Posted on 03/25/2005 10:28:48 PM PST by FairOpinion
Terri Schiavo's medical condition is in dispute, she left no living will, we don't know her present wishes, and yet the courts are ordering that her husband has the right to kill her? This outrage simply couldn't happen in a culture that considered human life sacred.
"Objection," you say. "The courts are exhibiting their ultimate respect for life by carrying out the wishes of a person to terminate her own life and die with dignity."
Even the "pull the tube" advocates, then, are agreeing that we can't remove the feeding tube unless the patient has previously indicated her intent, either in writing or verbally, that that be done?
But what other conditions must be necessary for the doctors to remove nourishment to a physically healthy patient? Well, presumably, the patient must be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).
The courts have apparently determined that both conditions have been satisfied: Terri is in a PVS, and she expressed her intention not to be kept alive artificially if she ever arrived in that condition.
But based on informed opinions we've learned about in the last few days alone, isn't it obvious that there is significant doubt as to both conditions?
Nurses who personally treated Terri are coming out of the woodwork to state that Terri was responsive, communicative, capable of swallowing and far from a PVS. Distinguished physicians are opining that Terri is not only not in a PVS, but could likely be rehabilitated. Her parents, who surely would not do anything intentionally to cause or perpetuate Terri's suffering, believe she has been responsive and wants to continue living. Is this not enough to raise extraordinary doubts as to Terri's alleged PVS?
What about Terri's alleged expression of intent that she not be artificially sustained? Shouldn't it deeply disturb us that the courts are relying primarily on the testimony of an estranged, discredited husband riddled with personal conflicts of interest to divine Terri's intent, especially when Michael reportedly didn't share that communication for some seven years after Terri's "incident"?
Shouldn't it haunt us that a number of Terri's nurses have stated that Michael forbad rehabilitative and other treatment to Terri at a time when she seemed susceptible to improvement and that he made shocking statements about Terri? What possible motive, other than masochism, would they have to lie?
With his egregious conflicts of interest does anyone really believe Michael is motivated to honor Terri's, rather than his own wishes?
Even if Terri did express something to Michael, how likely is it that she had a feeding tube in mind? Does anyone believe she actually spoke with anywhere close to such specificity: indicating to Michael that she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death even if there were serious doubt as to her being in a PVS?
Don't say it doesn't matter because the types of life-sustaining measures a person requires depend on the condition the person is in. Indeed, if it doesn't matter, why are makers of living wills required to specify such choices?
Let me also ask you to consider this: What if a person had a living will stating she did not want to be kept alive if she ever became brain damaged with limited cognitive functions, but once she arrived at that state, expressed a desire to continue living?
Should her written directive override her even present intentions? Stated another way, should we dishonor a person's will to live, even if she doesn't have any more brainpower than a severely retarded person, solely because she issued a previous directive to the contrary when she had greater capacity?
If so, aren't we saying, in effect, that a mentally handicapped person's life is less valuable, less precious than that of a person with full mental capacities? Aren't we deciding to terminate life based on our subjective view of one's quality of life?
What this boils down to is that our courts (and far too many in society) are so acclimated to our Culture of Death that they are erring on the side of death. Despite enormous doubts about Terri's condition, her intentions, and even her initial injury, the courts are determining that in the end, none of this matters because anyone in Terri's diminished state (no matter what it specifically is) is better off dead. It's essentially a court-ordered murder based on the court's subjective assessment of the victim's quality of life -- an assessment tainted by its diminished reverence for human life.
The decision to kill Terri Schiavo is not in deference to Terri's intentions, about which there is way too much doubt, but to godlessness, humanism and death. It is to quench society's lust for death.
This case marks a turning point in the Culture War, where society is making a giant leap toward the dark side, embracing the lie over truth and death over life. In our relentless quest to become like gods, we are crossing another sacred line, and it is hard to imagine how we might return.
David Limbaugh has been listening to Rush a little too much. He is using the same talking points, and is citing facts that aren't accurate.
