1. The questions that we often do not want to grapple with are questions such as yours. To discuss these questions without getting *heated* or *accusatory* is difficult, isn't it? 'How are they fed' and 'How are they *maintained*' are still legitimate questions, and obviously the answers are myriad. I could throw into the mix the questions on how much extreme medical care should be provided to even infants with little or no hope of recovering. I don't have the answers. But we cannot discuss these matters if accusations and invectives are thrust about against those who express different postures or ideas on their way to forming ideas. You state that the videos of Terri revealed a woman who was aware of her surroundings and was somewhat responvie. The videos were, however, edited. Hours of video recorded and mere minutes edited for the purpose of *proving* her responsiveness and awareness. I do not believe the minutes of video were conclusive evidence. The Guardian Ad Litem, appointed by Gov Bush, determined the same thing after he viewed the unedited videos. Have you read his report?
2. I have struggled with many questions, and I do not have definitive answers. I ask you just some of the the questions that puzzle me and my wife:
If someone cannot remember to eat, and wanders off (dementia) and they freeze to death, or die of heatstroke, is someone culpable? Or is the death the result of natural causes?
If a child cannot learn to suckle, or cannot breathe on its own, or cannot eat on its own, and no extreme efforts are made to intubate air or food or water, is it killing the child, or is it allowing nature to take its course?
Is allowing nature to *take its course* allowing God to finish His plan for that person (child or demented teen or adult), or is man required to bear all these burdens upon his shoulders? What does God truly require of us? Do we read more into some verses that we should? Do we assume responsibility that is not truly ours? Do we assume God's mantle and distribute medical care no matter what?
EDM: *Do you see now why I have a problem with the argument that it was right to kill Terri on the basis that she didn't meet some minimal level of functionality?**
I disagree with you on your word choice. I believe it was legitimate (legal) and spiritually appropriate to allow Terri to die. I do not believe she was killed, and I do not believe it is a *culture of death* to allow a person's body to realize the consequences of physical causes (in this instant case: inability to chew and swallow food). She had no functionality that indicated otherwise.
EDM: *You're telling me that the retarded people who were part of my childhood--people similar to Terri--do not deserve to live. Your response just now indicates that maybe you weren't aware of the existence of these people, but, now that you are, do you think we should end their existences the way Terri's was ended?**
I did not state that the retarded people who were part of your childhood (whom I have not met) did not not deserve to live. *Deserve to live* is a phrase that is loaded and I have not intended to *debate* that at all. My response was not at all indicative of my awareness of the existence of people such as you have referenced. Instead, I was asking you the extent of their disabilities, and your opinions regarding them.
I have countered with other questions which as I have stated, I have no answers, although I do wonder as to our legitimacy and responsibility in extending and prolonging life, as it were, in refusing to acknowledge the life after death that can be a welcome relief when not fought so arduously.
I am only offering food for thought. Jesus was the Bread of Life. His Bread was not actual food for the body (excepting the Lord's Supper), but was Bread for the spiritual body. We, as men, value the spiritual body. The Greeks certainly did. Christians, those who have accepted the Bread of Life and chew on His Word, look forward to the Eternal Life more than we hold on to this present life, don't we?
If that's the case then why not a mentally retarded human being in an institution if that's what the family desires? Their quality of life is in many cases the same as Terri's was. What's the difference? Why was her case special or different?
Who's accusing anyone of anything? If you're going to allow the death of one person who can't feed themself or do much of anything, including express rational thoughts then to be consistent all families should be given that option, including those living in institutions for the mentally retarded.
We also believe in "Thou shalt not kill"
"grapple" with that one
Now you're getting into Scientology cultism.
In fact, all rational men have valued both the physical and the spiritual body, as they are, during life, inseparable.
It is preposterous to "value" one over the other in the practical order. It is taught that the soul is immortal, which means that rational considerations must be made for the soul after the body's death.
But as you recall, it is ALSO taught that there will be a general bodily resurrection. Thus, no rightly-ordered Christian denomination has suggested that the body be viewed as some sort of 'encumberment' of the soul.
