Posted on 03/25/2005 5:21:18 AM PST by mhking
I am torn by this. On one hand...and on the other hand.
I'm very glad that I'm not the one who has to make this decision!!!
Her brain scan is sad.
Her parents should be able to decide because the "husband" has foregone his rights by moving on and creating another family. AND he just wasn't married that long to Terri before she became ill. The parents truly love her--unconditionally.
This is one horrible game being played, and I can't find it in myself to "cheer" for either side.
:(
"Her brain scan is sad."
And yet prominent doctors have said that people with scans as bad as her are walking, talking, and taking care of themselves.
Perhaps if her husband hadn't been denying her rehab for the past 15 years...
I agree...about the husband hindering any potentiality for her. I think he's a criminal of the worst kind.
Life is very special. One of the ways that makes us a step above animals (Sorry PETA) is our capabilities to feel. I do think this trait is a gift from God to be used if we so wish. None of us take delight nor want our love ones to suffer nor that of strangers but it is the crosses that we sometimes bare that makes us stronger not weaker. President Reagan was a great man who through his works now millions of people experience freedom for the first time but do you think he should have been starved to death so he could be put out of his misery or do you think that just maybe he was teaching us one more lesson before God called him home? When we start killing people because it is the humane thing to do, I can promise that this will not make life more valuable but cheapen it further.
This society has already deemed which of God's Creations should be born or not. Now we will dictate to God when we will die.
"The only thing necessary to insure the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Is it the works of good men to starve the innocents to death? Peach, I do not require nor want a response. Just a moment for you to reflect. I can not change your heart nor would want to because this is not my place. Only you and your conscience can be comfortable with your choices just as it is with my own.
I do hope Peach that you and your family never ever have to walk in Terri's parents footsteps. I mean this in all sincerity.
That was a lovely post Two-Bits and I appreciate your tone in addressing this difficult issue.
I have posted my family's story on FR several times now, but we HAVE walked in Terri's families shoes. Twice. Once for removal of a feeding tube on the recommendation of doctors after it became clear that nothing could be done following a massive stroke. It was my husband's aunt who was like a mother to him. She could have lived for years on machines.
The other was my lovely, sweet stepsister and my stepdad who I love and call dad had to make the ultimate decision to have his daughter removed from life support equipment. And she could have lived for years on machines. If anyone can call that living. In our view, they had already died. It was only their bodies here and machines and modern technology were keeping them alive.
Neither of those two people had Living Wills. And I have seen in my family and other families the torment this causes. But they carried out promises they long ago made to loved ones. It is the last thing we can do for them.
Have you ever stood by the bedside of someone hooked up to tubes and been told there is no hope? I've seen friends go through it and family members. Every time I'd visit the hospital there would be co-workers and other friends and family. Without fail, the person standing with me in the hallway or waiting room or at the end of the bed has said "Don't let that happen to me."
I understand fully that others feel differently. And the only good likely to come of all this is that perhaps people will think more carefully about how they want to die and ensure that their wishes are well known and documented. And if you wish to be kept alive by a feeding tube indefinitely, then you need to specifically mention that.
Anyway, I respsect your opinion and understand we aren't going to change each other's minds.
Let's not bother intervening in the Sudan, we'll just let all those starving and enslaved Christian children just go home to Jesus. I don't know why we even bothered freeing the Jews from the ovens of Auschwitz, after all Hitler was just doing them the favor by sending them to heaven. We never should have fought to free the slaves in our own country. All that forced labor and and all those brutal beatings only shortened the time until Jesus could meet them with open arms. Shame on us for getting in the way of legal activity that shortened the time that these people got to go home to Jesus.</sarcasm>
Each these atrocities is or was legal according to the courts of the day. To claim that we as citizens bear no responsibility for the actions of our government because a judicial oligarchy deemed it legal is ludicrous. To claim that we should stand by and allow innocent people to be starved to death because they will go to heaven is blasphemy.
