Posted on 10/17/2003 9:20:22 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Out of the blue?
A person is trapped in a vegetative state of existance for 13 years with no hope of recovery and you call this decision "out of the blue"?
I'm sure there are many good arguments as to why this woman should be kept alive by artificial means, let's try to stick to the rational ones.
Also, Terri's husband is treating his wife like chattel. A slave. America got rid of slavery in 1860 and all men and women are created equal. This is a violation of Terri's civil rights.
But, most of all Governor Bush, you know that this order handed down by a black robed judge to execute Terri through starvation is cruel and inhumane punishment, can be turned over by you, and damn the naysayers.
Just because murder is legal doesn't mean we should just idly accept it.
Just because murder is legal doesn't mean we should just idly accept it.
Murder?
Unless we use every machine and artificial means available.... to extend a person's suffering as long as possible, regardless of the fact they have no hope of recovery, you say we are "murdering" them?
Living wills are written all the time to prevent the sort of misguided heroics some in this thread suggest is our moral obligation.
This is sad.
We're not talking about "every machine and artificial means available" in this case. The feeding tube in question is simply a low-tech pipe inserting water and food into her stomach. There has been no discussion of simplifying that even further by just putting food in her mouth.
Is there "no hope of recovery"? Part of the problem in this case is that the husband tasked with making that decision has at least one (if not several) ulterior motive for just declaring "no hope of recovery" lest she indeed recover and accuse him of violent crimes, not to mention his new girlfriend with a baby on the way.
If you refrain from putting food in a baby's mouth for a few weeks, that's murder - plain and simple. This case is little different, as all Shiavo needs is a simple, low-tech delivery of food - and to deny her that basic need (when that's all she needs) is murder.
Interesting that you equate the simplest of medical care with (to wit) "extraordinary measures", caring for the ill with "extending suffering", and a long-term illness with "no hope of recovery". Let me rephrase your accusation: Using simple & ancient medical techniques.... to care for an ill person as long as possible, in the reasonable hope they may recover, you say we should kill them thru neglect?
Living wills are written all the time
There was no such "living will" in this case. Unless there is one, we MUST assume the patient would choose to live.
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.