fed through a tube in it’s stomach, you’d take it to the vet and have it euthanized. Or at least I would. And from what I’ve seen of other pet owners, many of them would, too. Those that I’ve met that say they won’t do so out of an inability to let their loved ones (pets included) go to a dignified and peaceful hereafter.
It seems like you’re discussing a totally different patient. Terri can eat on her own? I haven’t seen any credible statement posted that supports that.
As to the suffering starving her will cause, I’ll say this. We don’t allow those sentenced to death to suffer when we execute them. Starvation is a painful, horrible way to die, although truth be told, Terri would expire from dehydration long before she starved. You can survive for weeks on water alone, but you can only last days without liquid. If we allowed our terminally ill to be administered the same lethal, quick, and painless death we grant the worst criminals in society, would the outcry against this action be any less?
Interesting reading:
http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html
Iowa Jim, all the what-if arguments in the world still do not stand against the fact that Michael Shiavo is her legal guardian. By law. Tested in court time and again and upheld every single time.
At least for me, the parents and/or the husbands wishes are irrelevant. Without knowing the wishes of the person, the government must act to protect the person’s life. Period.
I think you really, really need to think about what you just said. It sure gave me chills to think that you’re in favor of the government determining what’s best for an individual over the wishes of her guardian.
There’s a word for that, you know…
JSM
In the instance of a healthy cat, yes. However, if your cat had no mobility and you had to force-feed it each day, then you would likely put it to sleep and no one would second-guess you for it – let alone make a federal case.
Yes, I would put it to sleep. I would not starve it to death. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that I am wrong. Let’s say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON’T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won’t say “life” since I am supposing she is “not really there”) far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death.
If this was such an open and shut case, that is all it would take. The fact that she must be starved to death says something. Perhaps it is a lingering belief in the sanctity of life. If so, it might now last long if we continue in this direction.
Whatever else you believe about this case, starving her to death is so inhumane it is criminal. The fact that it is even considered is horrible.
Iowa Jim
Since this case has been brought before quite a few judges (19 is the last I heard) and they all decided in favor of the husband, I have no clue why Congress or anyone else is getting involved other than to try and shape this case into a blunt instrument to beat Roe v Wade with.
And someone should ask the president why he is flipflopping his stance on this issue since when he was governor of Texas he signed into law the “Texas Futile Care Law” which gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient’s family’s wishes.
And does the idea of a GOP “talking points memo” on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?
http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talking-points.html
That is interesting, Johhny Fuller. But incomplete. That’s his opinion, and I’m sure he has his reasons for it. But there’s very little explanation as to WHY he thinks that way. Opinions without facts are dangerous. They lead to soundbytes, and then to blogs, and then…omigod, it’s already too late…..we’re stuck in an Escher circle of never-ending dispute….
“For the sake of argument, let’s say that I am wrong. Let’s say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON’T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won’t say “life” since I am supposing she is “not really there”) far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death.”
I think its illegal to actively do something that would bring about her death (like injecting her with a needle, smothering her, shooti8ng her in the head) while removing her feeding tubes is basically considered letting nature takes its course.
“For the sake of argument, let’s say that I am wrong. Let’s say that Terri is brain dead. She is truly an empty shell. Why DON’T they just give her a shot that will end it all? You can end her existence (I won’t say “life” since I am supposing she is “not really there”) far more humanely and quickly than by starving her to death.”
Because then they’d be arrested and tossed in jail, just like Jack Kervorkian?
I think you really, really need to think about what you just said. It sure gave me chills to think that you’re in favor of the government determining what’s best for an individual over the wishes of her guardian.
We NEVER allow a legal guardian to kill someone. There is a limit on both sides.
There is also precedent in a similar area. What if a parent, for religious reasons, believes it is wrong to have a blood transfusion and therefore refuses one for his baby. Should the courts do nothing and just allow the baby die because of the parents religious beliefs? There is no easy answer. I do believe the parent or spouse should be allowed to make the decision in 99.9% of the cases. But when it comes to life and death decisions, then there IS a place for the government to get involved.
Bottom line: This issue is a mess. While I want to believe the best about both the husband and the parents, there are things both sides have done that makes me wonder. So I simply look at this divorced from considering their motives. I believe the husband has the final say, UNLESS he is doing something that would kill his spouse. In this case, I believe that is what he is doing. He is not “allowing” her to die, he is directly causing her death by denying her food. That would not be allowed in any other circumstance.
