Posted on 04/12/2005 7:20:07 AM PDT by kcvl
Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer April 12, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- A neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo to confirm that his wife Terri was in a persistent vegetative state said he was "105 percent sure" of that diagnosis, but Dr. Ronald Cranford expressed similar certainty about a patient he examined in 1980 who later regained both consciousness and the ability to communicate.
Three days before Terri Schiavo's death, Cranford appeared on the MSNBC talk program, "Scarborough Country," to discuss her condition. Cranford was interviewed by reporter Lisa Daniels.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/april/0412_schiavo_doctor1.shtml
I've said this many times and I will say it again: If I were in Terri's condition (forget for the moment the scientific causes, etc), I would absolutely, positively prefer to die than live one more day like that. That simple.
So, yes, I would want to be treated the same way Terri was treated. [Matt 7:12] Absolutely.
23. The verse, "Do not stand idly by your fellow's blood," Leviticus 19:16, is cited both as a source for the obligation to save oneself as well as to rescue others. See, e.g., J. David Bleich, Treatment of the Terminally Ill, 30:3 Tradition 51, n. 12 at 79. The verses, "Be careful, very careful indeed for your lives," see Rabbi Moshe Sofer, Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, 326, and "you shall live by [the commandments] . . .," reinforce an affirmative obligation to safeguard one's life. The verses, "if your fellow is missing something, you shall restore it to him," Deuteronomy 22:2, is applied to a duty to save someone's health in T.B. Sanhedrin 73. At least one early authority, Nahmanides, cites "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," Leviticus 19:18, as a source for a physician's duty to provide medical treatment See Nachmanides, Torat HaAdam in Bernard Chavel (ed.), Kitvei Ramban II:43. See also Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer, Responsa of Ramat Rachel V:21 (citing Nahmanides' view).
Cordially,
BR: That is totally amazing to me. I wonder what law you are basing that on and what legal system/country you are referring to. If it is the USA - then this case is really precedent setting in that it is now legal for anyone to put a gun to someones head - pull the trigger and it not be called murder.
California Penal Code section 187(a): "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." For a death to be murder inter alia, there must be (i) a killing of (ii) a human being, which is (iii) unlawful and committed with (iv) malice and (v) forethought.
So, please don't be shocked, that has been the law for a long, long time.
Thanks for taking the time to assemble the various arguments for a position against suicide (purportedly) based on the Bible. Before turning to the three Biblical passages you cite, let me take a moment on your two introductory arguments: (i) 'murder' includes suicide and (ii) suicide wrongfully asserts dominion over God's property, i.e. our lives.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The missing element in most suicide is malice. Most suicides are depressed people who cannot face the future. I suppose I must concede the possibility of someone who is not in the former category and is in all respects well-balanced but simply harbors malice against himself. That might theoretically occur, but the difficulty is separating remorse (such as Judas below) from actual malice. I can't think of an example of such malice in a suicide.
On the "God's property" argument, that simply doesn't wash. Yes, we are the creations of God, but that doesn't equate to exclusive ownership. First, God told Adam (and us) that the earth (his creation) was for our use and exploitation. Second, such a doctrine would undermine all kinds of personal responsibility. ["God made me this way and I can't fool with His property."] It is not surprising that these doctrines have their genesis in fatalism: 'whatever will be, will be' and it is our task to endure.
______________
Now to the three Biblical passages you cite: one from Moses and two from Paul.
Gen 9: 4-6 "But you must not eat meat with its life (that is, its blood) in it. For your lifeblood I will surely exact punishment, from every living creature I will exact punishment. From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative. Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made mankind."
Here the clear context shows that God is restoring social order after the carnage of the flood. He is saying He will punish every man (and even animals) who kills another man. He is emphasizing the relative importance of man "for in God’s image God has made mankind. While the overarching teaching is the importance of man, it does not proscribe suicide. It's emphasis is social, not individual.
1 Cor 6:19-20 [Let's place these two verses in their context by starting at verse 15.] "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with him. Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body”—but the immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body."
Once read in context, it is clear that Paul is in the midst of an extended teaching on avoiding sexual immorality. It certainly has nothing to do with suicide. [It is hugely dangerous to pry Scripture from its context.]
1 Cor 3:16,17 [Again for context let's start at v. 9] "You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master-builder I laid a foundation, but someone else builds on it. And each one must be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test what kind of work each has done. If what someone has built survives, he will receive a reward. If someone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If someone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, which is what you are."
Here, again, Paul is in the midst of an extended teaching on the building of the church at Corinth. The context makes clear that he is discussing building a defective church structure.
Finally, that he is discussing the church not individuals is shown in the grammar. The Greek pronoun for 'you' in the verse you quote is plural (referring to the church).
The passage you quote has nothing whatever to do with suicide.
___________
The Biblical "examples" you cite also do not make your point.
2 Sam 17:23 "After setting his household in order, he hanged himself." Ahithophel had devised a plan (17:1-3) to trap the army and remove David. Being forewarned, David escaped and Ahithophel returned to his home and committed suicide in remorse over the failure of his plan. This is not a proscription of suicide. It's just a statement of fact. He did it.
1 Kings 16:18 " He set the palace on fire and died in the flames." Zimri appointed himself king. 7 days later, his city was besieged and seeing that the battle was lost, set the palace on fire and died in the flames. We don't know if it was intentional suicide or an accidental death in the course of the arson.
Matt 27:5 "Then he went out and hanged himself." Judas is recorded here as committing suicide in remorse over his betrayal of Christ. [Although Acts 1:18 records his accidental death due to a trip and fall on his land.] But in any event, nothing in Matthew's account condemns him for having done so. It is merely recorded that he did so. It may well have been the right thing for him to do.
