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 ...
That's true too. Freepers should be among the most informed, and you are right, many of them were in favor of getting rid of Terri too. That took me a little off guard & I have to say that the venom I witnessed on this site in regards to this subject left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't feel as at home here as I did before.
And yes, I know I'm a "newbie", but that doesn't automatically make me a "troll".
I also believe that when Michael Shiavo had that feeding tube put in Terri, years ago, it was his plan then, to use it against her so he could get rid of her.
Sure, he couldn't have gotten support to withhold food and water if she was eating normally. Add feeding tube then withdraw all food and water.
Only if all the T's were crossed, and the I's dotted. It's got to be legal, above board and kosher, you know. Due process. Rule of Law. Carry on.
Oh oh, now you did it. You pointed out how people add drama to everything to enforce their opinions.
I was tempted to do the same thing, but it always ends up the same way, you get attacked by people who post comments like the one above yours, which at one time were only found at sites such as DU.
where is your moral presidant now?
perhap's he could have spoke to his brother,looked like they were pretty tight...hmmmm....
Sorry the Pope picked an inconvenient time to die.
Neither of which, of course, was determined with even a modicum of ethical or legal certitude in the Schiavo case. Now, thankfully, we can anticipate public pressure and Congress's efforts to rein in our robed masters' subjective "justice."
In an email response to me, my senator, Norm Coleman, has indicated a willingness to get involved: "I supported this legislation because I do not believe there is anything just, natural, or compassionate about forbidding a family from feeding their disabled daughter. While I am deeply disappointed with the federal court decisions that later came down, I was proud that Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives in Congress came together in an effort to save Terri's life. I wish we could have done more and I extend my sincerest sympathies to Terri's family. I anticipate further legislative review of the issues surrounding this matter in order to protect the rights of the disabled."
Michael Schiavo certainly displayed very odd behavior that appears completely morally defunct from my view as a distant observer with no personal knowledge or experience of their family's history, through a damn near opaque media filter. However, I would expect odd behavior from a man who's been involved in a bizarre, downright macabre family feud with his in-laws for years. We are free to disagree with his decision from our distant, distant views, but we have little right to demonize him to this degree.
The Rev. Jonathan Law, Austin, Minn., is a retired pastor.
Well stated. Unfortunately for Terri, the Felos team of lobbyists, got the Florida State Legislature to change the law to allow that feeding tubes were considered life support.
Another diabolically shameful deed perpetrated on the disabled, handicapped and infirm and their unknowing families.
I am saddened by my good friends who did not take the time to study Terri's Plight but thought instead because the MSM said so, that she was PVS and did not feel any pain whatsoever and that it was the right thing to do.
I was shocked. How can these fine people be my friends. I asked them did they know she could swallow her own saliva? Didn't need suctioning?
Did they know that she could breath on her own, could communicate appropriately when asked questions, perhaps not in our way of doing so, but in her own way?
I asked did they know there were several doctors and nurses who said she was not PVS?
I asked did they know that Terri suffered a history of trauma, bone breakage, spinal cord injury, neck injuries not from sports or car accidents?
I asked if she couldn't feel pain why did they give her morphine?
At that they all said they needed a drink...they really didn't know and felt shamed that they were mislead and lied to by the MSM and their carefully manipulated capricious soundbites.
You didn't think this conspiracy theory out very well. Terri was on a respirator when she was brought in. Her heart had stopped, she was paddled 7 times en route to the hospital emergency, and was being kept alive artificially for several weeks, at which time they had to insert a feeding tube. That's when her brain died, and she died. Had he NOT inserted a feeding tube then, (an act which he probably had little decision in) we wouldn't be discussing it now.
Same place he's always been. He doesn't break the law if he disagrees with it.
I agree. In cases where there is conflict, I believe the judge should hear all the testimony, review all the evidence, then make a decision only if he has "clear and convincing" evidence as required by Florida law. And that's exactly what Judge Greer did.
May I present you with a few facts that it looks like you're missing? Michael's sworn testimony (that Terri expressed a verbal desire not to live like that) in front of Judge Greer was only one of three. His brother, Scott, and Terri's best friend, Joan, also testified under oath in front of Judge Greer to the same desire by Terri. It was not just "Michael's opinion".
Second, Terri's mother (her blood family) also testified at the same hearing. Under cross examination, she admitted that she was incorrect as to when Terri made her statement, and that she was probably 11 years old when she made it.
Third, as with Terri's mother, another of Terri's friends testified. Her testimony, also, was discredited in that Terri had to have been much younger when making that statement.
At this January, 2000 hearing, this life and death hearing (literally), these five were the only people who testified. Where, I ask, were the others? 18 months later they were on Larry King and Good Morning America and in USA Today ... Where were these friends and caregivers when it counted?
IMO, it's one thing to tell Larry King. It's another to face a judge, under oath, subject to cross examination, under penalty of perjury, and tell him the same thing.
How was the determination unethical? How was the determination illegal?
If you cannot support your statement, tell me why I should waste my time reading what you post?
What are you talking about???
one simple word..WHATEVER !
It's OK to starve prisoners to death because "no one would want to live that way."
I said the same thing yesterday, but you can imagine where it went from there. If anyone during the election said anything so speculative about Bush, they would have (rightly so) been properly tied morally and legaly to the stake and burned.
It will slowly filter through the population. This will, at some point, go on to the list of things the MSM 'should not talk about'.
You know what? I don't know the answers to your questions. Frankly, I don't know who to believe on both sides. From what I've heard, they were all in collusion together when they were trying to get a malpractice settlement for money to take care of Terri. I sort of gather that all of them were guilty of making untrue remarks because in their minds, it was for Terri.
Later, after the money was awarded, things seemed to deteriorate between the two sides. My point is that none of that matters. You say she died back years ago, that her brain did. I must disagree with you. I've seen & heard enough from Terri herself to personally disagree with that statement. She responds to people, maybe on the same level my cat or dog responds to me, I don't know, only God knows what went on during the conversations in Terri's mind all this time.
You seem to have standards for life that I don't. Are you saying if a person can't feed or take care of themselves, they are not alive? That doesn't make sense to me.
It depends.
Before the patient became brain damaged, did they express any desire, verbal or written, about what they would have wanted? If so, don't we have an obligation to carry out that wish, given their condition as you described it?
If they did not express a desire, either written or oral, then we are confronted with a euthanasia decision. Which is a completely different topic for another day and another thread.
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.