Posted on 06/16/2005 6:53:51 AM PDT by rhema
. . .People of goodwill may disagree about Terri Schiavo's case. Yet as our society strays from its traditional belief in the essential dignity of every human life, we all must grapple with the implications of the notion that some lives are "not worth living."
Today, assisted suicide is lawful in Oregon. In the Netherlands, according to the New York Times, prosecutors no longer pursue cases against doctors who kill severely impaired babies after birth. The temptation to deal with the defective and incompetent by eliminating them is likely to grow as our society ages. Today, approximately 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease. In coming decades, projections suggest that about 40 percent of us will spend roughly 10 years in an infirm, demented condition. The way we deal with this situation will say much about us as a society.
Currently, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is staging an exhibit . . . called "Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race." It examines the idea of "lebensunwertes Leben" -- lives not worthy of life --which the Nazis used to justify their elimination of thousands deemed unfit to live: the retarded, the defective and the seriously ill.
Some German intellectuals championed this idea well before the Nazi era began. A 1920 book, for example, decried "the meticulous care shown to existences which are not just absolutely worthless" -- the disabled and deformed -- "but even of negative value." It called for applying the "healing remedy" of premature death, in order to "eliminat[e] those who were born unfit for life or who later became so."
Today, we must ensure that we ourselves are not tempted to start down this slippery slope --moved by free choice rather than totalitarian edict, and seduced by a shallow notion of "death with dignity."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
"conservatives" want to undermine marriage. A spouse is supposed to be able to make those kinds of decisions. They shouldn't have to make a separate covenant together just for end of life issues.
People should be permitted to make living wills. However, husbands should not be permitted to murder their wives with the help of Judges. Terri Schiavo had no living will. There was nothing in writing about her wishes.
The lesson learned in this saga...they better put it in writing or at least tell someone else (e.g., her doctor, her parents) other than the cheating husband.
Is that a choice you will allow people to make for themselves?
I am probably closer to this situation than you realize. My dad made this decision and discussed it with the whole family. Based on the diagnosis from the doctor, and quality of life issues, we respected his wishes. Terri's declaration of her wishes was only hearsay by a cheating husband, (made 7 years after she supposedly said it), who had something to gain from her death.
I also must add that it is not the peaceful death they described it as being, I have never recovered from spending 24/7 by his bedside until he died.
Gain comes in forms other than cash. How about he gets to have control over another human life and play God, then marry his long-term paramour after his wife is starved and dehydrated to death.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
What is it about adultery don't you understand ? Does adultery include the concept of "cleaving to his wife", or did he break his vows ? Wait, maybe that's called polygamy - you marry one and have a common law one... nice double standard there.
Terri told her husband that she didn't want to be kept alive. Genesis 2:23:
Right after she was declared PVS, he said he'd care for her for the rest of her life - no declaration of her wish to die under such circumstances surfaced until years later. After 7 years and several children with another woman later, he suddenly declares she wouldn't want to be kept alive. Why would you suddenly believe him after 7 years of saying the exact opposite ? He suddenly had a flashback that so conveniently released him from his obligations towards her ?
You didn't answer my question - if you became vegetative, you had no written directive and had not expressed an opinion to anyone other than your wife, and your wife was living with and had children with another man - you would want your wife to be able to starve and dehydrate you ? You think her judgement, under those circumstances, would be all about your best interest ?
Again, the covenant of marriage is not sufficient for you. Two covenants are required. You don't think that undermines marriage?
My wife and I have talked about what we want if we were ever in Terri's position, but even if we hadn't marraige means enough to me that she should have the authority to make the decision of whether or not to pull the tube.
If she settled down with him years after trying and failing to have my tube pulled, then yes.
See my post # 64.
My grandmother died of cancer, very painfully, some years ago. We honored her decision to voluntarily stop eating (she wasn't able to keep much down in any case) but she did keep drinking fluids. Would I have ever denied her fluids by court order, as this cabal did ? Never.
I suggest that any who have strong wishes on this subject, or who care what their end might entail, draft a living will. Then there is far less ambiguity than existed in the Schiavo case.
The scenario I posed was that you were in a PVS and could not make any wishes known or legal decisions. If you would be willing to divorce in the presence of adultery (as would I), would you want the adulterer making life and death decisions for you ? Probably not.
No a marriage vow is not a right to murder your spouse. I find your up is down, black is white, wrong is right twisting of the tenets of morality very disturbing.
That is why I stress the importance of either having it in writing, telling other family members or her doctor. I mean, how hard is it to just tell someone else so you have a witness just in case?
Let me repeat, MS broke his vows by committing adultery while Terri was still alive, which renders your argument based on those vows void of any rational logic.
And that is why I stress the sanctity of the marriage covenant. It shouldn't require additional legal arragements.
I think stating your own wishes on a legal form is not undermining marriage.
I guess we differ on what marriage means. To me it means medical proxy powers and a whole lot more. I think my wife and I are one flesh. Her flesh is my flesh, her bone is my bone and vice versa. I trust her and she trusts me.
You want to require this form because without it people will not have medical proxy power for their spouse. Even when married. That undermines marriage. Marriage means one flesh.
I can assure you that we differ on what marriage means if you think it means you have an unqestioable right to murder your spouse.
This is exactly the rationale behind the murder of Terri Shiavo. And, yes, some FReepers agree with it.
So you would dehydrate and starve your wife over a period of several days, killing her in a way sane people would never even consider putting down their dogs?
You have agreed that living wills are ok. I don't have a living will, but I trust my wife to make the right decision. You don't think that my wife should have that power unless I give it to her with a specific legal contract. To me marriage is that contract.
I don't know what I would do in that situation. I trust her to make that decision for me, and she trusts me to make it for her. It is not the government's decision to make. What God joins together, let no man separate.
When you're supporting state-sanctioned murder, you aren't supporting morality.
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.