Posted on 03/25/2005 12:20:58 PM PST by MarMema
Thank you for the link. A very interesting article. I had been thinking of something of a parallel approach, but was reluctant to raise it on FR because of my fear that it would reopen other, sometimes bitter, past FR disputes.
My approach is that the critical feature of our existence is our informed, free will which allows us to respond in faith to God's offer of redemption in Jesus Christ (or to reject same). The loss of that ability to exercise free will destroys our personhood, that is, the essence of our creation by God.
There are at least two conceptual problems, apart from measurement problems (Where is the situs of the will? How do we know when it is destroyed? Is it always yes or no or is there some continuum of destruction?), (i) what of those born without it who will never develop it? (Mental retardation) and (ii) what of Calvinists who posit no actual free will and eliminate the operation of the will entirely and (iii) is there a risk of 'eugenics'-type abuse in even discussing it. It was the Calvinist concern which caused me not to even raise my half-formed thoughts for fear of igniting a firestorm on tangential issues.
But your referenced article has started me thinking again. I have bookmarked it and shall read it a couple more times. Thanks again.
I'm sorry, I thought I did. I don't accept your distinction in the strength of love between birth and marriage. To accept that is to suggest that I would love my children more than my wife, which is bizarre and foolish and false. I went to the larger point that your perceived difference would not lead to the distinction you posited in withdrawal of feeding tubes.
Your post reeks of nazism to me.
That comment reeks of stupidity to me.
What I meant was that Mrs. Finn would not have killed her child by withdrawing a feeding tube under any conditions. But there was money at play in killing off the husband. I believe in such cases blood is thicker than water (marriage), particularly in light of the high divorce rate. Obviously I was stating an opinion.
And obviously you are entitled to hold any opinion you wish. However, any opinion only carries the weight of the reasoning and evidence which support it.
There is no basis in reason or evidence to suggest that one would be more or less likely to withdraw artificial life support from a person of a particular age or relationship. Clearly, it is the degree of debilitation and likelihood of recovery which informs such decisions, not the age or station of the subject.
There are probably people (and you apparently are one) who believe that biological relationships are stronger than volitional and legal ones. I do not. I happen to have had two children: one biological and one adopted. Both are now adults. I can assure you I do not love one more than the other. Moreover, I can assure you that I loved my wife as much or more than either. I do not believe I am unusual in that respect.
That's the problem with your theory.
ping
Thanks for the PING.
I am working my way through the article.
So far, I noticed this:
"Labeled a "vegetable," Nancy had lost the ability to speak and direct her own affairs. Even chewing food was a problem that took staff time and involved the risk of choking as aids hurried with the job. So, as part of her rehabilitation a feeding tube was inserted in order to deliver adequate nutrition. "
Apparently Nancy could swallow, but was put on feeding tube for convenience. I heard that happening a lot in nursing homes -- it saves them time and trouble. Terri may well have been able to swallow too -- I guess that's why Greer didn't just give an order to disconnect the tube, but to prohibit giving Terri any nourishment and hydration by any means.
Well if you followed Michele Finn's life after Hugh was killed, it's a pretty solid guess that it was when medical funding ran out that she chose to have him killed.
Also I have read it in a few places and I believe his daughter has hinted at it here on FR.
We have been suckered for too long into believing these people are in far worse shape than they really are.
Oh they have this kill-via-feeding-tubes down and in the books. First they put them on a feeding tube and stop allowing them to eat, then they remove the tube to have them killed.
It was a very successful maneuver for Pete Busalacchi, Christine's father.
The state of Missouri fought for Christine's life by videotaping her, and then giving the video to all four local tv stations, all of whom aired it. Christine was shown moving her legs and responding to the camera with a slight wave.
Christine Busalacchi
"The Court denied attempts by pro-lifers to gain guardianship of Christine, and also ignored evidence that Christine may not actually have been in a "vegetative" state. While unable to speak, Miss Busalacchi was reported to have been "alert and responsive." She could laugh and smile, and had learned to take three meals a day by mouth. Christine was also able to breathe on her own."
I didn't realize there were these previous cases and that this euthanasia has been going on so long.
And how many cases there are that we never even hear about.
Frightening that the judges keep ruling in favor of euthanasia!
My concern is that we are too far along the path to ever get back to a decent place.
All of these stories sound the same, don't they? Judges ignoring evidence that these people are not pvs.
No matter who steps in the judges manage to kill the patient. I said long ago that eventually they would kill Terri because they have only lost one case that I know of, so far.
It's frightening to think of living in this country now, with children.
It's amazing. I also read that PVS is misdiagnosed 28-43% of the time.
Yes, please give me other links to cases -- though I'll read those later on, because I need to go get some sleep now.
Good night.
That's a pretty cruel thing to 'guess' about. Most people take their responsibility for allowing a loved one to die very, very seriously and only authorize allowing the person to die when it is clearly best for the person involved and something they would want for themselves. (Mt 7:13)
She became a professional advocate for more funding of care for patients with brain damage. So that those with brain damage were not a financial strain on their families, specifically.
While I don't think government has any business "funding care" of anyone for any thing, I don't see that her chosen career discloses the reasons for her decision to allow her husband to die.
The waiver allows Medicaid to cover the cost of rehabilitation, therapy, respite care, behavioral programs and other services for people with brain injuries who otherwise would have to live in a nursing home or institution, Ms. Finn said."
"Families often end up paying out of pocket for long-term rehabilitation. Often the cost of rehabilitation is too high, and people with brain injuries become dependent on family or are admitted to nursing homes.
Before the Medicaid waiver is implemented, state legislators must create or modify state regulations. That could take several months, Ms. Finn said."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.