Replies

It seems to me that since that time, they have come up with their approach. I call it the "empty shell" approach. It's the thing you hear over and over from the right to kill movement, about how the person looks alive but really that is just a shell of a person there. Christine's father used it over and over again in public.

I know the pro-diers ignore all logic. But I wish they could see that, if they choose to see her body as an empty shell, then they should agree she is not suffering while being kept alive.

If they say that she is suffering by being kept alive, then they should agree that she will suffer while being dehydrated

The idea that it would be "merciful" to kill a "not-even-there-patient", is ridiculous. The would be like their saying, "I am going to put this damaged apple out of its misery." A damaged apple has no misery.

In other words, she does not need to be "mercifully" released from her body, if "she" isn't there.

Nancy's family couldn't seem to make up their minds about whether she was already dead when she was in the hospital. One minute they say she "She would have been X years old." Then they correct themselves and say, "She is X years old." (I can see making that kind of mistake but their muddled thinking gets worse)

One time her father said he was glad she was finally released to heaven and another time he said she was already there for quite a while Yet another time he expressed uncertainty about whether there is an afterlife.

The pro-euthanasia folks get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths.

(I know that using logic to fight them is not the answer, but it bugs me that they can be so two-faced)

How can someone say, "The patient has no consciousness," one minute and argue that the patient needs to "die with dignity" the next?

If Terri is not enough of a "person" to deserve to live, then she is not enough of a "person" to deserve the "privacy" her husband is imposing on her.

I know the pro-diers ignore all logic. But I wish they could see that, if they choose to see her body as an empty shell, then they should agree she is not suffering while being kept alive.

Compelling argument, but there is a plausible counter which should be dealt with: in some religions, it is believed that the soul is stuck in the body until the body is cremated or otherwise destroyed (the exact requirements vary by religion). In accordance with such a belief, someone can be quite thoroughly biologically dead, and therefore quite certainly not biologically suffering, and yet their soul would be languishing on earth until such time as their body is cremated.

I have no reason to believe that either Mr. or Mrs. Schiavo held such a belief, but such a belief would seem to significantly undermine the argument you gave.