Posted on 10/25/2003 6:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
An interesting contradiction ... also the ADA, with its requirements that no one can meet because you can't figure out what they are ...
Could it be that liberals are trying to make the disabled seem like "the enemy" to ordinary citizens, who are generally inclined to be helpful and concerned for handicapped people? If people are mad about the government-imposed burdens ... whether it's parking spaces or insane "accommodations" for businesses ... then it's much easier for the liberals to kill people ... for money, political reasons, or just power-madness ... without generating an outcry from the public.
Seems like a tinfoil hat idea, I know, but in a country where George "Mephisto-" Felos is walking around free, no paranoid theory seems too weird!
I didn't state that I "knew" anything of the sort. I said she was "apparently" in misery. It is you and most of the others comment here that assert that she is not in a non-feeling state. You can't have it both ways. And you shouldn't attribute your assumptions to me.
I don't know if that's what they're thinking, but if it is, unfortunately the precedent has been set for allowing Church marriages under just about any circumstances. "I know we were living in sin for years, Father, but he got his wife starved as quickly as he could, honest!"
The bad example of all those dratted Kennedys, and their enablers ...
It is not apparent to me that she is.
How is it apparent to you?
If Terri were my child, I'd do what her parents are trying to do.
How can you arrive at the conclusion she is miserable? If PVA, n/a. If aware, not the proper subject of a mercy killing. If aware, how do you know she wants to die? Personal experience has shown me that lust for life is in direct proportion to proximity of death. There's a "process". If Terri's gone through it, well...more need not be said.
And another thing: if Terri's miserable, she would be a whole lot happier at her parent's home. She could watch TV and bask in the effulgent love of her mom and dad. And live until she dies of natural causes. Would you rob her of that shot at happiness? In a case where there is no way to ascertain what she wants, I think we are obliged to acknowledge her implied consent to REMAIN ALIVE.
Look, Terri could go on at no expense to the state..her parents paying her way...it's not an expensive proposition unless they hire someone to do the job. The issue for some is that her life is not worth supporting with state money. (save the bucks for more promising cases...triage) The parent's stated objective renders that concern (ghoulish) moot.
I haven't said anything to offend you, just addressed a question I didn't know you asked; but now I may offend:
There seems to be a series disconnect in your logic. I hope you get better.
BTW...if it hasn't happened already, I predict that some noted psychologist will appear on a morning show and describe Terri's parents as being victims of a mental illness with a fancy name, which renders them insapient in the face of emotional turbulance.
FYI, in the beginning, Terri was receiving rehabilitation. Her parents were taking her on walks and such. She was being orally fed per testimony of nurses, her parents, etc. It is only AFTER MS won the $$ for her extensive care that withdrew ALL care.
It was only AFTER the $$ was awarded that MS remembered that his wife would want to die. Strange that during the malpractice suit he said that he took seriously his vows of "in sickness and in health" and theat he wanted to bring her home and care for her for the REST OF HIS LIFE. Notice that wording. Not for the rest of HER life but HIS. That is directly from the court case transcript. He ain't dead yet so he lied.
If I were your child and I was in Terri's condition, I would much prefer that you (and others) not interfer with my natural passing. My preference for either a reasonable state of life, or for a natural death in the alternative, should not be overridden by your emotional state.
If aware, how do you know she wants to die?
I don't 'know' (I have no first hand knowledge of this matter - nor do you I assume). But various people (not just her husband, but various friends as well) have testified that she expressed that she would not want to be sustain this way. The fact that her parents apparently never heard her say such things notwithstanding.
My parents may have never heard me say such things (or simply chossen not to hear), but my wife and various friends have heard me. Strangers in the matter, such as your, should have not say, whether or not you agree with the concept.
The rest of your arguments are irrelevant to her previously expressed wishes.
BTW, you basically said I was not a "kind soul". Which proves you don't know a damn thing about me. I'd set you straight in that regard but why take the time?
My original point was that if it's illegal to starve animals to death then it should certainly be illegal to starve humans to death. This seems to make sense to everyone execpt the PETA animal crazies. Morphing that idea into some kind of vet "putting down" animals analogy was your idea. One that didn't get any traction here.
If I were your child and I was in Terri's condition, I would much prefer that you (and others) not interfer with my natural passing. My preference for either a reasonable state of life, or for a natural death in the alternative, should not be overridden by your emotional state.
If aware, how do you know she wants to die?
I don't 'know' (I have no first hand knowledge of this matter - nor do you I assume). But various people (not just her husband, but various friends as well) have testified that she expressed that she would not want to be sustain this way. The fact that her parents apparently never heard her say such things notwithstanding.
My parents may have never heard me say such things (or simply chossen not to hear), but my wife and various friends have heard me. Strangers in the matter, such as your, should have not say, whether or not you agree with the concept.
