No longer a steak and potatoes man!!
Posted on 10/25/2003 6:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
In a court of law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did commit a crime.
In the court of public opinion, it is frequently the case that individuals who are accused of a crime are judged guilty regardless of the facts. Some call that bias; others label it as nothing more than ignorant.
In the case of a severely disabled woman whose starvation death was ordered by a Florida judge, the court of law has not determined her guilt or innocence, because she committed no crime. The court has preferred to arrogantly deem it compassionate to put her out of her alleged misery by sanctioning an act of murder.
Murder is defined as the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought. Such a definition applies in this case. However, no human court is going to find this particular judge guilty of a crime, and no human court is going to query this woman’s husband regarding why he thinks she should die. That has already been taken care of through an arduous five-year court battle that may yet end with this woman’s tragic death — a death resulting from court-approved removal of food and water.
As one attorney recently wrote, if a judge or a state governor were to order the execution of a serial killer on death row by means of withholding food and water, a variety of courts would intervene at once to block that order, which would amount to constitutionally-prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is not terminally ill, and was not near death until the starvation process began, it has been ruled that her life is not worthy to be lived. Thus others were willing to impose on her a slow, agonizing death by starvation. That is murder according to the natural law; but according to the Florida judicial system, it is an exercise in compassion. So much for human justice!
The Terri Schiavo case is currently receiving widespread media coverage. The callous disregard for her human dignity is being exposed in many venues – but only at the eleventh hour. Over the past five years, however, as this case has been unfolding, nary a word could be found describing the barbaric nature of what some were proposing should be done to her.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of this woman’s plight is rarely noted. Terri Schiavo is a Catholic who, one would hope, would have been staunchly defended in every conceivable way by the Catholic hierarchy in her state. After all, she is vulnerable, she is totally dependent on others to speak for her, and she is a human being with the gift of human dignity that God bestows on each of us.
The sad reality is, however, that Florida’s Catholic bishops have been virtually silent. These bishops joined together in a public statement begging Gov. Jeb Bush to spare the life of convicted killer Paul Hill, a man who murdered two people. The prosecution in the Hill case did its job. Yet the bishops publicly pleaded that his life be spared. But two days after defending Hill’s life, these same bishops said the Church could not make a decision regarding whether Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. These bishops urged that more time be given prior to Terri’s imposed death by starvation so that “greater certainty as to her true condition” could be reached.
How much more certainty does one need that a living, breathing human being will die if he or she is denied access to food and water? The burden of proof in Terri’s case must ultimately be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to cautiously stand aside and allow the courts to wield their power, even if the result will be the death of an innocent human being who never had the opportunity to defend herself. What crime did Terri Schiavo commit, I would ask the bishops that drove them into equivocating about whether or not she had a right to life?
Americans who care about this young woman have mounted campaigns to pressure Gov. Bush into doing all he can to save Terri’s life. Others have stepped to the forefront and applauded Florida state lawmakers who, after nearly six full days had passed in which Terri was denied nutrition, approved legislation to stop the starvation from continuing. Still others have offered legal opinions providing the governor with ammunition and exposing the reality of the situation: Terri Schiavo was being executed, pure and simple.
Yet nowhere in this flurry of last minute, desperate activity, do we find the Florida Catholic Conference. There has been a number prayer vigils held outside the hospice where Terri resides. To our knowledge, not one bishop has attended. There have been numerous public demonstrations of support for Terri’s parents, who are courageously doing all they can to defend their daughter’s right to life as her husband, her legal guardian, continues his quest to see that her food and water is denied. Not one bishop has offered Terri’s parents his public support. There is a courageous priest who has tried to provide Terri with Holy Communion. His efforts were thwarted by police officers who banned him from giving the Eucharist to Terri. As far as we can tell, not one bishop spoke out at such an outrage or applauded the commitment of this priest to be a true shepherd for Terri in what appeared to be her final days.
As the moments continued to pass, and the very life ebbed out of this lovely young woman at the center of this storm of controversy, one could only wonder what it really means to be innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, as I reflect on the burden of proof that never evolved prior to Terri’s death sentence, it occurs to me that some day, the most important Judge of all will have to deal with certain people who were aware of the travesty but chose to avoid a controversy because “difficult cases” are a bother. At that time, He will have amassed a burden of proof with regard to their culpability in the case of Terri Schiavo. In His court, justice will be done.
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.