The courts have determined that Mr. Shiavo has the ability to make this decision. That doesn't mean the courts are acclimated to a Culture of Death. We don't have a culture of death in the United States. That's just silly.
What enormous doubts does Limbaugh have about Ms. Schiavo's condition? There is no doubt about her condition according to the medical community, which has been determined by the courts time and again, for years. Her brain is not going to grow back, or magically begin to function again. Ever.
How many years should Ms. Schiavo suffer in PVS, to appease the pro PVSers like Limbaugh? The sanctity of life has been romanticized to the point that the very legal system that is accused of killing a brain-dead PVS woman, is also called upon to save her. Absurd. Ms. Schiavo can't go in peace and with some amount of dignity because the Culture of Suffering won't allow it.
You are so unaware of the facts, that I couldn't even begin to educate you.
You can't even educate yourself.
Why not just shoot her like you would a sick dog.Much faster and less painfull.
Even Hitler's minions went for "painless." Schiavo, Greer and Felos, for all their zeal to see this woman dead, are content to no doubt eat their three squares a day while Terri lays there burning inside her own skin. Of course, this may just be a result of their relative inexpericence, and I'm sure that in the future Greer will become much more proficient at putting the helpless to death. It will become a matter of political expedience as he's probably getting too much unwelcome attention as Terri seems to have put up a pretty good fight so far (in spite of her willingness and desire to die, and the euphoria of the process).
I wouldn't shoot a sick dog. Cats though...
Terri's limited brain function is not painful like that of a cancer patient. She has the mental capacity of many stroke victims and other severely retarded people in this country. Are we going to stop food and water to anyone who gets in that condition? Where will it end? Will we next start starving anyone who has lost control over their bowels and has to wear diapers? Where will it end? Going blind? A child who refuses to mind its mother?
Obvious conflict of interest. Why hasn't the Schindler's lawyers brought this to the attention of the Court?
Because the Schindlers have had lousy lawyering from the git go. They should have retained a top flight Constitutional lawyer like Alan Dershowitz or Davis Boise instead of a political idealogue .
Your example would actually be more humane than the present barbaric starvation.
People without money don't understand why someone would want to off another human without so much as a look at the situation. And because they have nothing invested personally, they don't "get it" either.
Then there's some who operate from principle beyond "what's in it for me". And that group has to find the compromise. Because, the incentives are strong on both sides. And these choices have bad unintended consequences.
The whole point death-lovers like yourself have been shoving down our throats is that Terri Schiavo was NOT "suffering" because she is/was quite incapable of it. Did you forget the lie about how pleasant starvation is for people like Terri?
The courts are wrong. They have set aside all questions of the morality of the deliberate killing of an innocent.
If it is the right thing to kill this woman, it is the right thing to kill her quickly.
The courts have ordered Terri Schiavo must die. End her suffering quickly.
The legal system made the determination Timothy McVeigh had to die and it accomplished that legal action with a rapid death by lethal injection.
It is always the preferred method of destroying a suffering animal.
If Terri must die, the proper thing to do now is to kill her quickly.
" ... our courts (and far too many in society) are so acclimated to our Culture of Death that they are erring on the side of death."
Where is the "dignity" in dying of thirst and starving? No matter how the death-lovers try to cloth the deliberate killing of this innocent woman, it will never convince me that this murder is dignified.
At this rate, the event will be planned like a wedding, "is Tuesday convenient for you?"
As a tsunami of democratic fervor crashes across the earth the US will not be spared. This country's courts lack any shred of democratic sentiment. The culture of the law has placed itself beyond the authority of the people. It prides itself as cold, unsentimental and heartless. Its practitioners judge by terror and suffer no appeal beyond their authority.
By denying the guidance of a deep and passionate love for human freedom and the dignity of life the culture of law has become tyrannical. This can not and will not stand. A free people must govern all of their institutions. Wherever tyranny is established it must be deposed.
Calling people "death lovers" is so over the top, it made me laugh.
You can't expect to be taken seriously if you are going to puke up rhetoric like that every time someone disagrees with your pov.
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.