The rest of your arguments are irrelevant to her previously expressed wishes.
So Ronald Reagan, Christopher Reeve, Stephen Hawking should all just be left to die? Heart by-passes are 'artificial interference' are those procedures wrong too?
Maybe you should read a few of the posts. For just one example: You 'killum and move on' twerps can't even
These treads for many, many days have been repleat with such name calling.
And, I know that you consider yourself to be a 'kind soul'. I said as much. But, if I'm ever in Terri's condition, I hope that God protects me from 'kind soul's' such as you. If god chooses to 'save' me, fine; but you have no right to play God and artifically sustain 'life' (or what you choose to call 'life').
To my knowledge you are correct and I would love to know by what justification those heatheanic trash judges based their infintile, selfish, pigheaded decisions on?
She is not in a vegatative state, she is not comatose. In the video's I saw she smiles when she sees her mother, she obviously recognizes certain things.
I imagine these videos never got to be seen by these empty-headed judges.
You're right we are as ignorant as you are about her state of mind. (although she seems to enjoy her mother's visits as we saw in the video and she enjoyed the nurses stories as testified to in an affadavit) None of us knows if she is in misery or if she wishes to live. (and wishes to receive therapy and medication for infections)
So in this ignorance you decide to err on the side of death. It's 50/50. 50% chance we're right and she wants to live, 50% chance you're right and she wants to die. Apparently it's because it causes you emotional pain that you are willing to roll the dice and say 'Starve her. There's half a chance she'd want us to'.
It's your suffering that you want to end, not hers. That's mighty loving and kind of you.
"Despite the best efforts of her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, 39-year-old Terri Schindler Schiavo’s feeding tube –- through which she has received food and water for the past 13 years — was removed Oct. 15; she was expected to die within two weeks.
But just this week, Florida state lawmakers successfully passed emergency legislation that allowed Gov. Jeb Bush the authority — under the present circumstances surrounding the case — to have the assisted nutrition and hydration resumed. Attorneys for Terri Schiavo’s husband, Michael Schiavo, said they would challenge the constitutionality of the law.
Michael Schiavo, who some years ago was awarded $1.2 million for Terri’s care, has claimed that she never wanted to be kept alive in such a manner. Her parents want to continue to care for her, and have garnered significant support for their conviction that Terri is responsive and would even make more progress if they were allowed to intervene with therapy.
No medical consensus exists that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state.
"Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us, talked with us, and even tried to get out of her chair," her parents said in an Oct. 13 statement. "The accusations that Terri is in a coma or is a ‘vegetable’ are a lie." Terri collapsed at home in 1990 due to what doctors believe was a potassium imbalance, causing her brain to be deprived of oxygen for several minutes.
Terri Schiavo and the Schindler family are Catholics. A priest and friend of the family was allowed to anoint Terri before the feeding tube was removed, but a court order requiring that nothing be put in her mouth prohibited him from giving her Viaticum, Holy Communion for the dying.
The Florida Catholic bishops — at the request of her family and other advocates for Terri’s life — commented on her specific case. They have urged that artificial nutrition and hydration be continued until "a more clear understanding of her actual physical condition" could be reached. The bishops’ statement cited Church teaching that "there should be a presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient."
In the last several years, there have been a number of timely statements that confirm the Church’s teaching, specifically in regard to the provision of food and water as "ordinary means." They reinforce the principle that the decision to forgo a medical treatment cannot be made because a person’s life is judged as not meaningful.
Pope John Paul II, in his Oct. 2, 1998, ad limina address to the bishops of California, Nevada and Hawaii, affirmed and further explained the application of the presumption for the provision of assisted nutrition and hydration.
The Pope stated: "A great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous, or disproportionate to the expected outcome — what the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ calls the refusal of overzealous treatment (No. 2278; cf. ‘Evangelium Vitae,’ no. 65) — and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life, such as feeding, hydration and normal medical care.
The statement of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, ‘Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Considerations,’ rightly emphasizes that the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient’s death must be rejected and that, while giving careful consideration to all factors involved, the presumption should be in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients who need them.
To blur this distinction is to introduce a source of countless injustices and much additional anguish, affecting both those already suffering from ill health or the deterioration which comes with age, and their loved ones."
Terri Schiavo’s fight for life against dehydration and starvation is only one of many such situations that take place in hospitals every day. Most such actions go unopposed and receive no attention. Her death — before the removal of the feeding tube — was certainly not imminent. Nor was there sufficient evidence that feeding her was ineffective, or constitutive of an excessive burden to her.
The teaching effort the Pope has called for bids us as Catholics to insist that the provision of food and water is so basic to human life that its willful omission or removal — in all but the most extraordinary circumstances — is not a morally sound option."
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.