Acts 16:28 "When the jailer woke up and saw the doors of the prison standing open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, because he assumed the prisoners had escaped. But Paul called out loudly, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” This citation is amusing. Clearly, Paul is advising the jailer against a mistaken suicide, by telling him "we are all here!" This is certainly not a teaching of Paul's that the suicide would have been improper had they, in fact, escaped. It just doesn't say.
The fact is the Bible does NOT proscribe suicide. [RCC accretionist dogmas do, but I really don't know (or care) enough about them to debate it.]
Thanks for demonstrating the paucity of the Biblical arguments though.
I didn't examine her and I didn't hear the witnesses so I can't say I'm "100% sure" -- whatever that means. But I am "sure" you have no evidence that she didn't want to die that the Court didn't weigh and consider and that, in criticizing Judge Greer's handling of the trial and the law, you don't have the remotest idea what you are talking about.
- so much so that you would be willing to bet your life on it?
If by "bet," you mean some kind of wager, no. I believe the Bible proscribes gambling. However, if you mean would I "bet my life" in the sense of submitting myself to the same judicial process if I were in the same physical circumstances as Terri, my answer is "You bet, absolutely."
Not in court, under oath, they didn't. If that were true, why do you think the parents failed to introduce such important evidence? Were they part of a big 'conspiracy' too? Or were they just too stupid to recognize its importance? Come on. You're making it up as you go along.
Actually most people who do that are found guilty voluntary manslaughter, not murder. But keep in mind that the death of Terri was lawfully authorized, so it can't be murder or manslaughter.
How do we know it was lawful? Every court in the land (including the US Supreme Court twice) said it was. Give it up.
BR: No one would in the right mind be willing to bet their life on this - yet you and others have the audacity to bet Terri's life on it.
I think you are right to ask those who defend the process if they would submit to it themselves. You are wrong to misrepresent what I say. My statement (quoted again above) speaks for itself.
I would bet my life on the process, were I in Terri's condition. In fact, I would welcome it -- and, as I have said many times, I would welcome the same result. [In fact, if you want to try to prove I am in a PVS condition right now, have at it.]
And just because you would be willing to gamble your life away if such a circumstance would befall you what gives you or anyone else the right to gamble another persons right to life away.
Now, you switch sides and say, "Just because you would, doesn't mean anything." Well, it does mean something, because we owe a duty to treat others as we would want to be treated (Matt 7:12). I can't speak to you personally because you haven't said what your desires would be were you to be found in Terri's condition. But I think the majority of people here taking your position congratulate themselves on taking what they think is a "highly principled position" requiring people like Terri to slog on with stomach pumps, bedsores and diapers for the "greater good" of the advocates' love of "life." And, after all, they think, what difference does it make that poor Terri is debased and degraded and made a fool of -- she doesn't know it anyway.
Well, it does make a difference. She (and others like her) are not your pet monkeys to be debased and degraded for some "greater good" of a principle that has no Biblically moral or legal basis. Terri had a right to die. The process was fair. Her wishes were honored. It was painless and humane. She's free at last and none of your arrogant self-righteousness can trap her again in her imprisonment. Maybe that's why your so upset.
Oh, and we know that because it got the result you didn't like? If the lawyers were so bad, why didn't they replace them? Or did they not know how bad they were until the judgment was handed down? Talk about Sore Loserman.
You guys are a kick. The experts lied, the judge was corrupt, the appellate judges were incompetent, the federal judges were scared or crooked or whatever, the system doesn't work, the petitioner's lawyers were crooked, the respondents' lawyers were no good -- everything except the most obvious, the right result was reached, Terri's free. She's laughing at you. She got away and you can't catch her again. Crocodile tears for you.
Nope, her wishes were determined in the legal proceeding. That's what makes it legal. The fact that it is what we would want done to us in similar circumstances is what makes it moral. Got it?
you so easily disregard the people that were her true family. They were the ones with the true perspective...
Right. The "true" family with the "true" perspective. Get that out of your peep stone in a hat, did you? You mean the ones trying to make her out as some big RCC adherent (when she never went to the RCC as an adult) so they could try to shoehorn RCC dogmas into the trial as though they were her wishes?
...her family knew her... Terri had a strong bond with her family...
Trying to hone that new argument are you? Tthe Court should only listen to evidence from our side? Might have come out better for your side with that rule, don't ya think?
He did not even have the decency to tell her parents where she is buried. ...Terri's wish would have been to not have her family visit her grave.
Gee, what could he possibly be afraid of? Maybe a bunch of Looney Tunes showing up with cardboard signs, pouring glasses of water on her grave? Nah, couldn't happen. Just you wait. When your side finds out where her grave is, there will bus tours for crazies. Mark my words.
She's laughing because she's free of that awful body and all those who would rather see her imprisoned for more awful years than be set free.
BTW, I don't hear you saying that you'd want to kept 'alive' like that if you were in Terri's condition. Oh no, not for you, just for defectives like Terri, right? That's the hypocrisy of this thing. You have waxed eloquent now for dozens of posts and not once said what you would want for yourself if you were in Terri's condition. Well, what is it? More slurry pumping, bedsores and diapers or be allowed to die? Well, how can justify forcing Terri to remain 'alive' against her wishes when her 'life' was so bad you can't even answer the question?
So what ever happens in a court room must be true - because it happened in the court room and it was all legal. What a bunch of crap - just because some court or some judge decides something does not make it "true". All that did was make it legal. You are confusing what is legal with what is true. They are not always synonymous. You being a lawyer should know that well. Her family loved her - but what would you know about that. So now I get it you think MS is the loving husband that only wanted what Terri wanted - Anyone that believes what that man has to say is a fool. I can see you are stuck in your George Felos act so I am done.
http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
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.