Replies

"You do have to agree that Michael Schiavo is a sadistic person and that that Terri was denied due process and killed in a barbaric way. Whatever Terri's condition, a mother was not allowed to put water on the lips of her dying child - that is horrific. I recommend Martin Katz's article in "The American Thinker," March 29, 2005. It was also posted here on FR."

Thank you for your civil words.

I am not sure I do agree that Mr. Schiavo is sadistic. My take on him is that he was truly trying to do what he thought his wife wanted. I do, however agree with you that allowing Mrs. Schiavo's body to expire over such a long, drawn-out period was not in anybody's best interest. This was not Mr. Schiavo's doing, though; he did not make the laws which prevent true euthanasia (="good death") from being practiced in this country, other than in the state of Oregon.

It is my understanding that the reason no one was allowed to give ice chips, water, etc. to Mrs. Schiavo was that there was a very real risk of aspiration, which would have caused a death much more unpleasant than that which she ultimately underwent. This was not by Mr. Schiavo's order, nor even by judicial order, but a medical order written by a doctor.

Somewhere along the way I read a copy of the medical orders for Mrs. Schiavo's care once the tube was removed--I can try to find it if you like--and included were specific instructions to keep her lips moistened and to put lotion on her skin. These things were to be done by the nursing staff so that no one would inadvertently injure Mrs. Schiavo in her weakened state. The reports of bleeding eyes and flaking skin were simply not true, so far as I can ascertain. I hope that eases your mind some.

Again I thank you for your courtesy, and I wish you peace.
Clyffe

I am not sure I do agree that Mr. Schiavo is sadistic. My take on him is that he was truly trying to do what he thought his wife wanted. I do, however agree with you that allowing Mrs. Schiavo's body to expire over such a long, drawn-out period was not in anybody's best interest. This was not Mr. Schiavo's doing, though; he did not make the laws which prevent true euthanasia (="good death") from being practiced in this country, other than in the state of Oregon.

Do you think Terri was the only disabled person? When you talk about euthanizing her because of her disability, your argument applies to everyone with similar disabilities. What exactly do you think genocide is?

Is there one particular Jew you think should be euthanized for being Jewish? If you're only talking about one "specific instance," it's not really genocide, is it? Do you think that is somehow more offensive than advocating euthanizing someone for being disabled? Do you honestly believe that advocating euthanizing one person for being disabled automatically excludes everyone else within that group? And even if it does, does that somehow make it acceptable?

Here's an example of "discussing a specific instance," similar to the way you discuss the specific instance of Terri Schiavo.

"This person suffering from hereditary
defects costs the people 60,000
Reichmarks during his lifetime. People,
that is your money. Read 'New People'."

Can you find anything about that poster that you don't agree with? It doesn't advocate genocide. It's only "discussing a specific instance." It doesn't specifically state how the patient should be killed, nor even that he should be killed. Everything it said was true. It is still not an open, courteous, honest exploration of varying viewpoints. It is propaganda. Learn to recognize it, and avoid mimicking it.

I have seen people advocate genocide on this board. It remains to be seen if that's your agenda. Your initial posts certainly send up some red flags.

The reports of bleeding eyes and flaking skin were simply not true, so far as I can ascertain. I hope that eases your mind some.

I'll take your word over the doctors', nurses', and priests'. I feel much better now that I know that they all lied about the effects of dehydration. It's good to know that the photos I've seen of victims of dehydration were photoshopped. The cases of minor dehydration involving chapped lips and other signs of dehydration are all fake. Dehydration doesn't actually involve any drying out of membranes to the point of chapping, peeling, or bleeding. /sarcasm

Wild claims like that, in support of the euthanasists, are what drive us to think you are advocating their position. If you don't agree with them, why are you propagandizing for them?

If you'd like to see for yourself what dehydration really looks like, take a look at Lisa McPherson's autopsy photos. I'm not sure if I can post a link because of the graphic nature, but they're easy enough to find. If you can't find them, freepmail me for the link. There are at least two sets of photos. The photos of her hands, arms, legs, etc. are irrelavent to dehydration. You want the really graphic photos that show her face. You have to agree to certain terms before viewing those photos. Not the least of which is that you won't hold the site responsible for any long-term trauma you may suffer as a result of viewing the photos. After you've viewed them, come back and tell us how pleasant it was.

If you're going to demand that I believe you don't support the euthanasia movement, then I demand you give me some reason not to believe it. What is the best proof you have that you support the right to life? In light of your previous arguments against it, you'll need some very strong arguments in favor of life before I even begin to believe you.

If you have truly been attacked personally, and called names (as you claim), please report it to the moderators, and supply them with the links to the actual text. Otherwise, please retract your false accusation.