Posted on 04/01/2005 3:43:07 PM PST by paltz
wASHINGTON, March 31 - The life and death of Terri Schiavo - intensely public, highly polarizing and played out around the clock on the Internet and television- has become a touchstone in American culture. Rarely have the forces of politics, religion and medicine collided so spectacularly, and with such potential for lasting effect.
Ms. Schiavo, the profoundly incapacitated woman whose family split over whether she would have preferred to live or die, forced Americans into a national conversation about the end of life. Her case raised questions about the role of government in private family decisions.
But her legacy may be that she brought an intense dimension - the issue of death and dying - to the battle over what President Bush calls "the culture of life."
Nearly 30 years after the parents of another brain-damaged woman, Karen Ann Quinlan, injected the phrase "right to die" into the lexicon as they fought to unplug her respirator, Ms. Schiavo's case swung the pendulum in the other direction, pushing the debate toward what Wesley J. Smith, an author of books on bioethics, calls " the right to live."
"This is the counterrevolution," said Mr. Smith, who has been challenging what he calls the liberal assumptions of most bioethicists. "I have been frustrated at how difficult it is to bring the starkness of these issues into a bright public discussion. Schiavo did it."
Experts say that unlike the Quinlan case, which established the concept that families can prevail over the state in end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case created no major legal precedents. But it could well lead to new laws. Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Dehydration and starvation are cruel and unusual.
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.
The laws of every state in the Union allow people to be killed as Terri was. That must change.
The law does not allow murder by starvation except in Florida.
The law does not allow murder by torture except in Florida.
How would you recommend amending existing laws to prevent a case like this, but still retain the right of an individual to refuse medical procedures (if you believe that individuals do have that right, of course)? I've been contemplating this issue, and it strikes me as difficult to write a law that would cover this case without being too broad. I may be approaching it from the wrong angle, though, so a different perspective on how to craft such a law would be welcome.
The New York Times is terrified that Terri's murder might cut back on their precious abortion rights.
On Fox News the point was made (I think by the guy taking Brit Hume's place) that some are beginning to think that the polling gave an inaccurate impression that the majority favored Terri's death by dehydration.
In my opinion, pollsters have NO idea what Americans think of this episode...they'll ask questions designed to get a particular answer, but they fear finding out what Americans (whether or not they have an advance directive, a DNR, a living will) REALLY think of those who directed that an innocent, inconvenient woman die from lack of water.
The democrat final solution to the Social Security crisis.
Read it and weep. These laws must be changed!
Simply remove nutrition and hydration as being part of a medical procedure that can be stopped. Euthanasia is evil and should not be allowed.
Make it the crime of attempted murder to withhold food or water unless the individual either had (1) a living will to that effect or (2) a durable power of attorney authorizing someone else to make the decision. If the person dies, make it a capital murder offense subject to the death penalty for all involved, both private citizens and government officials.
yet again the NYT is behind the curve with the admission that the Schiavo case WILL change law.
Amen!!!!!
"Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions." Did anyone ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and that is the standard with an execution ruling by a court, except in Greer's court) that Terri wanted to die is disabled? [I didn't think so ... ]
"is disabled" should read 'if disabled?'
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.