No longer a steak and potatoes man!!
Posted on 10/25/2003 6:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
FYI, I am considering that you meant that you are not against feeding tubes if they are only used for short term treatment but that you are opposed to them for long term care. Is that or is that not correct?
Hearsay from only one source with substantially suspect motives.
Correct, as far as it goes. I'm not even opposed to them being use for long-term care IF the individual has any significant degree of awarness/quality of life and wishes to have their use continued for an indifinite long-term period.
It's only in cases such as this (where the individual has no apparent awareness, and is apparently doomed to suffer for virtually an eternity with virtually no chance of recovery) that I'm opposed to their use.
I realize that even these factors are being debated in this case - although various judges, whom I assume to have been objective, have apparently determined that Terri has no apparent awarness and has no real chance of recovery.
Not true, according to others who have posted here - on both sides of the issue.
But of course, I recognized that anyone (her other family members/in-laws, her/his friends, doctors, lawyers, judges, etc.) who says anything contrary to the opinions of those on your side of this issue quickly become accused of have alterior motives to lie - just part of a huge death-loving conspiricy.
Also in post #63, NL's second & third errors are compound ones. Here NL asserts that 1) Terri is in misery, and that 2) we who defend her life delight in her misery.
Several of you protested the misery, but as far as I saw, didn't contest his assertion of sadistic behavior. Then NL repeated it at #93, and complained of you all calling him names. Now, wasn't that precious? He assigns sadism to our motives from his very first appearance (#63) and then complains of him being labeled himself -- he has got the trolling pattern of our opponents down pat. He's trying his hardest to get you to notice by repeating it, silly people. So? Notice already!
At 99, tigerseye call NL on the misery question in #93, but adds the term "know" -- and then at #103 NL takes advantage of this addition to deny his two previous assertions (at 63 & 93). Yes, we know he did assert that Terri is in misery, but no, he didn't assert that he "knows Terri is in misery."
Also at #93, he throws in a second ad hominem in addition to the sadism charge -- seeing us as the reverse of "kind souls." Great job NL. Very hard to distinguish these words from Barbara Boxer's.
NL did this for our benefit tigerseye. Please thank NL appropriately. (To be continued)--- regarding the way at #123 NL dismissed concern over Michael's motives while accepting from the start his unconfirmed witnessing of Terri's choice of treatment under these circumstances. Stay tuned.
NL is simply a goldmine. Keep digging.
It's only in cases such as this (where the individual has no apparent awareness, and is apparently doomed to suffer for virtually an eternity with virtually no chance of recovery) that I'm opposed to their use.
I realize that even these factors are being debated in this case - although various judges, whom I assume to have been objective, have apparently determined that Terri has no apparent awarness and has no real chance of recovery.
How does it feel to have appointed yourself god?
These are all subjective decisions, not objective ones; no matter how much lip gloss you paint on this pig's lips.
And no matter how high and mighty you little gods might be, you're not God.
You have no right to kill the helpless, or decide if their 'quality of life' meets your arbitrary standards.
I gave a guy CPR once who might not agree with that statement.
I pray that Terri gets the proper care and is able to spill the beans on what really happened to her at this death home as well as HOW she was originally disabled. I'd bet Michael is scared **itless that that WILL happen, hence the rush to death.
Yet you have avoided the central/main issue.
If I, having expressed that I don't want to exist in circumstances such as Terri is in, found myself in such circumstances, whould you seek to artifically keep me alive?
That is, would you consider that your views, opinions, beliefs, wishes etc. should override my wishes regarding myself?
No longer a steak and potatoes man!!
BINGO!!
Michael Schiavo 'remembered' a conversation with his wife wherein she mentioned that she wouldn't want ot "live like that". Only thing is Michael Schiavo "remembered" this 10 years after her "accident" AND after retaining Felos as his attorney.
One can say anything - that does not make it fact.
Is that a fact?:)
My problem is with the killing of disabled people who have not left documentation about their wishes, and spouses or parents who stand to gain financially speaking for them.
GO FOR IT!
Just make certain that you write a Living Will, including the fact that you do not wish to continue with a feeding tube. Here is what you and your family have to look forward to.
|
|
Hastening Death by Starvation and Dehydration by Faye Girsh, Executive Director The option of dying by starvation or Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration (PRNH), as it is referred to, appears to be a compromise which allows terminally ill people to end their lives and still have ministrations from hospice and from a doctor. A hospice nurse was kind enough to send me eight articles from nursing and medical journals reviewing this process in an attempt to convince me that this was a painless and gentle death which would obviate the necessity of a more drastic end. Hemlock Society is in the business of maximizing the options for a good death; for many people this means of ending their lives is acceptable while getting direct help from a doctor, using a plastic bag, or ending their lives by other more direct means is not. Having read this material I would endorse this as a legitimate alternative to which our members should give careful consideration, particularly when other means are not acceptable or available. I do have these caveats:
PRNH is a choice; it is relatively gentle and painless in most reported cases. It is certain, and loved ones can be there. Hospice workers and doctors will regard this as acceptable and treat the patient with compassion. It is not offensive to most religious groups. But it is not swift; the patient must be close to death, and medical and nursing help should be available. It may not be an option for everyone. Since the manner of dying must be the patient's choice, this method does not obviate the search for ways which are acceptable to every person -- including direct help from a doctor -- certainly a shorter, more direct, and less torturous route. |
||
I think that should be left up to each individual. You might not be happy with my definition and I might not be happy with yours.
For me, (somewhat oversimplified - since the finer points are too complex to address here with any appropriate degree of brevity) I wouldn't want to exist in a state where I was unable to observe my surroundings with a reasonable degree of understanding, and/or to communicate my thoughts and wishes in some fashion to others, and/or in a state involving a continuous severe level of pain.
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.