My father had a mild heart attack in 1992.The end result was damage to the area of the heart that controls the beat.The doctors put in a pacemaker.
In 1995,while tending to the garden he always planted he had a second heart attack.He was 89.The damage that time was such that it was inevitable he would die within days, weeks or months as there was`nt enough good heart muscle left to sustain life.
Nature took its course and he died in a couple of weeks.
My point is what if we, his family had decided in 1992 that his life may not have been the quality it should have so we had the pacemaker removed,killing him.
Now,he was not brain damaged,he was functional so some would say this is apples and oranges.That would be correct for today,but if this is allowed to stand at what point do we slide down a slope arriving at this point.
Never happen.
I hope so,but look at how far we have come since the courts started taking God out of our day to day lives.
This will be the Roe v.Wade of the 21st century if this woman is allowed to starve to death without a full examination of her capacity and chance for some recovery.
How many of us would say that if paralyzed like Christopher Reeve that we would rather be dead.Yet after a tragedy like that occurs to someone they still have the resolve to live and make the most of their lives.
Dangerous ground that is being walked on here.
Terri's parents love her very much to go this far. They have stood by her and have been battling for custody for her for years so she could be properly rehab. They have reason to believe foul play causing her brain damage to begin with because of initial xray reports, and I think this is one of the reasons they want this case thoroughly investigated by the Federal Court since Judge Greer refused to even consider it. But, the evidence is there.
Good point. And just wait until the government health care costs grow even more over the next 20 years, and teh social secuirty system faces its strains. The government and many of the taxpayers will be looking at ways to keep spending down.
The government and the taxpayers will have an incentive to rid themselves of anyone who is a burden and the only people who will be safe will be those with close political connections or large personal fortunes. And as society's values change and "evolve", those with large personal fortunes might be the most vulnerable to charges of being a burden, or living a life not worth living.
Your father lived a long and full life - he had limitations but I don't think he would have wanted other people to live it for him. There's a difference between a loved one dying a natural death and our going against our ethical principles, against the beliefs in which we were raised, to kill someone whether out of personal convenience or where money is involved. When we drop the phony altruistic defenses, its usually one or both of two factors in cases like Michael Schiavo's. My point is that in end of life situations, we should not be forced into helping to make death acceptable. A healthy culture should always see meaning in every life and see that people with even reduced capacity have a lot to teach us about its worth.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)