The Suffering of Schiavo: Snatching the Trivial from the Profound

American Digest ^ | March 23, 2005 | Vanderleun

[pineconeland]

Pineconeland: Yes if she had a 'living will', and yes if everyone else in the family agreed if there was no living will. This should be a private, personal and/or family decision if it comes to this.

ironmike4242 wrote:  It's disconcerting to know that you all would be willing to step in and run my life for if my wife (God forbid) was ever in such a situation

What is disconcerting is your obvious inability to distinguish the finer points of my argument from your massive generalizations.

Terri's 'right to die' in particular does not represents every other case, although that seems to be yours, and those who are for Terri's death, assumption. She did not leave a 'living will'. Her case is most different because it has reached this extreme of public attention and judicial ruling. It is not her 'right to death' that  is in contention here. It is the right to live a physically compromised life.

In 1997 when Michael announced he was 'engaged' should have immediately conducted a guardianship hearing and transfered Terri to State guardianship. Because of this failure, we are in the present situation.

By allowing the judicial system to rule for death, a death that it must insisted on, going to the extreme of preventing Terri's mother and father to take care of here, is one that opens the door, sets a legal precedent for the state to determine anyone's right to life base on what the state determines as adequate good use of that life.

There are dire consequences of allowing a judge this kind of power, the power of life or death, over a completely inocent human being. This opens up to the court the ability to say that if a person has lost capacity, they do not have the right to life.  Why give the court that kind of power? As soon as this case got this far, the court must rule in favor of life, otherwise the next time the line for 'capacity' can be moved around. As it was in Hitler's Germany. First he sent the mentally disabled, and the physically compromised to death as burden to the state. Then it was the homeless, and indigent. The it was the homosexuals, and his enemies. Then it was the gypsies and the Jews. Do you really want to give any state that kind of power? Far better it be that Terri lives for the right to live, the die and give the state the power to give an innocent person a death sentence because they don't measure up to a state set standard of life.

Michael Schiavo's legal guardianship only extends to medical and financial decisions, not basic human rights such as feeding or water given by mouth, since eating and drinking are basic human rights necessary to survive.

Terri Schiavo has the basic right to eat and drink by mouth if she is capable of doing so. Her consent to live is implicit in her swallowing the food and water and negates any presumption that in the absence of a legal document that she wishes to die.

Her cognitive handicaps are medically and legally irrelevant. Her medical prognosis is irrelevant to her basic himan rights. Whether or not her cognitive abilities will improve are irrelevant to the question of her asic human right to live.

Guardianship cannot include crimes against the person, such as prevention of feeding or drinking. Denial of water and food is not a medical issue. It is beyond the legal scope of a guardianship since it is a basic human-rights issue. No judge's authority extends to denying the basic right to life, except for those convicted of a crime. Being handicapped does not diminish human rights. In fact, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the handicapped are entitled to special protections from attempts to deny them access to basic human necessities.

 

[ironmike4242]

Her consent to live is implicit in her swallowing the food and water and negates any presumption that in the absence of a legal document that she wishes to die.

That's such a bogus argument. Is she even able to swollow food if it's put in her mouth? Why not next say that the fact that she's breathing on her own demonstrates her consent to live? They reason you don't make that argument is because breathing, and sometimes swollowing, is a reflex.

These arguments are BS. You say his guardianship "should" have been revoked when he shacked up with that other woman.... well then why wasn't it? Why don't the parents take that issue to a judge RIGHT NOW? Becuase it wouldn't make a difference, that's why. He's been convicted in the court of public opinion, and now you want to take away his legal rights.