My sister died having ovarian cancer. When she was diagnosed, Stage IV, they only gave her 6 weeks. My sister decided to fight and do what she could to live. I don't know if you know the details regarding ovarian cancer but it is one of the most painful deaths to go thru. My sister was in the hospice hospital numerous times and they would tell her daughter she would not make it thru the night but she did and would go home after a couple of days. She remember one time, she heard the Doctor tell Lisa that she would not make it thru the night and heard her daughter crying. She said I could not talk but I was screaming in my head, "Baby don't cry, it is not my time yet" and totally pissed at the Doctor for upsetting her daughter. She would laugh and tell me if she was given a dollar for every time they told her she had just six days, she would be rich. My sister lived for two years and died on her terms. You could not give any member of our family any amount of money to take away those two years. You could not give my sister any amount of money to give up those two years no matter how painful it was for her. My sister went thru SEVERE PAIN and yet look forward and appreciated every day she was alive. I learned from her what TRUE HONEST LOVE IS. Never not even once did my sister complain, nor bemoan her fate. I thank God for those two years. She taught me how to live and love life and she drew our family very close. My sister was 45 when she died. She had just became a grandmother a year before she was first diagnosed. In those two years, she got to know her Granddaughter and her Granddaughter got to know her.
I know first hand what you speak of. We all have choices and if that choice is to die by man's hand than who am I to say different BUT when this person such as Terri has not been proven to give that decision than I have to err on life. I'm sorry for your losses and the difficult choices you had to make which I know could not have been easy but Peach, before my sister was diagnosed, I would have probably agreed with you but after what my sister showed me during those two years, well, I have to side with God's decision when it comes time for him to call you home. Peach taking someone off of a life support system vs starving someone to death is two entirely different matters. Please know I do not mean any disrespect with this comment.
I'm sorry about your sister. My aunt died of ovarian cancer, so I know full well what she went through. It was the most horrific death I have ever witnessed. I am not going to recount the story here.
But we DID have the feeding tube removed from my husband's aunt. We have walked in those shoes and although the decision was more than difficult, it is something we would do again today, knowing that that once proud woman did not want to live on tubes.
We will have to agree to disagree about this issue; but I respect your opinions as I hope you respect mine.
1: It's not up to us. Once we decide the timing of our death, even calling it the prolonging of lie, we have decided the argument.
2: We do not earn a place in heaven.
Rush, like many here would ignore the rule of law to save what he perceives to be the death of one innocent.
Mrs Schaivo has had her wishes litigated in every court of law we have. Whether or not some people agree or like it, her wishs have been determined. There are children in the Sudan who this very day will starve to death...where's the outrage from Christians over them starving. We know for a fact they would not choose to die. Is denying food to these starving people in the Sudan and the Congo when we have the means to feed them and don't, murder by omission...?
Most people say they would make the same choice Mrs Schiavo made...If we bulldog congress enough maybe we can get such people ruled suicidal...Then we could build monuments to the fact that we value life...above liberty.
"I know not what course others may take"?
"The Lord is calling her Home."
I think I'll say it again.
That's so sweet. I'm having a Hallmark moment.
Just like the Lord called lots of people home under Saddam Hussein.
And, I'll say again...spare me the hypocrisy.
Yes and the DEVIL awaits those that sent her there! At the moment Terri dies, the dogs of revenge and retribution will be released to hasten their journey.
What we are talking about is killing people with healthy bodies but damaged brains. This is not right. And the question of where do we draw the line once we start doing it must be addressed.
Terri was NOT dying until her food and water were cut off. It does not matter how she got into that state. It does not matter what happened after. What does matter is she was a healthy person with a damaged brain who is being slowly killed.
While withholding food and water from a dying person might be marginalibly acceptable do we want to give our approval to withhold food and water from a healthy person?
Where will we draw the line from here on out? Let us say that Terri has marginal awareness. If it is ok to kill her is it ok to kill others?
This is a very slippery slope with lots of nastiness at the bottom. I think we are better off as a civilization not getting even close to that edge.
See #11 of the post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1370796/posts I can't remember now where I saw the reason for not allowing the last rites, but not allowing it has been posted many times.
When in doubt, err on the side of life.
I agree too, wonderful post mhking!!
Death by dehydration is extremely painful...
redrock
"I heard his rant driving back to St. Pete from Gainesville. ...he said, "I don't care about conservatism" in relating his feelings to a caller who reminded him that conservative principals usually condemned the Federal Government getting involved in state laws and individual rights, I was shocked. ...Rush, like many here would ignore the rule of law to save what he perceives to be the death of one innocent. ..." [the rest of the BS snipped] ~ KDD
He used the phrase, "intellectually vacant" and you recognized yourself??? No wonder you're pi$$ed.
For those who can handle it, his exact words -in context- are copied and pasted below.
Virulent Passion for Terri's Death Grows March 25, 2005
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
Excerpt:
RUSH: Let's see. Louisville, Kentucky, and Greg, welcome, sir. Nice to have you on the program.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Fine, thank you.
