Posted on 03/26/2005 7:20:40 PM PST by EveningStar
Bob and Mary Schindler, both practicing Catholics, urged dozens of supporters gathered outside the Florida hospice where Schiavo is being cared for to go home for Easter.
"The family would request that everyone go home, be with your children, hold them close and share every moment you have with them," said Brother Paul O'Donnell, a Franciscan monk who is a spiritual adviser to the Schindlers.
It was not clear if the Schindlers had finally abandoned all legal avenues in their fight to restart their 41-year-old daughter's feeding, a cause that embroiled the Florida legislature, the U.S. Congress and President Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Unfortunately, they are linking this with Nazism, and the reasoning is not similar in the slightest.
The reasoning is exactly the same. There is not one slightest difference. Both are occasions where the killing was considered a mercy killing.
Useless Eaters, an award-winning presentation in which the comparisons are shown.
I have worked as a medical professional for over 25 years and watched as the culture changed from one of support for the disabled to one of victimization.
The German euthanasia of the disabled came about through a collusion between the medical establishment and the courts, which is exactly what we are seeing today.
The Germans used film to change the cultural viewpoint into one that accepted that some lives were not worth living. Today we have two films winning numerous awards and both are about disabled people seeking death - The Sea Inside and Million Dollar Baby. In both of these films, life as a disabled person is sold as agonizing and miserable. Death is a release from misery. Studies have shown repeatedly that most people in the circumstances of those in the film do not rate their quality of life as lower than the the rest of us, however.
Finally, a utilitarian society is already here, for the most part. Just as in Germany, the costs of caring for those who were/are disabled is being discussed in the medical journals. The disabled are being viewed as potential organ suppliers - some are putting forth the idea that chronically ill and brain damaged children should be used for harvesting of organs - before they die, to boot.
The definition of death itself is being changed, for the first time since 1967. Suggestions have been made that the brain damaged should be used for medical experiments.
To read the medical journals today is a chilling experience. Wesley Smith explained in one of his books how the cultural debate on change would move from the professional journals to the public. Years ago I used to post about what was taking place in expensive publications, and there was only a small response here. What you are seeing now on FR is the occasion of the public realizing where we are headed.
If you want more evidence, please ask.
97 posted on 03/27/2005 12:10:57 PM CST by MarMema
Oh, yes.
The following is the boiler-plate Advance Directive in Oklahoma:
ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR HEALTH CARE
I, ____________________, being of sound mind and eighteen (18) years of age or older, willfully and voluntarily make know my desire, by my instructions to others through my living will, that my life shall not be artificially prolonged under the circumstances set forth below. I thus do hereby declare:
I. Living Will
a. If my attending physician and another physician determine that I am no longer able to make decisions regarding my medical treatment, I direct my attending physician and other health care providers, pursuant to the Oklahoma Rights of the Terminally Ill or Persistently Unconscious Act, to withhold or withdraw treatment from me under the circumstances I have indicated below by my signature. I understand that I will be given treatment that is necessary for my comfort or to alleviate my pain.
b. If I have a terminal condition:
(1) I direct that life-sustaining treatment shall be withheld or withdrawn if such treatment would only prolong my process of dying, and if my attending physician and another physician determine that I have an incurable and irreversible condition that even with the administration of life-sustaining treatment will cause my death within six (6) months.
______________________ (signature)
(2) I understand that the subject of the artificial administration of nutrition and hydration (food and water) that will only prolong the process of dying from an incurable and irreversible condition is of particular importance. I understand that if I do not sign this paragraph, artificially administered nutrition and hydration will be administered to me. I further understand that if I sign this paragraph, I am authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially administered nutrition (food) and hydration (water).
______________________ (signature)
c. If I am persistently unconscious:
(1) I direct that life-sustaining treatment be withheld or withdrawn if such treatment will only serve to maintain me in an irreversible condition, as determined by my attending physician and another physician, in which thought and awareness of self and environment are absent.
______________________ (signature)
(2) I understand that the subject of the artificial administration of nutrition and hydration (food and water) for individuals who have become persistently unconscious is of particular importance. I understand that if I do not sign this paragraph, artificially administered nutrition and hydration will be administered to me. I further understand that if I sign this paragraph, I am authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially administered nutrition (food) and hydration (water).
______________________ (signature)
______________________ (signature)
II. Other Provisions
a. I understand that if I have been diagnosed as pregnant and that diagnosis is known to my attending physician, this advance directive shall have no force or effect during the course of my pregnancy.
b. In the absence of my ability to give directions regarding the use of life-sustaining procedures, it is my intention that this advance directive shall be honored by my family and physicians as the final expression of my legal right to refuse medical or surgical treatment including, but not limited to, the administration of any life-sustaining procedures, and I accept the consequences of such refusal.
c. The advance directive shall be in effect until it is revoked.
d. I understand that I my revoke this advance directive at any time.
e. I understand and agree that if I have any prior directives, and if I sign this advance directive, my prior directives are revoked.
f. I understand the full importance of this advance directive and I am emotionally and mentally competent to make this advance directive.
Signed this _____ day of ___________, 200__.
_______________________________
Name
_______________________________
City, County & State of Residence
This Advance Directive For Health Care, consisting of two pages, was on the above stated date signed by Declarant in the presence of each of us who, in the presence of Declarant and in the presence of each other, have signed our names as witnesses thereto. I am eighteen (18) years of age or older and am not a legatee, devisee or heir at law of the Declarant.
