Allowing someone to die is not euthanisia. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Mrs. Shiavo should be given a chance. The death that she is approaching is agonizing. I also know about this, as it is quite like the final days of some terminal cancer patients. My wife passed from cancer 2 years ago this week. My daughter (an RN, God bless her) and I cared for her here in the home through the process. It was her choice after all the chemo's failed. She knew the process as she was a hospice chaplain.
I think my point is that what is happening to Terry is not equatable to allowing a person die with dignity if that is their choice, and condeming her father for allowing his mother to die isn't the same as what I have read about his daughter's situation.
Please don't tell me you are falling for the Guardian's propaganda. If you follow that logic, every single person on a feeding tube can be legally euthanized.
My God, these people are moral midgets if they don't understand the difference between the two situations. I think the very fact that they keep making these comparisons show just how shallow they are.
There is also no question which side the "Guardian" is on.
We know where you're coming from.
Have a Happy Easter.
Hypocrisy thy name is SCHINDLER!
Oh paleeeze. These two cases are not even remotely similar.
Terri is not on life support. Schindler's mother was.
Only the ignorant see any aimilarity whatsoever.
Regardless of the motives or the actions of the participants in this tragedy, I think the focus should be on the merits of removing the feeding tube. More people are going to be in the situation Terri is in.
wholesale obfuscation alert.
Terri was NOT IN A COMA...
Big LIE ..thanks Dr. Goebels
>>>For 13 years Terri Schiavo has been in a coma -
NO SHE HASN'T! Idiot.
Absolutely no comparison - as any person with a modicum of intelligence knows. How clueless do you have to be to even make such an argument?
This is the problem with the left: no perspective and no reality check. Another example: they condemn those of us who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty. Do they not have even a clue? In one case a harmless, helpless baby is being cruelly and senselessly murdered. In the other case, justice and righteousness is being implemented.
Liberalism is definitely a mental disorder.
Oh please. My grandmother declined rapidly after bypass surgery. We held out hope UNTIL her kidneys failed. At that point, the body builds up toxins that will eventually kill. Kidney failure as part of a serious illness is usually an indication that a person is close to death.
No surprise that The Guardian tries to equivocate a truly ill elderly person with Terri's situation, but it's completely transparent to most.
Maybe there's something you haven't considered. Because there are so many questions about how Terri Shiavo became incapacitated in the first place, there is reason to question whether or not this could be "the perfect crime". IF Michael Shiavo had anything to do with her demise, shouldn't it at least be investigated? What's to stop the next guy from "finding" his wife nearly brain dead after a so called "accident"...and then saying, "She told me she'd never want to live this way."? Then, to top it all off, the courts agree with him and finish her off legally. And to add insult to injury, they do it by slowly dehydrating her. (Would you dehydrate your dog under any circumstances? )
It has been reported that Michael Shiavo has refused millions to release her to her parents...supposedly because he want to "honor her wishes". Why is honoring that "verbal contract" (her alleged wish to be allowed to die) any more important than honoring his marriage contract? If he's willing to let go of their marriage contract...then fine....but why not that other "contract" too? IMO, the case stinks to high Heaven. I pray no stone is left unturned. It's truly a crying shame. May God love and bless Terri Shiavo and her family.
A ventilator doing the work for the patient is quite different than a cheap piece of plastic tubing smeared with vaseline. When I was in medic's training, we were intubating each other with about 5 minutes of instructions. It's about as hi-tech as a spoon.
All these folks rushing out to get living wills should think twice. Insertion of an an I-V would be considered an "heroic measure" according to many of these people.
This morally relative reasoning copuld justify killing all of socities most needy? -since Terri is a Catholic I would suggest the use this reference material is apprpriate:
Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected.
The condemnation of euthanasia expressed by the Encyclical Evangelium vitae since it is a "grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65), reflects the impact of universal ethical reasoning (it is founded on natural law) and the elementary premise of faith in God the Creator and protector of every human person. 6. The approach to the gravely ill and the dying must therefore be inspired by the respect for the life and the dignity of the person. It should pursue the aim of making proportionate treatment available but without engaging in any form of "overzealous treatment" (cf. CCC, n. 2278). One should accept the patient's wishes when it is a matter of extraordinary or risky therapy which he is not morally obliged to accept. One must always provide ordinary care (including artificial nutrition and hydration), palliative treatment, especially the proper therapy for pain, in a dialogue with the patient which keeps him informed.At the approach of death, which appears inevitable, "it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life" (cf. Declaration on Euthanasia, part IV) because there is a major ethical difference between "procuring death" and "permitting death": the former attitude rejects and denies life, while the latter accepts its natural conclusion.
4. Medical doctors and health-care personnel, society and the Church have moral duties toward these persons from which they cannot exempt themselves without lessening the demands both of professional ethics and human and Christian solidarity.The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
Thank you for posting this and making your initial comments ... we who believe in LIFE are getting a much better picture of the darkened souls inhabiting our FR home who want to make jokes and condescend regarding the execution of an innocent disabled woman. You must be so proud that you can get a rise out of us, you and SO9, etc.
Only, you know what?
He was talking about the liberal point of view!
You must be SO proud!