CALLER: I enjoy your show. I don't agree with you on this issue. I think Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been destroyed, and all the medical testimony that I've heard says that, and if that's the case, then Terri Schiavo, the person, has been dead for 15 years. We're talking about the body of Terri Schiavo, the brain, the stem and the forebrain, which is not a conscious, not the personality of Terri Schiavo. Therefore, we're not talking about the life of Terri Schiavo, the person.
RUSH: It's that easy for you, is it?
CALLER: Well, I think it's actually fairly easy yes. I mean, I'm a Libertarian now. I used to be a Republican before they were basically captured by the big spenders and the witch doctors. Unfortunately, you know, the big government can intrude everywhere apparently now.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And I must disagree. I understand what you're saying.
RUSH: How did big government intrude here?
CALLER: Well, of course, you're right. You're constitutionally correct. Congress has the Article 3 power to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts. You are totally correct about that. However, that's not consistent with the conservative agenda. Conservative agenda has traditionally been to keep the federal government out of our personal business, keep the government out of local and state affairs, so while you are correct legally--
RUSH: No, that's not the --
CALLER: You're correct legally, but you're incorrect philosophically. That has not been the traditional view of conservatives.
RUSH: You know, conservatism doesn't matter to me here. Maybe it would help if I were to tell people that my view on this has nothing to do with ideology. I don't care what the conservative split is over this, and I think it is absolutely intellectually vacant to try to argue for this woman's death on the basis that there is hypocrisy in the conservative movement. What does hypocrisy in the conservative movement have to do with this woman's death? To []me, nothing. I couldn't care less that there are some conservatives who worry about the overreaching federal government and therefore, they're not being consistent if they support this. How about the founding documents? If you want to go this way, I'll be glad to. Founding documents charge the government with protecting life, l-i-f-e, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. There are certain roles that government has. National defense. Whether you're conservative or liberal, you acknowledge that. The problem is that too many liberals don't want the government involved in life decisions, as we are seeing. If somebody doesn't stand up for it on the whole, who will? Are all of our lives going to come down to what some judge thinks someday?
So to me, this is not an ideological argument. I don't care whether I sound hypocritical to people as a conservative or not. And I don't care whether there's hypocrisy. In fact, this whole business of trying to win an argument based on the hypocrisy of the opponent is nothing more than a flashy little attempt to sidestep the substance of the argument. Don't tell me about the hypocrisy of conservatives. Tell me why you want this woman to die, or tell me why you don't. But don't say, "The conservatives are being hypocritical, federalism, overreaching federal government and so forth." We've got a federal judge, we've got a federal appeals court, we've had the US Supreme Court, the federal government is involved. It's not just when Congress gets involved. You want to talk about the overreaching federal government? We got a whole branch of the federal government that is siding with death here. Anybody worried about that? I happen to be. And it's not because I'm a conservative or liberal. It happens to be because I do have a sacred view of life. Sorry.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
[]
RUSH: I'd like to read you an e-mail I just received, ladies and gentlemen, from one of the subscribers at Rushlimbaugh.com. It's perhaps the most virulent of the e-mails, but there are a few, and have been many over the course of the week that are of equal sentiment.
Rush, get off this bleep. It's none of your bleeping business. You're advocating more government intrusion. I'm tired of this diatribe by you. I've been a big supporter, advocate, and listener since you started but now I've gotten blanked. You don't know what the blank you're talking about in this case. You just stated that Congress has the authority over the courts. Well, dumbass, the people have authority over the blanking Congress. Get your blanking facts straight. I have more damn authority than the blanking Congress or the blanking courts. I'm an American voter and I've spoken. Let her blanking die and move on. You and Hannity are destroying our power in this country by acting like holier-than-thou morons trying to control our lives. I didn't vote for Bush because of a religious zealot attitude. Although I'm a Catholic and a conservative Republican, I did not vote for Bush or you to get more involved in my life, so get out of my life, as you would like others to get out of your life. You've become a hypocrite. Get out! Signed "Al."
This is from a subscriber to my website, ladies and gentlemen. Now, he's spoken. I don't know how he voted on this. He's a voter. And he has spoken. "Let her blanking die and move on." So you tell me there's no passion? You tell me there's no enthusiasm for this woman's death? Don't try telling me that that's not the case, ladies and gentlemen. And, of course, now I find it interesting these people are getting so mad. The fact that she hasn't died yet is my fault, and Sean Hannity's fault.
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.