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 ...
Ah, the devil is in the details. However these days, you never can be too careful. All I know is that I don't want to die like Terri Schindler.
No need to overcomplicate. Food and water must be provided when, and to the extent that, they can prevent starvation and dehydration. They may only be denied if their provision would enhance neither the duration nor quality of the patient's life. Note that in Terri's case, food and water would have enhanced both.
In the more general case, I think people have and should have a right to trade off quality of life for duration, but there's a big difference between that and saying that life is sometimes not worth living. Suppose, for example, that you had a 100% reliable crystal ball that gave you two choices: (1) you could be absolutely healthy for 180 days and then drop dead, or (2) you could lie bidridden and uncommunicative, and survive for 181 days. I would not fault anyone who decided that #1 was a better choice even though by accepting it they gave up a day of "life". On the other hand, though people somehow fail to realize this, corpses generally have ZERO quality of life (Weekend at Bernie's perhaps excepted, though I've not seen the film). Thus, in many 'end-of-life' decisions like "Terri's", there's no trade-off involved.
Goodness, Robert, that statement could be translated into many different scenarios. What about people that are severely mentally retarded, but they are not living on any machines? They can eat and breathe on their own. However, they are still taking up "valuable space" and causing "untold grief" and costing lots of money. They cannot provide for themselves and will need care forever. Should we put them out of their misery too? What about Alzheimer's patients, schizophrenics, paraplegics, etc.? These people take up lots of space and cost a lot and cause much grief as well. Let's just get rid of them all, right Robert?
Ah pardon me, but what makes you think your posts aren't good for a laugh or two?
I heard on a radio talk show this afternoon the Schindler attorney who represented Terri for a few years, Pam Anderson, state that around the 9th day after Terri's feeding tube was removed a hospice nurse told her that she was so surprised at how strong Terri's heart is, not at all like the other cancer patients. What did the nurse think, that Terri was dying from cancer?
Perhaps, in your view that is not a significant event, but I recoil when I think of a human being who would not die otherwise for a long time being deliberately starved to death by the state.
Moreover the fact that clearly many Americans think starving the innocent infirm, handicapped, disabled and defenseless is an appropriate way to dispatch them is disgusting.
I repeat, this is not a euthanasia case.
This is not a situation where well-intentioned people are trying to figure out what to do with Terri -- should she live or should she die. Would I want to live or would I want to die.
Scrap all of that. It's a lie. Save it for a real euthanasia case.
Terri Schiavo is about an individual who, lacking a Living Will or Durable Power of Attorney, nonetheless expressed a verbal desire that if it came to be, she would not want to live in a brain damaged state by artificial means. That's it. Pure and simple.
Many arguments followed. Some said Terri is not in a PVS (Persistent Vegetative State). Some argued that a feeding tube is not "artificial means". Some said that she can swallow on her own and doesn't need the feeding tube. Others said that a verbal wish doesn't count. Some said the people who heard that wish are lying. On and on.
Michael, her husband, took the whole thing to Judge Greer in 1998 and said (in effect), "Here. You sort it out".
In January, 2000, Judge Greer held a hearing to determine what Terri wanted. According to Florida law, an oral wish is acceptable, but the judge is charged with finding "clear and convincing" evidence as to the patient's wishes.
In February, 2000, Judge Greer found that Terri would not have wanted to live the way she was living, and ordered the feeding tube removed.
Terri's cerebral cortex is gone. She feels no pain. She is not conscious, even when she's "awake".
This was Terri's wish. Not Michael's. Not Judge Greer's. If she had placed this wish in writing, we never would have heard of Terri Schiavo because she would have died years ago.
Could the conversation have happened the way you say? Sure. And those could be zebras.
But, c'mon. Who talks that way? Who says (today), "I am disgusted with Hinkley's attempt to kill President Reagan"?
Lordy. Much more natural to say, "I am disgusted that Hinkley attempted to kill President Reagan".
Well, someone had to sort it all out, and that someone was Judge Greer. If he misread the present-tense statements of both Terri's mother and her friend, well, then he truly screwed up. Then again, he had solid proof (by testimony) of her desire not to live that way.
I considered this overall. All the evidence. All the testimony. Personally, I concluded that she wished not to live like that.
But it wasn't my call.
Did someone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Terri wanted to be put down if she ever became severely disabled? ... I doidn't think so, yet that is the standard required when an execution sentence is to be carried out.
To me, it starts with the brain. If there's some pretty good activity goin' on, don't touch that dial, my friend! I don't care how many machines are running (picture the power meter spinning in Christmas Vacation when he lights up the house), this may be a temporary thing.
Are we clear?
Next comes some brain activity, but no hope for recovery. A respirator and feeding tube. Tough call. I'll have to trust my spouse and doctor on that one. I'd say give it a month or two to be sure (and what does insurance cover?), then pull the plug.
No brain activity, no chance for recovery, heart-lung machine, feeding tube? A no-brainer (excuse the pun).
The toddlers? Totally different.
Put down? Like a dog?
Severly disabled? I consider a quadriplegic to be severly disabled, but would never consider "putting them down".
Judge Greer was charged by Florida law to find "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes. He did. He then ordered HER wishes to be carried out.
Want to address the pain thingy you tried to pass off as fact? ... You're an amazingly persistent advocate for euthanizing people, but you try to couch it as enlightened. And yes, I suspect Greer, Felos, M Schiavo and dr. Cranford looked upon killing Terri as nothing more important than putting down a disabled house pet. YOu, on the other hand, are intelligent enough to know when you've been pushing disninformation. But you persist in doing it. Having fun with the pain of those who have fought so hard to protect Terri?
I couldn't find anything about any pin prick test. There was a swab test on the video where Terri reacted, but that's all I could find.
Oh, and I don't trust anything on the video. A few seconds of video out of over four hours of taping can show anything they want.
The pain medication for her mentrual cramps? Because she said "Payyyyy"? This from a statement by Carla Sauer Iyer, looking for her 15 minutes of fame?
Yeah, right. Why didn't she testify, under oath, subject to cross examination and penalty of perjury at the January, 2000 hearing? I think I just answered my own question.
Now, when you mention the "severely mentally retarded" or some such, you're starting to get into the euthanasia argument, something I've been trying to avoid. The Terri Schiavo case was not about euthanasia.
That's a subject for another thread and another day.
There is evidence that he asphyxiated her in 1990, more likely by strangling than by smothering. Terri was revived, but just barely, and with the brain damage.
You wouldn't happen to be of the rubber stamptrooper ilk, a judge like perhaps Catherine Crier, blind to anything that doesn't make it through the filters erected for your pre-conceived notions? You are amazing ... and I will pray that God have mercy upon you when your hour comes because your arrogant denial of reality is sad.
When the brain is not functioning, you're dead. The brain governs bodily functions such as breathing. When brain activity stops permamently, you're dead.
I think we're in agreement.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is one of my all time favorite movies :)
Regarding the last point in the snippet above, "he had solid proof (by testimony) of her desire not to live that way ..." In my opinion, it is slighty overreaching (solid proof) and grossly indefinite (that way). It is also another example of a misleading style of argument.
I've enjoyed our exchange. Clearly, you advocate that the decision of the court is [oops, I made an error of tense there, should be "was"] the correct one, that Judge Greer correctly found Terri's wish. I disagree vigorously. Since neither of us is apt to persude the other to see the case otherwise, it's is pointless to carry this discussion any further. Good day.
You post is distasteful. I am embarrassed for you. And when I see robertpaulsen posts, I will remember this mean and despicable entry. Your have revealed your heart and character.
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.