Posted on 03/18/2005 12:18:38 PM PST by areafiftyone
A spokesperson for Michael Schiavo says Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday with Michael in attendance.
He says a prayer service was held first, and that Michael was emotional and crying, saying he wanted to put the situation behind him.
Terri Schiavo's parents, the Schindlers, visited with Terri Friday morning, prior to the tube's removal.
Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge George Greer denied two U.S. House of Representative emergency motions Friday, which allowed the tube's removal.
The first motion was to intervene in the case for the House Committee on Government Reform and the second motion was to push the date back nine days so it could conduct what it calls a field investigation concerning the healthcare of Schiavo.
A neurologist appeared at Terri Schiavo's Pinellas Park hospice center Friday with a TV screen to show video of patients he treated that were in worse condition than Schiavo and got better.
Good side by side comparisons. I saw a side by side picture of Scott Peterson when he had his goatee...and Schiavo looked almost identical to him.
Thank you for a very good post. Your post contains a level of maturity and thoughtfullness seldom seen on threads of this type. However I disagree with your conclusion and I believe this is the main point of our disagreement. You suggest suicide yet I suggest refraining from receiving treatment the likes of which didn't exist for Paul. Medical science threatens to advance to the point of prolonging life in a vegitative state for a very very long time. This would be a kind of ghoulish nightmare brought on by technology behind which is a godless goal of desperately clinging to life. This is not how a Christian should face death. It shows a level of faithlessness to cling to life at the end instead of having run a good race and readily accepting death through the failure of the body.
Your idea of deciding for ones self that he is ready to go and killing himself is way off base from what I said. I merely suggest that when my body can't function apart from lots and lots of help from technology, let me go in peace.
That would be something for you to try and figure out before you respond next time.
You're welcome for the lesson is posting maturity.
Thank you for finding that quote to back up my post.
We are falling more and more into the Nazi philosophy of a utilitarian society. Which category of persons will next be deemed to be "useless eaters" by these evil judges?
Prayers for Terri and her family continuously
Thank you for your compliments. I much prefer grappling with questions on the level of reason and morality, and not simply running away with emotion. It takes more time to compose a post but I think it elevates the discussion.
Let me restate my take on St. Paul.
You note that he was "ready to go" and it was only his ministry to the saints that gave him any real desire to remain. I do agree that his desire was for Heaven -- strongly so. And, I do agree that, even if he had lived in our time, he would not have asked that we expend every vestige of medical tecnhology to keep him from passing. I also do not think that we ought to cling to every last shred of life by any and all possible means. That idea isn't what I was trying to convey in my earlier post.
My position is simply this: We are not to put ourselves in the role of decision maker about when our lives will end; it isn't something that we have the authority to decide. Yes, we have the power. Any knucklehead can go do himself in, but the power do so is NOT authority to do so. I have the power to drive 125MPH to work in the morning, and I even have enough freeway to do it if I go at the right time. But, those powers will get me exactly nowhere with the Patrolman who arrests me under the authority of the Law.
Now, although we do NOT have the authority to determine WHEN our lives will end, I think we DO have some authority over what measures we may want employed to keep us alive. Bluntly, suicide is OUT, but telling a doctor not to take heroic measures to keep our bodies going is within our purview. This line we are not to cross can be difficult to discern, but I think there are some things we can consider that will make its location more readily apparent.
First, let me rule out "quality of life" as a determining factor. The "quality of life" argument is specious on it's face because, ultimately, "quality of life" is all between one's ears; heavily swayed by emotion, transient and changeable. That's why I brought up Christopher Reeves; contrasting his initial depression with his later dedication to the causes he championed. And, of course, there are those who do themselves in because of their "quality of life" despite the fact that they are otherwise healthy. No, the line we may not cross isn't discerned based upon how we think about our condition.
Now, for a severely mentally disabled person, even thinking anything about their state of being may be beyond their capabilities. So, if the line were located based upon how we think about our condition, this kind of person has no grounds upon which to establish a case for death. If they CAN'T care either way, we certainly have no basis for an arbitrary decision in favor of death. I realize that this is further complicated by our inability to really KNOW when an individual is debilitated to this degree, but I think that this "not knowing" dictates the more strongly that we ought to act in such a way that, if we err, we err in favor of life. The body is functioning on it's own -- all it needs are means of nutrition and hygeine -- so we have a person who ought to be considered alive, and ought at all times to be treated as such. The line we may not cross isn't discerned based upon our cognitive powers.
So, if the line of decision is not discernable based upon how we think about our condition, nor indeed about whether we are able to think about it at all, then the location of that line has nothing to do with the state of our thinking. I contend, that it does, in fact, have everything to do with the state of our BEING.
Christopher Reeves, both in his depression and his dedication was, at all times, in the state of being alive. And this despite his need for a respirator most of the time. Though it is, perhaps, less plain because her cognitive state seems unclear, Terri Schiavo remains in the state of being alive. We can debate as to her congnitive capabilities, but her body is functional enough that she is not on a respirator, she isn't plugged into a heart/lung machine, she has no IV, and even the much-discussed feeding tube isn't continuously connected. By contrast, the flatliner hooked up to heart/lung and diaysis machines is in a state of being preserved for organ donations. The crucial difference is that, for the flatliner, there isn't any BEING left there to be alive. There is only the body, and that only because of medical technology.
So, then my conclusion is simple. If there is a being, then there is a life worth saving. If there is no being, then there is not. In either case, artificial measures are required ONLY if there is a probability that they would be temporary; allowing the body time to heal to a point where it would again sustain the presence of the being by itself.
I don't know why you give some of these condescending arse-wipes the time of day ("fascinating autobiographical data" and all that cr*p).
Surely someone has pointed out the extent of her "medical assistance" is a feeding tube. She can't feed herself. From what I understand, she can communicate in a very limited sense.
Some have compared her state to that of a newborn. She needs to be fed. Probably needs to have her diaper changed once in a while, too. Seems like a reasonable comparison.
Furthermore, if a person withholds food from a household pet -- even a frickin' CAT fercryinoutloud -- a person can face stiff penalties, even jail. Withhold food from Mrs. Schiavo on the late and unsubstantiated word of her (ahem) "husband" and there's no penalty. Try as I might, I can't think of any "yeah, but" to render that comparison invalid. Can you?
My wife HAS a living will. We need to find out if it says she has to be put to death if she's conscious and responsive and simply can't feed herself. If so, I wonder if I told the court she once told me she'd be okay living like Mrs. Schiavo, if that would have any pull.
I read yesterday that Congress had a special session over this very topic. The line in the sand is certainly becoming very clear. The Dems argued for her death, the Republicans argued to keep her alive. Very interesting.
Obviously, (s)he's convinced you're a fake Christian.
You sure know how to bring out the best in people. ;^)
You probably have to be pretty specifiy. If you consider all of the permutations of all the possible conditions, there's a lot of choices. Ventilator, feeding tube, paralized, brain dead, mostly brain dead, mostly dead, bring outcher dead.
It's one of those times when people's emotions are a little too peaked. Reminds me of a certain crowd yelling "crucify him crucify him". I try to keep from getting to that kind of a lather.
Hey, c'mon. They were only puppets, and so are we.
Nope - could have been my fault - loosing track of what I posted and where. Your story was a good example and I post my own stories to illustrate my points as well. I have found myself arguing with someone (mostly my husband) on a point we totally agree on, so sorry for the misunderstanding.
Regardless, it has been quite a weekend and am anxiously awaiting the Federal courts opinion.
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.