Posted on 11/13/2003 4:34:02 AM PST by Prov1322
Schiavo's case is really about religious right
November 13, 2003
There is something you should understand about the feeding-tube case of Terri Schiavo.
This is about much more than her.
It is about an agenda, pushed by conservative religious groups that would allow the government, or even strangers, to intervene when families decide to end the lives of loved ones who are hopelessly brain-damaged.
The National Right to Life organization, which has glommed onto the Schiavo case, already has proposed legislation that could stop parents from making choices regarding children whose brains have been destroyed.
For these people, it is convenient that Terri Schiavo's parents wish to keep their daughter's body alive. But it also is beside the point. Even if family members were unanimous in wanting to end Terri's life, these religious conservatives still would oppose it.
Consider the case of Carla Myers, a teenager in Ohio who was left in a vegetative state after a 1992 auto accident. The family, as well as a court-appointed guardian, favored removing the feeding tube. Even so, Randall Terry jumped into the tragedy with his radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. This is the same man who championed Schiavo's case and bragged about pushing Jeb Bush to intervene.
Terry's group organized protests at Carla Myers' hospital, turning a family tragedy into a media spectacle.
"I do not have the right to starve my children to death," Terry proclaimed.
The parents had to fight off court challenges orchestrated by Operation Rescue, as well as an attempt by complete strangers to adopt Carla. Finally, the tube was removed.
"The exploitation of the Myers family tragedy for political gain and to promote the agenda of certain groups is reprehensible," said Barbara Patterson, the guardian assigned for Carla.
In another case, zealots tried to break into a hospital and restore a Missouri woman's feeding tube. The parents of Nancy Cruzan had decided to let her die after an accident left her in a vegetative state for seven years.
A group in Minnesota tried to block parents from removing their son's feeding tube. Jamie Butcher had been in a vegetative state for 17 years. "I think these people are insane," said Dr. Ronald Cranford at the time. He was a neurologist involved in the case. "They have utterly no chance of winning in court, and they have no grounds whatsoever for substituting for this well-meaning family."
The magic words in that last sentence are "no chance of winning in court." The courts long have frustrated conservative Christians who prefer their agenda be decided by legislators more prone to political pressures.
Terri Schiavo was a golden opportunity. Rather than going up against a united family, the groups were able to exploit the division between Terri's parents and her husband. They also had Florida House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, ever eager to court the religious right in his U.S. Senate campaign.
This gave Randall Terry a long-sought victory. At last politicians ignored separation of powers and trumped the judiciary. It is a first step. Now there is talk about intervening in thousands of other cases.
If you fear the prospect of being stuck in some institution, rotting away on a feeding tube, your loved one helpless to stop it, then you should be very concerned about this. The people behind this agenda now have the ear of Jeb Bush and Johnnie Byrd.
Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com. Copyright © 2003, Orlando Sentinel
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
The entire article is posted at the head of the thread.
Wrong - It's about money.
Note: non-religious individuals and individuals belonging to liberal or "middle-of-the-road" religious groups have come out supporting Terri. Gloria Allred, for example, refused to remove the feeding tube for her father and felt Terri should be kept alive.
If a person has a living will, stating their strong desire to not live in a persistent vegatative state, do you think their guardian (e.g. their spouse)should be allowed to order dicontinuation of life-supporting measures? Do others have a right to interfere in a decison like this? I went to the time and expense of having a living will made out and I'm wondering if it would prevent the interference of total strangers.
What I really fear is being somewhat responsive and quite possibly aware of what is going on around me at all times and just being unable to communicate. And then being starved to death because someone wants to make money off of my death. Now that's scary.
That and the Oompa-Loompas.
The woman's parents are not total strangers.
If the "family" had been in agreement, the courts and the law would not have become involved. If she had a living will, she could have designated her parents as guardians, as easily as designating her spouse. But, in the absense of a will, there is disagreement over who should be guardian.
I thought it was implied in the Headline...
Good advice!
Despite what Michael Schiavo and Felos (and their ilk) would like you to believe, starvation is NOT a painless way to die. What follows is a short excerpt from an interview Bill O'Reilly did with Kate Adamson, a lady who was in a so-called "persistent vegetative state" after a stroke. She was TOTALLY unable to respond, but was FULLY cognizant of EVERYTHING that went on around her (including being operated on with insufficient anesthesia). She had her feeding tube pulled for 8 days until her attorney husband "convinced" the doctors to restore the tube. She has since recovered. You can read the full transcript previously posted on Free Republic.
O'Reilly: So, ahh, in the Schiavo case, Ms. Adamson, you must have VERY strong feelings about that?
Adamson: I do. I have a HUGE perspective about what Terri is going through.
O'Reilly: What would that be?
Adamson: Well especially after having gone thru this myself, and the doctors assuming I was in a vegetative state, ahh when in fact I was TOTALLY aware of what was going on around me.
O'Reilly: Could you hear? Could you hear people, and see...
Adamson: I could hear, and see everything going on around me, and I had NO way to commmunicate with anyone.
O'Reilly: So you were like, paralized in every way, but you could HEAR the words, you KNEW when your husband was in the room when he was there, and all of that?
Adamson: Exactly. I KNEW what I wanted to say, ahh, I was completely PARALIZED. I had NO way of communicating at all.
O'Reilly: This is amazing. Its like an Edgar Allen Poe story...
So when they took the feeding tube out, what went thru your mind?
Adamson: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, ahh I was... thought I was going insane. I was screaming out, "Don't you know, I NEED to EAT!".
Adamson: And even though, until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going thru the feeding tube, at that point, it sounded pretty good. Ahh, I just wanted something, ahh the fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode EVERY thought I had.
O'Reilly: So you were feeling PAIN? when they removed your tube?
Adamson: Oh, ABSOLUTELY. Absolutely... To say that, ahh, especially when Michael on national TV had mentioned last week, that its a pretty painless thing to have a feeding tube removed... Its the EXACT OPPOSITE. It was SHEER torture, Bill. Sheer torture... and then having it ripped out.
End of Excerpt
Pulling the feeding tube = "SHEER torture."
If you'd like, you can read more about Kate Adamson at her website: Kate's Journey
If you had a stroke or head injury that left you in what the doctors considered a "persistent vegetative state", how could you be so sure you'd want ANY life support withdrawn from you? (this assumes that you still have recordable brain activity via EEG, like Kate did, and like Terri Schiavo does)
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.