They are alive because our society long ago (before you, I, or anyone else now alive was born) decided to care for them. Most of them, probably over 90% of them, are sent to hospitals because their families do not have the resources or skills to care for them properly. These are state-run hospitals, it is your tax money and mine that is supporting them. They have doctors, nurses, nurse assistants, physical therapists, teachers, cooks, dietiticians, etc., whose jobs are to take care of these people. The videos of Terri revealed a woman who was aware of her surroundings and somewhat responsive. Not all retarded people have even that level of awareness--some have none--yet they are cared for.
I know about the state hospitals for the retarded, because my mother was a teacher at one. I've visited the hospital many times and been around many retarded people. Their abilities fall along a spectrum, from the "high level" who appear normal until you talk to them, to the "low level" who are comparable to or have less ability than Terri. Some require extensive medical support (including life-support equipment), and I have never seen them (my mother told me about them). Even when they are unresponsive and incapable of learning, teachers and therapists spend time with them.
Do you see now why I have a problem with the argument that it was right to kill Terri on the basis that she didn't meet some minimal level of functionality? You're telling me that the retarded people who were part of my childhood--people similar to Terri--do not deserve to live. Your response just now indicates that maybe you weren't aware of the existence of these people, but, now that you are, do you think we should end their existences the way Terri's was ended?
Most likely you're right, people who advocate such behavior as pulling the plug on those who are not terminally ill but completely dependent on others to eat and drink as Terri probably aren't even aware there are thousands of Terris living in institutions today. Would they be willing to allow families to starve them to death as well?
1. The questions that we often do not want to grapple with are questions such as yours. To discuss these questions without getting *heated* or *accusatory* is difficult, isn't it? 'How are they fed' and 'How are they *maintained*' are still legitimate questions, and obviously the answers are myriad. I could throw into the mix the questions on how much extreme medical care should be provided to even infants with little or no hope of recovering. I don't have the answers. But we cannot discuss these matters if accusations and invectives are thrust about against those who express different postures or ideas on their way to forming ideas. You state that the videos of Terri revealed a woman who was aware of her surroundings and was somewhat responvie. The videos were, however, edited. Hours of video recorded and mere minutes edited for the purpose of *proving* her responsiveness and awareness. I do not believe the minutes of video were conclusive evidence. The Guardian Ad Litem, appointed by Gov Bush, determined the same thing after he viewed the unedited videos. Have you read his report?
2. I have struggled with many questions, and I do not have definitive answers. I ask you just some of the the questions that puzzle me and my wife:
If someone cannot remember to eat, and wanders off (dementia) and they freeze to death, or die of heatstroke, is someone culpable? Or is the death the result of natural causes?
If a child cannot learn to suckle, or cannot breathe on its own, or cannot eat on its own, and no extreme efforts are made to intubate air or food or water, is it killing the child, or is it allowing nature to take its course?
Is allowing nature to *take its course* allowing God to finish His plan for that person (child or demented teen or adult), or is man required to bear all these burdens upon his shoulders? What does God truly require of us? Do we read more into some verses that we should? Do we assume responsibility that is not truly ours? Do we assume God's mantle and distribute medical care no matter what?
EDM: *Do you see now why I have a problem with the argument that it was right to kill Terri on the basis that she didn't meet some minimal level of functionality?**
I disagree with you on your word choice. I believe it was legitimate (legal) and spiritually appropriate to allow Terri to die. I do not believe she was killed, and I do not believe it is a *culture of death* to allow a person's body to realize the consequences of physical causes (in this instant case: inability to chew and swallow food). She had no functionality that indicated otherwise.
EDM: *You're telling me that the retarded people who were part of my childhood--people similar to Terri--do not deserve to live. Your response just now indicates that maybe you weren't aware of the existence of these people, but, now that you are, do you think we should end their existences the way Terri's was ended?**
I did not state that the retarded people who were part of your childhood (whom I have not met) did not not deserve to live. *Deserve to live* is a phrase that is loaded and I have not intended to *debate* that at all. My response was not at all indicative of my awareness of the existence of people such as you have referenced. Instead, I was asking you the extent of their disabilities, and your opinions regarding them.
I have countered with other questions which as I have stated, I have no answers, although I do wonder as to our legitimacy and responsibility in extending and prolonging life, as it were, in refusing to acknowledge the life after death that can be a welcome relief when not fought so arduously.
I am only offering food for thought. Jesus was the Bread of Life. His Bread was not actual food for the body (excepting the Lord's Supper), but was Bread for the spiritual body. We, as men, value the spiritual body. The Greeks certainly did. Christians, those who have accepted the Bread of Life and chew on His Word, look forward to the Eternal Life more than we hold on to this present life, don't we?