Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: winstonchurchill
Both lead ineluctably to physical death. Both involve the withdrawal of human intervention to prolong physical life. When that withdrawal occurs, death is inevitable.

Well -according to your definition we are all intervening to prolong life when as parents we feed our infants that can not fend for themselves.

Chemotherapy may be extaordinary -feeding is not. Food, like oxygen is essential to life -intentionally taking either away is extraordinary (murder).

665 posted on 03/17/2005 10:30:15 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies ]


To: DBeers
Well -according to your definition we are all intervening to prolong life when as parents we feed our infants that can not fend for themselves.

Yes, that is true. However, that is because there is the expectation that the infant will soon become capable of taking nutrition on its own. We would not be having this discussion if there were any expectation that poor Terry would ever do that.

Moreover, infants do not require permanent feeding tubes. If they did, the issue would be the same as here.

Chemotherapy may be extaordinary -feeding is not.

Well, permanent feeding by others is extraordinary and the installation of permanent feeding tubes is all the more extraordinary.

Food, like oxygen is essential to life -intentionally taking either away is extraordinary (murder).

There is a difference between preventing a person from eating and the non-provision of food. I am sure that you would not contend that our non-provision of food to North Korea amounts to "murder" of those poor souls who will surely die from their communist masters.

No one here is proposing imprisoning anyone and forcibly depriving them of food. That would be "murder". In this instance, Terry is permanently incapable of maintaining herself; no one is preventing her from getting her own food. Obviously, she cannot do so.

The decision as to whether to provide such extraordinary measures to a loved one who cannot decide for himself is, absent circumstances not proven here, upon the husband -- not the state.

670 posted on 03/17/2005 11:38:06 AM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies ]

To: All

I just saw this thread and don't have time now to scroll through everything.

But I just cannot believe that this is happening. I mean, yeah I can believe it, but...

Words fail me. If they shut off her feeding tube tomorrow and condemn her to a painful death by starvation/dehydration...

I read one post earlier today that said that Terri can't feel pain because she is unconscious. Well, I haven't been in her hospital room but I always understood unconscious to mean "unable to wake up." Now, we've all seen the pictures of Terri and she is awake, by any definition. I'm not buying the argument that she won't feel pain in this.

And even those in favor of "letting her go" must agree that we treat animals better than that.

I've had two beloved dogs "put down" and as their vet put it, "this is called relaxing to death." It took less than 30 seconds.

Terri will suffer for days. This is completely inhuman.


705 posted on 03/17/2005 5:05:32 PM PST by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson