Posted on 04/02/2005 6:21:27 AM PST by rhema
Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?
Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?
If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?
How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?
Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?
Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.
Most folks thought it was a good policy.
It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The question that needs to be asked publicly, is "Why was Terri denied food and drink through her mouth, as she was capable of taking with assistance?"
I think people found it "moral" because they didn't know the true facts of Terri's case. The old media didn't put out the true facts.
No but i would be in favor of toturing the bastards till they talked frying or baking all of their food in pig fat making them listen to brey brey streisand till their ears bleed painting their toenails with earthtone colored nail polish and putting them in dresses or burkas as they would their woman
Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?
No but i wuld be in favor of castrating child molesters and of immediate execution of child killers any killer for that matter who was not killing for self defence or protection of family but for personal ill gotten gain Public executions in the town squares where perpetrators of these vile acts would not be out of the question
Inhumanty is a very conveiniant word to use isn't it?...... it's inhumane to starve a dog to death or to punish criminals in certain ways
But to starve a handicapped innocent woman to death is humane ?
Yea right !
I keep thinking that Michael Schiavo kicking everyone out of Terri's room for a "medical assessment" was really having Terri killed somehow, since she refused to die and held out so long.
It is used for people who have a problem with their digestive system, and can't take food through the stomach or intestines. It is pumped into your bloodstream through a wide bore (pic)more permanent line intravenously. I was on one myself when my pancreas failed. It's extraordinarily expensive, and if a feeding tube can be used, it is.
How you feed a person at home is quite different than how an institution does. They have to follow protocol to prevent lawsuits. As I said, it is NOT something care homes do for convienience. They are prone to infections as well.
If Michael Schiavo had been on the side of life, the media would have been all over Jodi Centzone, demonizing her.
And you know this how? because someone said so? she wouldn't have had a feeding tube in the first place if this were true.
This is just going in circles again.
I totally agree. There is plenty of evidence that Terri could swallow both food and water.
She was more than just 'handicapped' she was unconcious, which means unaware of her self, incapable of feeling. Incapable of thought, sensation. It was humane to let her die. But, it didn't matter either way, because she was incapable of "suffering". That requires the ability to think, be aware of herself, feel, process thought. 99% of very professional people say she wasn't able to do these things, looking at her scan, I agree.
So if someone has a written directive that states, "Please shoot me in the head if I become incapacitated and can no longer take care of myself" then it becomes our obligation to fulfill their wishes? People do not say "Please, starve and dehydrate me to death for 13 days if I become mentally incapacitated." And even if they do so, is that the right thing to do? Kill someone just because they asked you to? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's right.
This is just going in circles again.
It was humane to let her die.
NO it wasn't !
Guess we will just agree to disagree and leave it it at that
I presented the testimony of her mother, and how her mother admitted she was wrong. You're talking about the testimony of Terri's friend. That's different. Isn't it?
Her friend testified that Terri made some comments in the present tense about Quilan's father wanting to "pull the plug". Judge Greer mistakenly connected "pullin the plug" with death (as it usually would be) and made the statement he did.
It was appealed because of that statement. In the appeal, Judge Greer addressed it in writing. It changes nothing.
No, It would be more along the lines of, "Disconnect my body from whatever is keeping it artificially alive."
If you don't agree, then be sure to let people know. I'll honor your wish to be kept alive.
Will you honor mine to die?
Different as to the person giving the testimony, obviously. And I stand corrected, to the extent that it was the friend's testimony that was in the news.
But as for Judge Greer's error (that Quinlan died in 1976 - or was not alive in 1982), I believe also plays into Mrs. Schindler's testimony. Her "admission" notwhistanding, her initial testimony was that she and Terri had a conversation when Terri was in her teens, well over the age of 11. What courtroom exchange prompted her to "admit" that Terri must have been 11 at the time of their dialog? Was it something on the order of "Terri couldn't have bee in her teens at the time of the discussion, Ms. Quinlan was not alive at that time." ?
Sufice to say, there was an appeal, it was addressed, and everyone but you moved on.
Sufice to say, there was an appeal, it was addressed, and everyone but you moved on.
In the discussion we had, the issue was whether or not your orginal post was forthright and balanced, not whether I or anybody else was comfortable hanging the ultimate outcome of the case on the single point of whether or not Greer's mistake about Quinlan's date of demise.
Your comment "everyone but you moved on" adds nothing positive to FReeRepublic.
If you were truly brain dead and were going to die within minutes of unplugging a respirator, I would make the decision to turn off the machine and let you die. If you were brain damaged and you couldn't swallow food and needed a feeding tube, I could not, in good conscience, remove a feeding tube and let you starve and dehydrate to death over a two week period. No. I'm sorry, but I would consider that wrong.
A perfectly reasonable response. What would not be reasonable would be your attempt to prevent, by law or other means, those willing to do so at robertpaulson's instruction from carrying out his instructions. Do you agree?
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.