Posted on 03/06/2005 10:36:52 AM PST by Houmatt
I loved that chirping little chick, all downy yellow, pecking away in its box. I'd rub the chick against my cheek, hold it and give it a love squeeze. Maybe a little too hard, because sometimes it would try to squirm out of my grasp. Until the day that it jumped and landed on the floor head first. It started convulsing, chirping wildly, and then its little eyes closed and it lay perfectly still.
It couldn't be dead, I prayed. No, no, and no. In search of a miracle, my 7-year-old brain came up with a plan. I would put the chick in a pan on the stove, over low heat. Like a premature baby in an incubator. The chick started to move erratically. I was pleased with my quick thinking, but once out of the pan, it was clear there was no life to it.
That was my first experience with death.
I've never told anyone what happened - well, except a priest. It was the first sin I listed in my first confession. I was a murderer. And a liar - I had told my mom that I found the chick dead in its box.
It's an odd thing to share, I know, but there's a lesson in my sorry tale. It may help explain why I remain so conflicted about what to do when people are terminally ill. At my core, I'm always praying for a miracle. I'm not alone in wondering if people should be allowed to "choose" death with dignity. Millions of Americans struggle with what is ethical, moral and just in fashioning laws giving people the "right" to die.
A living will is an easy call. If I'm brain dead or can't breathe on my own, don't hook me up to machines, thank you very much. Using science to prolong "life" that can't think or feel is anathema to life itself. But what if it's your child whose brain no longer functions past involuntary twitches? How many parents have faced such a terrifying choice? Some parents of adult children, like Terri Schiavo's, refuse to give up.
As agonizing as those decisions are, though, there's a certain spiritual satisfaction in letting a loved one who's suffering, or simply not feeling anything, go to a better place. That's the other side of the wrenching Schiavo drama.
What if you are terminally ill and your doctors have given you six months to live? Should you, being of sound mind and broken body, have the right to get your doctor to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to die?
Oregon's Death With Dignity Act allows what some believe to be state-sanctioned suicide. Why should it matter to you or me what other people want to do about their own bodies? Grab a gun or rat poisoning. Skip the middle man. Except. We want to die peacefully. Most of us want to make the call about our quality of life when ill, so help us God. And good doctors already help horribly ill patients die every day. Just a bit more morphine not only eases the pain but eventually weakens the heart until it gives out.
One man's suicide can be another's death with dignity, can't it? That's the fundamental question the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in the Oregon case, though it need not go so far. It only has to address the legal issue of whether the federal government's Controlled Substances Act can usurp Oregon's 1997 law. The Bush administration argues that Oregon's doctors can't use medications meant under the federal law for a "legitimate medical purpose" to help patients die.
To me, Oregon's law is narrowly tailored for ex tremely ill people and doesn't cross over the ethical line to assisted suicide for people not as gravely ill. As it stands, only 171 patients have opted for it since 1997. And it should be their choice.
Yet with his intervention in Oregon, President Bush wants to put his own spiritual imprint on medi cal care, deciding how we should die. We have souls to save, he implies, and suicide is a ticket to hell.
If choosing death with dignity is a sin, let that be between me and my maker - and you and yours. Gov ernment shouldn't play God.
I maintain that it is up to the patient, and their rights should be respected, no matter what they decide.
Those who talk about "ending her suffering" obviously mean that she IS aware on some level, with a painful existence. In that case, even if Terri *did* want to die, it's extraordinarily unlikely that she'd choose starvation and dehydration as the method (how many suicides are performed that way?). Thus, their solution is to "end her suffering" by cruelly increasing it for days on end.
The other option is that Terri is, for all intents & purposes, completely gone. No consciousness or awareness of what's happening to her - a big hunk of mindless meat. If that's the case, then why are they so gung-ho for her to die? What difference does it make? Her parents are willing to take over responsibility for all her care, and Michael Schiavo could easily get a divorce so he could marry that slut of his, so why not? If she's just a lifeless husk of flesh and bone, whence comes the steadfast, years-long desire to see her dead and buried?
They are totally different. It's sort of like asking the difference between a hard-boiled egg and a fried egg. A boiled peanut is salty and very moist, sometimes almost squishy but not quite. A dry roasted peanut is also salty but, well, dry and roasted. You have to try one to understand. But don't make the mistake of using raw peanuts like you can get in the north. They don't boil up right. You have to use green peanuts, meaning raw and fresh from the ground. They haven't dried out yet. My northern cousins never thought they'd like them, but now they are a family reunion favorite (that is, when the reunion is in Florida).
Hildy, although this may appear to have no bearing on Terri's case, could you tell me whether or not you believed that John Kerry had earned his three purple hearts, and why you believe as you do? If you can tell me, then I can explain to you how this relates to Terri's case. Thanks very much!
OK. What has the patient, in this case, stated she chooses?
OK. What has the patient, in this case, stated she chooses?
sorry for the DP.
I'd be more interested to hear how Michael would explain his refusal to allow Terri's parents to try to feed by her mouth when the gastrostomic feeding is ended. Why would he be worried about Terri aspirating fluid? It makes no sense (remembering that it's illegal to dehydrate someone by withholding oral fluids if they are able to accept it, and therefore any concerns which are not predicated upon an inability to accept fluids would be illegal).
I'd also like to hear Michael explain why Terri has often been given medication for pain. If she can't feel anything, what purpose would such medications serve?
Also, do not the statutes state that pallative care may not be withdrawn? Would not water considerably ease the suffering of someone suffering from dehydration?
This same "compassion" thing was used for abortion and look what we have now. It's a birth control method, a convenience and so will euthanasia if it is allowed. There is actually more incentive for wuthanesia - inheritance and dumping a "burden" of course all for "compassionate reasons. LOL - selfish reasons. This is very sad.
I haven't seen Michael Schiavo saying Iyers or Capone are lying.
Their affidavits are compelling.
They would rather have as few people as possible know about the affidavits; if they were to publicly accuse the affiants of lying that would increase awareness of them. Nonetheless, it would be easy for Michael and Felos to tell an investigator that Ms. Capone was lying, and that would be a facially valid explanation for why her statements don't disprove Michael's.
Regarding the ones who know better, here's quote for you:
A fellow Nazi reported Eichmann once said "he would leap laughing into the grave because the feeling that he had five million people on his conscience would be for him a source of extraordinary satisfaction."
What a horrifying statement. It hits me right in the gut. It sounds like something only the devil himself could possibly say. How could a man say something like that?
And I wonder if Felos, especially, feels anything like that.
Felos is more a monster than a man.
I really can't think of an adjective that really does him justice.
Yoohoo! Michael! Columbo has just one more question for you. . .for now. . . .
The preponderance of evidence is that Michael and Felos and Greer are lying.
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.