Posted on 03/25/2005 5:01:12 PM PST by Wolfstar
Good point. The MSM reporting on this is as disgraceful as Judge Greer's conduct... and they were still controversial cases. Alternative media has given us the other side of the story.
E.g., the writer errs of course in calling Terri Schiavo 'in a coma' - she is awake at times, like all of us are. She is brain-damaged not brain-dead - BIG difference.
No case is identical, medically, ethically or legally.
example:
Terri's medical condition is not as severe as those other cases. Terri is not in a coma like those other cases were.
We've gone a few rungs down the slippery slope since Cruzan.
"The court hasn't mandated it in this case either. It has complied with the wishes of Ms. Schiavo's husband/guardian. "
Wrong, that is not what the lawyer Felos said. It's a court order.
Thanks for the Catholic teaching on this...
" ...An unconscious [in the context, PVS is mentioned] patient must be treated as a living human person with inherent dignity and value. Direct killing of such a patient is as morally reprehensible as the direct killing of anyone else."
You say:
"There are tough cases, but this one is black and white for Catholics."
Yes, there *are* tough cases - a terminally ill degenerative case, for example, needing a respriator, or herioc life-extension ... this is *not* such as case. food and water for a disabled person should always be given.
Can't quite agree here.
Each case is different, but the most unique aspect of Terri's case is that's it's happening in Florida where the Democrats use everything that happens there as a club to head of the Bushes. You think all this attention would be paid to someone in Terri's condition who was living in Rhode Island?
Wise up. She's being used to turn both the GOP base and the GOP "moderates" against GW and Jeb. You're a sap and the question is still absurd.
The legal prinicple the court applied was to follow the patient's wishes, not the husband's wishes. The guardian has a legal duty to carry out the patient's wishes, assuming of course, those wishes are legal to carry out.
I am not saying wishing to starve to death is illegal. Just pointing out a very basic error in the way you have framed the case.
Repeating 113 above ... quoting peach, and then a paragraph from the link peach provided ...
For those interested, this is the official position of the Unitd States Conference of Catholic Bishops. There are a great many instances, including Terri's, where death by starvation is permitted within church doctrine.
When a patient is not competent to make his or her own decisions, a proxy decisionmaker who shares the patient's moral convictions, such as a family member or guardian, may be designated to represent the patient's interests and interpret his or her wishes. Here, too, moral limits remain relevant -- that is, morally the proxy may not deliberately cause a patient's death or refuse what is clearly ordinary means, even if he or she believes the patient would have made such a decision.
How do we know it is in you?
Careful where you are going there. Judging wherether people have souls and are worthy to live has happened before.
It never ended well.
I'm not inclined to think that MSchiavo's moral convictions are demonstrably common enough with her's so as to speak on her behalf. If it was an issue of property or child custody, his wildcatting would be more than enough to disqualify his speaking on her behalf.
Yeah, I posted that last night but I suppose people have lost interest in the thread (or the truth).
What would be more useful in probing the truth would be to honestly outline the fact patterns of each case, as well as their eventual outcomes. There was a post here that said Cruzan's father commited suicide some years after he carried out his daughter's wish to starve to death. I wonder if that is true. If he did, I wonder if he left a suicide note. If he left a note, I wonder what it said.
I have noticed lots of misrepresentation of fact on this issue, which indicated exactly how divisive the issue is. There must be a deep moral point involved, in order to cause such conduct.
There is. And it is that moral point that I have been making repeatedly. I do not know how much of what Terri's family says that I believe. I also know that it doesn't matter. The moral principle involved here is "do we kill people with healthy bodies but damaged brains?"
The argument made is that they are not "really" alive so it is not "really" killing. I think that is a dangerous road to go down. Where is the line drawn? When there is doubt I prefer to error on the side of life. I would rather give rights to a "not-person"(is there such a thing?) then risk killing a "person".
To argue that they are "suffering" causes their whole "not alive" argument to collapse as if you are not alive then you can not suffer. If they are alive enough to suffer then they are alive.
If they are alive then they deserve the status of a person. You may not kill a person with impunity.
That's the point of the PVS definition. To say that the body feels no pain.
I'm with you, but outright say that my position comes from a rigid "human life is sacred" belief. I think suicide is wrong, and that it is an ethical lapse of monumental proportion for the medical community to withdrwas food ans sustenance from an otherwise healthy body.
The ironic thing is that if those people really thought it through they would be among the most ardent of the pro-life defenders. If you believe in an afterlife then death is no big deal. But if this is all we have. If life is just what is here on earth. If what comes after is nothingness. Then it is a crime beyond imagining to take that away.
Even marginal existence is better then non-existence.
If you err, err on the side of life.
Death lasts for eternity.
"People who so passionately argue for Schiavo to be saved have nothing to say about all the other similar or identical cases. Why? If one believes that all life must be saved, then why fight only for this single life?"
Maybe because most people don't know that it's legal to starve people to death in the US in the name of "compassion." I think you'll hear more about it before too long.
I am very surprised you say this. There is so much misinformation out there about this case. I have HEARD repeatedly by lawyers commenting on this case that the COURT HAS MANDATED her FEEDING TUBE removal and that EVEN IF THE COURT gave the guardianship to the PARENTS that it would NOT allow the parents to re-install the tube........by the way JUST CAME DOWN the FINAL APPEAL has been turned down. A sad sad day!!
"Nor does it explain why so many people what both the President and the Governor of Florida to exceed their authority in this one case. What happened to equal protection under the law?"
Equal protection is exactly the reason why Teri should be removed from Schiavo's custody. He's too compromised to speak for her. Too many conflicts of interest.
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.