Posted on 07/21/2004 7:08:22 AM PDT by NYer
The parents of a brain-damaged woman at the center of a right-to-die case said Tuesday that recent statements by Pope John Paul II are proof that their daughter would choose to live in her current condition.
Based on the pope's stated position that people in vegetative states still have the right to nutrition and health care, a lawyer for Bob and Mary Schindler filed a court motion asking a Clearwater judge to end efforts by Terri Schiavo's husband to end her life.
I wish the Holy Father would send a message and laicize, excommunicate and denounce that b*stard.
Somehow, I don't think the Pope's position adds anything to their legal arguments. I doubt they are basing their legal case on what the Pope said.
Thanks for the ping!
BTTT!
The problem with that, however, is that there are plenty of "devout" Catholics who are not lock-step with the Church on individual matters like use of barrier contraception and tubal ligation. This might've been one for her.
I've seen the videos and in my opinion her parents are projecting their wishes upon the harsh reality.
On this one, I think the Solomon-like thing to do (since the person did not clearly express, i.e., in writing, that she would prefer to be allowed to die) would be this: Allow the spouse to divorce the comatose person and the parents to adopt her.
It is unfair to force a caregiver to maintain a comatose person alive. This is especially true when the caregiver is the spouse of the incompetent, because of the legal complications involved.
But it is not right to preclude the comatose person being adopted by others who view keeping her alive to be a joy and not a burden.
God has his reasons to allow certain people to die in a slow and sometimes painful way. Certainly, with modern drugs, we should be able to alleviate the pain (even if this might quicken death as a secondary effect).
We can allow the process of death to take its course, or - alternately - to intervene so as to prolong life if only just to prolong life. We are a rich country, and we can expend our wealth on such a luxury. Yes, we should consider the costs and benefits involved, but if we are talking about our time and our money, those are private decisions.
The real problem, in this case, is that a comatose person's guardian has made one choice, and yet other people, who could play the role of guardian, would make a choice more generous to the comatose person.
She is not comatose. She is perfectly alert! And ... she wants to live! Her husband refuses to divorce her. He now lives with another woman and they have two young children.
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin said that "Liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs."
In liberal FL, the "wolves" are the judiciary in both parties, and the "lamb" is poor Terri. I see no way that justice can come from the liberal FL Supreme Court, and isn't that the avenue of last resort in this tragic case?
She is not comatose. She is perfectly alert! And ... she wants to live! Her husband refuses to divorce her. He now lives with another woman and they have two young children.
No matter how many times you state these facts, liberals seem to understand nothing about this case.
You nailed the issue. Not every Catholic is in lockstep agreement with the Pope. His opinion carries great weight, but I do not think it could be used as actual evidence of her beliefs on a particular issue.
I don't think you understand the meaning of those words.
Terri never used contraception during their marriage, according to her husband and others during the malpractice trial (1992) and even as recently as the 2000 trial. That's in the court records as testimony. You can't assume Terri went against some of the teachings of her church when she seemed to be practicing them in so many aspects of her life.
I hope they do look at the words of the Pope since what he has said should be given some weight. Then again, since Judge Greer could easily toss away Gov. Bush's recommendation to appoint a guardian ad-litem for Terri, then Greer could just as easily decide that the Pope has nothing worth hearing either.
As far as watching those videos is concerned, which ones did you get to see? The ones I watched I saw a woman trying very hard to follow the doctor's orders to track the balloon with her eyes. She seemed very responsive to her mom. She turns her eyes to meet her mom's face. She shows delight in her facial expressions. You must have watched a different video than I did.
If you are new to this case at all, and by that I mean only following it vaguely with what the general media presents, then you will get a skewed version of what has really transpired all these years.
Terri came out of her coma about 2 months after her "collapse". She used to be able to talk shortly after that, because I've seen documentation from nurses and other caregivers that mentioned she complained during her menstrual cycle by saying "hurts". She would say "help" and "mama".
The only way for Terri to regress to the point she has is that she has been neglected. She stopped receiving rehabilitative therapy in 1993 after Michael received the money from the malpractice trial. Interesting that that's when her decline first started.
The harsh reality is that there are people out there who don't always have anyone's best interest in mind except their own, and Michael and his lawyers are some of those people.
Please read my reply in post 16. Terri was a devout Catholic before her collapse. To presume that she would prefer to be euthanized without having given informed consent of what that would mean is equally irresponsible of the court. There's no way Terri could have given informed consent on this issue, because she "collapsed" before the law was written to include food and water as life-support (9 years to be specific).
If what her husband said is true, that she never wanted to be hooked up to tubes, it still does not mean that Terri would want to die without food and water. I honestly don't believe that Michael and Terri ever had a serious discussion about this topic, because he never mentioned that Terri wouldn't want to live hooked up to tubes at the malpractice trial in 1992. In fact, if he truly believed that which he did not claim in public until 1998, then he wouldn't have allowed Terri to be put on a feeding tube in the first place. He would have continued to give her rehabilitative therapy, instead of ordering the doctors to not resuscitate her once the big bucks came in (1993). He plead for those big bucks knowing that Terri had an expected life-span of 51 more years. Everything I'm saying I've seen in court documentation.
Terri ping!
If anyone would like to be added or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know here or by FReepmail!
Odd how the pope will make a point of stating Terry McVeigh should not be put to death and if visiting stress other criminals waiting for capital punishment be spared. He'll mention them by name however in this situation he is silent. He was silent on the bedheading of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, Daniel Pearl but errupted over the "abuse in the prison ... ".
I think the pope is on the wrong side of things and until he cleans house with homosexual priests, I really don't care what he thinks or does.
In this case, I think I know as much about what Terri would have done as the Pope does. My point was that the Pope does not offer any facts on what Terri wanted.
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.