Terry Schiavo: the dilemma

Comments

Mar 23, 2005, 10:32:17 Tommyboy wrote:

This is tough. But it's been going on for 15 years and we only know the snapshot, but I have to side with the husband here as knowing best. Not only does the law state it, but it's a basic bible teaching that when a person enters a marriage, they become one and separate themselves from family. Sorry, that's a bad quote, but you get the idea. As sad a case this is, at least it taught me the importance of a living will, and that my spouse will have full say in my treatment. Now, I just need to cancel that 1 mil life insurance policy first.

Mar 23, 2005, 13:10:45 Dr. Chim Chim wrote:

And be nice to her Tommyboy. You piss her off and if you end up a veggie she'll keep you alive to get back at you

Mar 23, 2005, 14:16:46 Dré wrote:

Sombody, please, knock on wood...

Mar 23, 2005, 15:03:54 Get Real wrote:

the fact is that they are wanting to kill her by starvation....if she was a mass murderer on death row this would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

if they are going to kill her they should at least treat her with the level of respect they extend to criminals and give her a needle.

Mar 23, 2005, 17:10:41 Viki wrote:

good call, Mike, though it's not called a living will anymore. I think it's something like Instructions for incapacity, but it's the same thing. Not only do we need to have that clearly set out, it needs to indicate who will make those decisions and at what point. I have one but don't know if it's valid in my new province. Makes me think, call that lawyer tomorrow!

Mar 23, 2005, 17:46:01 The real deal wrote:

The whole "culture of life" falls on deaf ears when it's uttered by the same people that fully support the death penalty and the war in Iraq.

Mar 24, 2005, 08:31:02 Chim Chim wrote:

Mike, You opened a can O' worms on this one.

In response to " Get Real" though, and I say this with respect to your point of view....

They are not killing her. They are standing by and letting nature take it's course. by using medical science to try and help her was all anyone could really expect. Not having done so the first time around would have been killing her in my opinion.
Keep in mind that she ended up in this state because she had an eating disorder and was starving herself, resulting in cardiac arrest and her brain damage.

The distinct difference between her and a murderer is that she didn't wilfuly inflict harm to others. Call it pay back. You kill someone we kill you. She hurt herself, we tried to help but it's not enough this time.

Think of all the things you enjoy doing. Now think of being here and not be able to do a single movement. Does that meet your minimum standard of living?

no one want to die but that state isn't really living either.

I'll opt for kickin it with Jesus and giving Mike toe cramps.

Mar 24, 2005, 09:43:34 Get Real wrote:

The central point here doesn't have anything to do with medical science...it concerns denying a person sustenance.

How can you claim that disconnecting a feeding tube is not killing?

Once you hook 'em up you've made a committment - you reverse that committment and you're on a slippery slope to murder.

I am not one to judge others standards of living. I wonder, though, if society deems the standard to be "not being able to make a single movement" (as Chim Chim suggests) how soon it will take to start more killing?

Using this standard I suppose we should have offed Stephen Hawking ages ago.

Mar 24, 2005, 10:28:06 Chim Chim wrote:

They aren't denying her substance. She denied it to herself when she had the chance.

To sit you or I down in a room and tell us we will get nothing until we die and lock the door is denying substance. She put herself in this situation. Doctors have done all they can to try to bring her back. Sadly, she isn't.

Stephen Hawkins can communicate. he also did not bring his situation upon himself. And because he has that little box to help him communicate he can at any time tell us he's done and wants to check out. With his mental capacity and that box, perhaps his existence is worth it for him and perhaps with out that box it wouldn't be. It's a tough personal choice.

Mar 24, 2005, 10:58:44 Get Real wrote:

In your earlier post you note that she had an eating disorder - are you now claiming that she wished the disorder on herself?!?!?!

Yes, Hawking does have a box that he can communicate with...if he didn't have that box (or science hadn't yet invented it) it would it be okay to kill him, too?

Mar 24, 2005, 11:35:47 Chim Chim wrote:

She didn't wish the disorder, she did it to herself. Like taking drugs or drinking or smoking. You choose to do it. Sure, do it enough and the body creates an addiction that you can't control but you chose to start it none the less. Hawking just is that way through nature. He didn't starve himself to become incapacitated or just decide one day to never move a limb.

You can wish your hair color to be different but nature gives you what you get. Through science you can change it but science only goes so far. Eventually your roots grow out your natural color.

Terry chose to starve herself for her own reasons. Sadly this seems to have resulted into a disorder that ended up rendering her incapacitated. I'm not saying let her die as punishment for her actions though. I'm saying that nature (her body) can not sustain itself because of what she did and therefore is shutting down.

You sated earlier that the central point isn't about medical science. At some point in our history feeding tubes or talking boxes didn't exist so situations like this would be more of a sad turn of events rather than a choice of life or death. Science has helped increase our number of chioces but not answered all of our questions.

Add Comment

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me