I do not take this issue lightly. My grandmother had to face this issue of a feeding tube with my grandfather. I do have an idea of what is at stake on both sides of the issue. In this case, removing the feeding tube is wrong. Period.
Iowa Jim
“Interesting reading:
http://www.lifenews.com/bio748.html“
Not really that interesting, Dr. William Hammesfahr is a “Right to Life” advocate who has even gone so far as to infer that Terri Schiavo’s husband may have strangled her.
And does the idea of a GOP “talking points memo” on this case disgust anyone as much as it does me?
Oh, give me a break. You can be sure there is a democrat talking memo as well. That is the nature of politics. The Clinton administration was the king of talking points in its day. The issue should be whether the talking points are true, not that they exist.
Iowa Jim
the parents have stated that therapy has been withheld for about 10 years and that she does respond to stimuli.
there are doctors that have said she is brain damaged not brain dead. there is a difference.
if she is aware, then depriving her of food and water is a horrible death. also there is no living will stating her wishes in this case.
i do have a living will and have stated that no heroic measures are to be taken but not to deprive food and water.
i also do not blame either side for their beliefs and to say this is political probably is not true for most. this is a statement of right or wrong.
the parents are willing and desire to care for their daughter. let them.
I think its illegal to actively do something that would bring about her death (like injecting her with a needle, smothering her, shooti8ng her in the head) while removing her feeding tubes is basically considered letting nature takes its course.
No more than refusing to give her food if she could eat normally is letting nature take its course.
Either way, the effect is the same. Death by starvation, even for a so called “brain dead” person is not a pleasant way to die. And at least some medical experts believe Terri is not truly brain dead and that she will experience distress. And not all of these experts have a “right wing” agenda. (Clearly, some experts on both sides have an agenda, but there are enough on both sides who disagree to show that this is not an easy case to determine.)
Iowa Jim
“Conservatives don’t state all life is sacred, but rather all innocent life is sacred. Death row inmates, in most cases, are not innocent. Those we fight against in Iraq are not innocent. Unfortunately to put an end to the tyranny and terrorism, some innocents have died. No one feels good about that.”
Oh, okay. So you understand that you’re full of bûllšhìŧ, but you believe that saying you don’t feel good about it…that evens things out.
DNA evidence has cleared hundreds of people on death row, and that’s just the ones we know about. Our bombs have killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq at a clip that Saddam could only dream about, in a war that was NOT dedicated to putting an end to tyranny and terror, but to finding weapons that never existed. Tens upon tens upon tens of thousands died over that, but, hey…gotta break a few eggs.
And meanwhile Congress absolutely defends to its last hypocritical breath the sanctity of marriage…unless, of course, they feel like interfering. And the President quickly signs on as Hypocrite in Chief.
People don’t get to die unless the government wants to kill them.
But, hey, at least “no one feels good about it.” I’m sure that means a lot to all the dead people.
PAD
No more than refusing to give her food if she could eat normally is letting nature take its course.
Thats the thing though…she can’t eat on her own. She can’t chew or swallow, the only way she hasn’t starved before now is because of artificial means and as such removing those artificial means is not considered murder.
Oh, give me a break. You can be sure there is a democrat talking memo as well. That is the nature of politics. The Clinton administration was the king of talking points in its day. The issue should be whether the talking points are true, not that they exist.
When a ethically challenged scoundrel like Tom Delay is acting like he’s doing “God’s work” instead of just another piece of political ammo then a talking points memo is very relevent.
And when said memo contains bullet points like:
– “This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.”
– “This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida – has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.”
Well lets just say that hypocrisy makes me ill and leave it at that.
And when said memo contains bullet points like:
Like I said, the issue then is not the fact that talking points exist, but that you think the content is hypocritical. (The points you posted are so obvious, I could have predicted them. They may perhaps cause you to say the GOP is taking advantage of the issue and grandstanding, but they are hardly issuing points that disagree with positions they have held and voted on in the past. I suspect that the hypocrisy for you is in their position, not that their points contradict their position.)
Of course, I believe the democrat position is hypocritical, and am sure their talking points would only give more evidence for this fact. So I will leave it at that.
Iowa Jim
This is easy:
Place a gun in her hand, let it go off, convict her of murder and the ACLU and liberals will fight to keep her off death row and alive.