Posted on 04/05/2005 5:42:20 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
While the world’s attention is focused on saying farewell to John Paul II, a great man who died peacefully last weekend, the world is finding no peace in what it has done to Terri Schiavo. The controversy over the decision of judges to starve her to death is not going away anytime soon—and that’s a good thing.
Many commentators are suggesting that the legal fiasco surrounding Terri was foisted on us by Christian zealots. This view is totally untrue.
In fact, the most compelling argument for saving Terri was made, not by a Christian, but by Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disabled lawyer and self-professed atheist.
First, she says, Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill. This case was not about “end-of-life” decision-making; it was about intentionally killing a disabled woman by denying her food and water.
Second, Terri was not on life support. She was simply being fed through a tube. Is this method of feeding fundamentally different from feeding someone with a spoon? As Johnson puts it, “No matter how you answer that, it has nothing to do with whether a person should live or die.”
Third, Terri’s case is not about a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment—not, that is, unless we call eating and drinking “treatment.” If we do, then all of us, every time we eat a meal, are acting to artificially extend our lives.
Fourth, Terri was incapable of making a decision to refuse treatment—and had never made one before. Should someone else be allowed to make decisions for her regarding the simple act of eating and drinking?
Fifth, advocates of killing Terri claim that she was unaware of her situation and thus incapable of suffering. If that’s true, Johnson argues, then her death cannot be justified as “relieving suffering.”
Sixth, Terri left no living will, so her death cannot be justified on the grounds that it’s “what Terri would have wanted.”
Seventh, Terri, like all disabled people, is entitled to statutory protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She had the right not to be treated differently because of her disability. For the sake of consistency, would we now have to deny or remove feeding tubes from everyone?
Some good can come out of Terri’s tragedy. I suspect that people will go rushing to get living wills in order not to be put in Terri’s position. I recommend the one found on the National Right to Life Committee’s website. Terri’s murder might also inspire federal legislation to protect the rights of future Terri Schiavo’s—to ensure that lives are not snuffed out because they are inconvenient, because the spouse wants to inherit money, or for any other arbitrary reason. Congress should pass a Terri Schiavo law that would guarantee that the rights of the disabled, who, as Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) put it, “live in the shadows,” would be protected.
Life is precious; it is made in God’s image. The modern utilitarian notion that someone’s worth should be judged by what he or she can contribute to society is an abomination.
Thank you, Terri, for awakening us to the duty before us: defending human dignity and the sanctity of all human life.
"so they could get control of her money."
First they wanted their daughter to be around people who loved her and wanted the best for her. Not shut away to in a dark room for YEARS.
> The reason the Schwindlers tried to get Michael removed as his wife's guardian was so they could get control of her money.
Your statement shows your abysmal level of knowledge about much of the legal history of Terri's tragic situation.
Some years back HINO offered to transfer Terri's malpractice award to the Schindlers, but in return they would have to consent to withdrawal of her G-tube and death. They refused.
More recently, in a last ditch attempt to save Terri's life, the Schindlers offered to HINO that he could keep all remaining monies in her rehabilitation account, any monies for future book, film and movie offers and rights, and also that they would not pursue any future legal actions concerning the years he prevented any rehabilitation therapy for Terri, if only he'd transfer guardianship control over Terri to either the parents or son Bobby. HINO refused the offer.
So who's the real money-grubbing character in this horrific tragedy? It ain't the Schindlers.
> It started over money and spite...in the end only the spite was left.
Yeah. All HINO's.
I agree with you. Your mother made her wishes known -- and they were not to die (directly) but to directly refuse a specfic treatment. That same logic would, imo, apply even to those who wished tyo starve themselves to teh point of death. With each hour such a person refuses -- directly, clearly and him or herself, not through proxy or prior contract -- refuses to eat. Food is offered, and they refuse it.
So, beckysueb, if a vast majority of 28 year-old people affirm that they'd rather die than be bald, the police should reasonably be commanded to shoot to kill any Kojaks amoungst us?
My apologies! I see I misunderstood and misread your post. You were quoting KDD about his evil assertion of "resoanble" murder. Please forgive my too quick read and too quick response!
And even then the person should be encouraged to eat -- and in cases where one is dealing with situations of stubborness rather tthan impairment and near-death -- force fed.
It would be fun to compare the poll wording from the various sources. IIRC, the ABC and CBS polls began with the premise that the patient was brain dead and on life support, or the legally false premise that somebody other than the patient gets to choose (e.g., "Who would you rather have make life or death medical decisions for you, your spouse or your parents?"). Some of the exact wording of the Zogby poll questions is below, for your convenience.
Misleading the public, and forming public opinion (and somewaht, public policy) with polls and fake memos is not healthy for freedom.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375888/posts <-- Link
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked."When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.
Please provide a citation for that proposition.
What? Do you mean he's not? Can I call the polling company back and change my response?
Seriously, why would there be a given of ~10% answers going against the majority answer? Is it because people aren't listening to the questions, they're playing jokes, or what?
(How many sentences ending with a question mark can I fit into one post, anyway?)
****************
Amen. I hope some good comes of this tragedy, in the form of laws that will protect others from experiencing what Terri did. I also hope and pray that some day those who can't now understand the cruelty and callousness of what was done, will be able to finally comprehend it.
Thank you for posting this. Right on.
Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7351686&type=ME
My account, etc. of Terri Schindler's Funeral Mass:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com
KDD,
You wrote: "Well I'm happy for you that I don't provoke the apathy in you that I feel for you and your juvenile self righteous rant."
I see that you learned to at least keep your statements brief. It does reduce the risk of spelling errors and grammatical atrocities that abound in your previous confabulation.
Even so, you managed to screw up the useage in your one-liner. You cannot "feel apathy FOR someone," you may merely feel apathetic. In your case, however, pathetic would be a more fitting description of your state.
I fart in your general direction.
No problem. Actually I was in and out of this thread so I just kind of posted and ran so I didn't even see your post till just now.
KDD,
You wrote: "I fart in your general direction."
Good idea. That is probably the one activity you perform passably. Better stick to farting and leave talking to people whose brain does not reside in their colon.
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.