As far as videos go, I'm unimpressed with the claim that they were edited out of several hours of footage (if that claim is true). Have you seen them for yourself? There is nothing random about Terri laughing and smiling at peppy music. It is a definite reaction to stimuli. If she had been unresponsive, no amount of editing could make it look otherwise. (If I want to prove that my cat can perform advanced calculus, how many hours of video do I need to edit?) In the genuinely non-responsive--for instance, an anencephalic having just enough brain stem to maintain life, but no other brain structures--if there is movement, it is slow and repetitive. For instance, the head might turn from side to side, incessantly, always in the same pattern. The movements will stop upon physical restraint, but as soon as restraint is removed, they resume. Even Michael Schiavo, when he was suing for malpractice, made a big point of demonstrating how responsive Terri was.
If someone cannot remember to eat, and wanders off (dementia) and they freeze to death, or die of heatstroke, is someone culpable? Or is the death the result of natural causes?
This death is not from natural causes. To determine if someone is culpable, you really have to look at the situation, don't you? Did the person wander off without anyone being aware of it, or was he neglected intentionally?
If a child cannot learn to suckle, or cannot breathe on its own, or cannot eat on its own, and no extreme efforts are made to intubate air or food or water, is it killing the child, or is it allowing nature to take its course?
Again, you have to look at the situation. Standard SOP is that the newborn is whisked away to intensive care immediately. What happens afterwards is really according to the prognosis. There are lethal genetic conditions--death might be held off for a little while, but not for long (like that Houston baby). What about this--a little girl starts to go into respiratory arrest. Her mother, a nurse, recognizes the breathing pattern characteristic of a dying person (I forget the name of it), calls 9-11, and applies CPR. The child recovers, but ends up having a breathing monitor attached all the time, and oxygen tanks and a ventilator are put into her bedroom. She stops breathing several times a day. As she grows older, she learns to ventilate herself when the alarm goes off. This actually happened several years ago, the story was in a women's magazine. Now, should she have been allowed to die naturally, or should we be happy that advanced medical technology kept her alive?
Now, back to Terri. As I have pointed out, she is not an isolated case, and although she became that way as a result of some incident, she was not different than tens of thousands of people born like that. The fact that you have not seen people like that is not surprising--most people haven't, and don't have the opportunity to, unless they (like me) have a close family member who works in an institution for the retarded, or have a family member who is being cared for in such an institution. I see Terri as one among many. I've seen a line arbitrarily drawn to distinguish human life worthy of living from that which isn't worth living, and I am concerned. With my scientific background, I understand enough about biology to know that there is not a logical place to put such a line, once it is decided that such a line should exist. Putting Terri on the other side of that line necessarily puts thousands of others on the other side. And then, because the line is arbitrary, it can always be moved to put more people on the other side (hence the term "slippery slope"). I wish I could believe that Terri is an isolated case, but, given history, I cannot. How long is it until some group purporting to represent taxpayers sues to have the profoundly retarded killed, on the basis that there is no hope for their improvement, and they are costing us money and resources that could be better spent?
You want to put a religious perspective on this. Well, I'm not all that religious, but how about another perspective. You could argue that a person who is born completely unresponsive and unaware is just a body functioning mechanically without a soul. Maybe God's plan is not for that person, per se, but for those whose lives bring them into contact with that person. Did not Jesus say something to the effect of "How you treat the weak among you is how you treat Me"? It could very well be that God is judging us on how we take care of someone who will never benefit from our care, who will never talk or thank us, who might never even be aware that he or she is alive.
If someone with dementia were to wander off on a cold day, despite reasonable efforts by a caregiver to prevent such a thing, and if that person by chance failed to encounter anyone who could help them, the death would be ruled 'accident'.
If someone with dementia were dumped out in the cold by a "caregiver" who watched their movements and worked deliberately to ensure that nobody else could get close enough to help, the death would be a homicide, more specifically, murder.
Again, you have been lied to or misunderstand.
Terri Schiavo was *intentionally* starved and dehydrated to death. There was a tube in place which was deliberately and intentionally removed. That tube could have been used without machines - gravity would have worked, or her mother or nurse could have used a syringe. Greer simultaneously and specifically prohibited the use of natural means - including spoons or feeding cups - of administering food and water at Michael's discretionary decision.
Terri did not "wander off." There was no accidental reason that her mother and the medical staff (who should have been paid by Terri's own money from the malpractice settlement) could not feed Terri. Regulated technology, the guns of law enforcement, and the court orders of Greer *caused* the intentional ending of Terri's life.