Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
"If that was the case why was she laid up in hospitals and a hospice for 15 years??"
====
Nobody can be so ignorant as to not to know that. It was because Michael Schiave did not allow the parents to take Terri.
The problem is that while killing criminals seems to be a 100% deterrent against those particular criminals committing any further crimes, nothing else seems to be as effective. Even when a criminal is sentenced to what's supposed to be "life without parole" there's no guarantee that some future governor won't decide that might be too harsh, forcing the families of the criminal's victims to have to actively petition against his release.
No doubt you're puzzled because you are claiming Terri was put to death when in fact she was allowed to die.
Judge Greer ordered that Terri not be allowed to receive food or water by any means. Such an order would cause the death of anyone against whom it was enforced, no matter how healthy they may be.
I know that many of you think that a feeding tube is not 'life support' but under Florida law and many other states it is!
It was not considered to be life support at the time that Terri supposedly said she did not want life support. Suppose the Florida legislature decided to redefine "life support" to include shade and air conditioning. Would it be acceptable to put people who didn't want "life support" out in the hot summer sun with no shade?
I find it very interesting now that the Judicial tables are turned 'Conservatives' are crying "Judicial activism" because they don't like the outcome. Where were those same people when the Liberals were crying "Judicial activism" after the 2000 election?
Uh, I think it was conservative who were decrying judicial activism until the SCOTUS told the SCOFLA to take a hike.
Are Terri's parents qualified to operate that apparatus at their home? What about all the other care that goes along with a bedridden person who can't take care of any bodily functions and requires 24 hours 7 days a week care?
Terri's parents were ready and willing to do all of this, in their home at no cost to the taxpayers for the next 30 years or so. Is that what you are trying to tell me???
LOL! What a load!
I don't believe in fairy tales like Terri fanatics apparently do.
I just want to see you people put your money where your mouths are but I guess its all just a hypocritical little game you are playing, eh?
Save the rich at all costs and to hel* with the poor! Some things never change, do they?
I'll be waiting for Rush, Hannity, Savage and all the other rich GOP mouthpieces to start pushing for nationalized medicine and unlimited malpractice awards.
Until that time the pro-life movement and every so-called religious right repub that called down the wrath of God on Jeb Bush for not taking up the gun is a lyin HYPOCRITE!
In-home care for someone in Terri's condition would not have been excessively difficult or expensive. In many ways, her care would be cheaper and easier than that of a normal two-year-old. Primary costs would be Ensure® or equivalent food, and diapers. Those things don't cost anywhere near $80K/year.
Feeding someone with a feeding tube takes less skill and effort than feeding someone with a spoon. I don't see what the particular difficulty is.
What about all the other care that goes along with a bedridden person who can't take care of any bodily functions and requires 24 hours 7 days a week care?
Where do you get this notion that Terri needed 24/7 care? She needed to be fed, and she needed to have her diaper checked and changed as necessary. She also needed to be moved about occasionally so as to prevent bedsores, have her remaining teeth cleaned periodically, and periodically be washed. As far as basic necessities, she didn't really need a whole lot.
Of course, her parents would have sought to do more than that--do things like put her on her wheelchair and take her outside. Play music for her and try to talk to her. Maybe get her a cat to replace the ones Michael killed. But even doing those sorts of things would still take less time and effort than raising a two-year-old. Terri's parents were ready and willing to do all of this, in their home at no cost to the taxpayers for the next 30 years or so. Is that what you are trying to tell me???
For at least as long as they were able, and her siblings had offered to help as well.
"Just cite me to the applicable Biblical passage that supports your view."
So, you do not believe in the rule of law, only in some faith that shows absolute disrespect for God who put you here for his reasons and will call you home at his time. And you claim that as a right to die.
You seem to believe that all others want and demand the exact same thing as you, and that is why you believe that Terri wanted to die.
The evidence speaks against your belief. If that is what you believe for yourself, go ahead. The problem here is that Terri had no control over her life or her death. Only hearsay evidence determined her fate, and that evidence was directly disputed at every turn, but you seem to think that the court was correct. Well, if they ever make that determination for you, I would have to support it based on what you have repeatedly said here.
That being the case, there is still evidence that you are wrong on the Terri case. The end result could well be, that you could end in a similar position to Terri, except that the court will rule that you should have to live. Then what are you going to do?
Just because you know what you want, or at least think you want today, does not mean that everyone else thinks the same way.
I agree with you.
We are immortal people.
To think we should live as gods (living forever) defies everything Christianity is really about, at least IMHO.
Cap the malpractice suits, after all doctors and scientists and pharmaceuticals aren't gods, either, are they? All medicines don't cure, some help in one area and hurt in another. This is a basic fact. To expect medicine, science, judges to be THE answer, and KNOW all, is elevating them to a god like level.
I don't expect to live forever. It's not my *right* to expect to live forever, nor is it my *right* to expect that my death should be painless, anymore than life isn't fair and death isn't either. But it happens to all of us.
I'm with you on your expostulations.
I am still unhappy about the refusal of the Republican hierarchy to keep Terri from being starved to death.
Hear, hear.
Thank you.
Wrong.
Terri's parents brought Terri back to the hospital (around) ten years ago after three weeks. They could not handle taking care of her THEN. Surprise. They are ten years older now.
Soon after that, guardianship was again back to Michael Schiavo. Parents put up no argument then!
Judge Greer denied the Schindler's Motion.
Their Motion was to provide alternate hydration and food.
Judge Greer denied a MOTION.
He did NOT necessarily deny alternate hydration as a part of the dying process.
The care for an ADULT who cannot move is far more demanding, physically AND emotionally than caring for a TWO YEAR OLD.
**That being the case, there is still evidence that you are wrong on the Terri case. The end result could well be, that you could end in a similar position to Terri, except that the court will rule that you should have to live. Then what are you going to do? **
Frankly, this scenario is scarier than being allowed to die. This whole issue of fighting to keep people alive no matter the cost (emotionally, physically, spiritually or mentally)) is flat out wrong.
Heavenly Father - We pray that those who participated in the death of our little Sister, Theresa Marie Schindler, be exposed and brought to justice. In the Name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master. Amen.
The right to die is a direct result of our being mortal.
We're all terminal. Didn't you know that?
I read the Bible and reflect on that more than I do a Pope's words no matter how respected he may have been by the masses.
There is a HUGE difference between believing what you believe and believing
1. Her wishes were that she would have wanted to be ALLOWED to DIE.
If I believed she wanted to die, then removing the feeding tube was allowing the natural process of dying that BEGAN fifteen years ago, NOT wanting her dead.
Further, if I believe in an afterlife (which incidentally, I do), why would it not be better to allow a person who professes a belief to GO to that 'better place.'
Are there people who profess a belief in heaven but don't truly trust that it exists? Is that why they fight releasing people to go?
I pray that you ask God for discernment. May you learn to hear His voice.
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.