___________________ _____________________
(Signatures)
___________________ _____________________
(Address)
Wasn't it the government that decided Terri was to die? Isn't it the government that is guarding her room and making sure no one gives her any nourishment or even relief -- not even communion? Without the government, Michael would be out of luck in his efforts to starve his former wife (hey, he has had a new wife for 10 years). That whole argument about the gov't staying out of it is bunk. Most of Terri's family want her to live. It is only her husband who has not kept up with his marriage vows and who stands to gain financially from her death who wants her to die. And he is going to be successful because the government is going to help him succeed.
IF TRUE is the key. If it were true, it would have already been investigated.
"In a 2001 Q & A on National Review Online, Nitschke was asked who would be eligible to receive his suicide concoction. His answer is macabre, even by surrealistic Hemlock standards:
"All people qualify, not just those with the training, knowledge, or resources to find out how to "give away" their life. And someone needs to provide this knowledge, training, or resource necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved [and] the troubled teen. . . . The so-called "peaceful pill" should be available in the supermarket so that those old enough to understand death could obtain death peacefully at the time of their choosing."
For anyone with any moral sense, Nitschke is clearly a crackpot. But he remains a hero to members of Hemlock. He was an honored guest at the organization's 2003 national convention in San Diego, where he was invited to unveil his most recently invented suicide machine. Despite being deprived of the chance to ooh and ah at Nitschke's handiwork when Australian customs authorities seized the contraption, attendees gave him a rousing standing ovation.
Hello, mother22wife21,
It's the test case.
You are correct about those not caring nor being able to identify evil.
I was waiting for you to come around and scarf up the evil stuff.
How's your Easter?
Had any breakfast or lunch?
jpsb,
For the evil Gov. Bush as enabled, it should not be a good remainder-of-his-term-in-office.
What is he going to say: "I didn't do everything I could legally have done, but, hey, I need your help to keep the bad guys at bay..."
What's that saying..."All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing?" I think that's it... Not sure of the exact wording.
Not if the system is dysfunctional or dishonest. Schmelvin and Nicmarlo are sourcing the article now, paragraph by paragraph. So far, "mercyme" has been spot-on, and the documents to prove it are being linked.
Your education on Catholic teachings is woefully lacking, but it is not surprising as you are very secular in nature.
Very man made, as it were.
Interesting you have so strong views on faith.
Some on FReepers would be the first to seek 'find' volunteers for use in organ donating and experiments - especially if it meant they themselves, or their family members could live.
Proud of your stand JonDavid-
There are FReepers who are every bit at using 'PC' indoctrination for their own purposes and it startles them when people don't back down.
I have seen not all FReepers are FReepers..
And if one 'pc' term will not produce the desired result, they'll try another one.
Aw, the power of words.
Glad your stuck to your stand.
There is no need to discomfort a dying patient.
Removing a feeding tube is painful, and an unnecessary procedure if the time has come, in consultation with a patient's family and physicians, to stop using it as a method of introducing nutrition.
I am speaking of a hypothetical dying patient, not Terri.
You are right that I know little of Catholic teachings, as I am more focused on Christian beliefs. Right now, I'm trying to find information on the Council of Brega circa 561, though. My mode of thinking is more in line with the early Christians than the stuff like "Only Psalms can be sung in church" and "Priests who take a vow to abstain from meat must eat meat broth with vegetables or be considered heretics" and the like.
I have been learning more of Roman Catholicism, though I have to be careful not to base my views on those I meet here. When people say they'd keep Mrs. Schiavo's body alive "even if she wouldn't want it", I'm not sure what to believe...sounds a lot like the Muslim prevention on leaving that religion, too. In the latter case, they kill you against your will...in the former case, they would keep you alive against your will. Both make me sick.
Anyway, like I said, my thinking is more in line with the early Christians who thought little of this life and sought to be with their Lord and Maker. Every moment of delay in this world is a separation from God, so why should a woman wish to Commune with the other humans and Christ down here, when she could Commune with God in His Kingdom? That we've delayed her journey 7 years is cruelty enough.
Note, I am not saying I am anti-Catholic or any other Christian denomination.....nor am I saying I believe any of them...but you are off base to consider me "secular in nature."
Bobby Schindler criticized those who were complaining about the Bushes' geting INVOLVED in the legal fight to save Terri. He did not criticize those who criticized the Bushes for failing to act to save Terri. In fact, the whole family has condemned Jeb Bush for failing to send in troopers or soldiers to save Terri.
Incidentally, the "Culture of Life" is an abstraction. It's easy to support abstractions. It takes more courage to act to rescue a flesh-and-blood woman who is being murdered. Neither of the Bushes had that kind of courage.
I admire your attempt to raise the level of debate here above the Godwin crowd. However, I must point out a place where you also use hyperbole to make--and ultimately diminish--your point.
What Michael Shiavo has done in denying Terri [...] the chance to live a full life, is evil.
I think that Mrs. Schiavo denied herself a full life if she abused drugs and carried out her bulimic activities. Mr. Schiavo did not stick his finger down her throat or abuse her body the way she did.
I know that bulimia is strongly linked to childhood abuse, and I know that Mr. Schindler could be considered rather abusive of Mrs. Schiavo in the video (his gruff berating her and poking her in the head), but blaming him for her condition without proof of childhood abuse would also be as ridiculous as blaming Mr. Schiavo without any proof of wrongdoing. Again, if anyone is to blame for the loss of full life, it's Mrs. Schiavo and the doctor who did not diagnose and treat her bulimia properly. But for their actions, there would be no lunacy on this today.
Finally, it is quite obvious that therapy cannot restore a full life to a woman who has no cerebral cortex. Years of therapy provided no help for her, and although IANAP, the literature is clear that unless dramatic improvement is seen early on, further therapy is pointless.
Why should her rights be interfered with for one moment more? Why should she be delayed from being with Her Father one minute more?
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.