The furor over the last several weeks over the Terri Schiavo situation has made a couple of things very clear: Living and dying is no longer a private matter. Anyone and everyone is allowed to participate in making a decision as to life or death. Further, the only decision to be made is life. Life is precious, and medical science can sustain the body for an indeterminate time period regardless brain function.
Because it is medically possible to sustain the body indeterminately, to allow anyone to die is murder. Even though it can be determined that there is no brain function at the conscious level, the body must be kept alive in the event of further medical advances that could restore full health, or a miracle recovery.
THEREFORE:
Congress must immediately pass a law abolishing death. Anyone who knowingly allows another person to pass away without benefit of respirators or feeding tubes is guilty of homicide, or at the very least, manslaughter.
Living Wills are null and void. Since life is to be preserved at all cost, there can be no ‘conditions’ placed on life preserving efforts. A living will is proof that the person doesn’t understand the neccessity of not dying, since their death would entail being murdered by a member of their family.
Please contact your insurance company for details.
The key distinctions in my opinion are as follows.
Active/Passive
Passive allows for the withdrawl of life sustaining/saving treatment.
Active actively ending the life of the individual via drugs (Assisted Suicide)
I believe both are acceptable in some situations
Volountary/Involouantary
Volountary The individual makes the decision prior to or during the treatement.
Involountary The Individual’s family/doctor/friends decide for them because they are incapable at the time of making the decision and have not made one regarding the situation previouosly.
I think once again in some situations both are acceptable.
The furor isn’t over living and dying but rather who decides and in what way we can kill another.
In Terri’s case the witness that claims she made the statement is a husband with obvious cause for bias. Under such dubious conditions it is not only advisable but essential for any person claiming any humanitarian interests to raise doubts.
The woman is Catholic. It is only natural to assume that such a decision cannot be made lightly since it is in effect, suicide. To claim that a Catholic wants to commit suicide either means that they are not Catholic or do not understand suicide. To interpret Terri’s desires on the basis of a questionable witness and determining that she wasn’t Catholic is not IMO justifiable or reflecting anything with respect to life or a person’s values.
Now as far as imposing death through dehydration and starvation, I can only say that for once and for all, man’s stupidity has been conclusively proven.
Consider all the great books and the great teachings of the distant past from so many differing sources and then entering our young nation and its thinker’s like Thoreau and Emerson and its great artists like Frederic Church. All their influence has finally culminated in the decision that the way to proceed in this problem of life and death with the helpless is to dehydrate and starve them because of the opinions of those with expertise and motives reflecting something called “The Science of Twaddle” in relation to consciousness.
Another woman, also a victim to these “experts” wrote a book about the agony she had gone through at the hands of these “experts”. She described being trapped in her body and the pain she was subjected to that no one could be aware of.
I believe that Terri, through no fault of her own, is experiencing this same horror. The fact that she has just started receiving morphine suggests that pain is suspected. Yet, it is our decision to kill in such a horrendous fashion that would not be inflicted on even the most callous criminals.
At least in times of war or in crimes of passion, I can rationalize and say to myself that people are just being people. But this case is the result of people not having the courage or humanity to admit to what they are doing for the sake of expedience and the fear of confronting this problem of respect for both life and death.
This whole unfortunate situation is an embarrassing disgrace. When Jesus said “Forgive them for they know not what they do,” no truer words were ever spoken.
I know, it’s a shame, everyone in the United States except the experts and her husband are allowed to decide whether she lives or not. Even congress’s opinion is more important than the husband’s. I am also sure that the parents aren’t biased either, and the pro-life, Christian-right protestors aren’t biased either. From what I understand of the history; the husband has drained every medical resource at his disposal. If one were to argue that we should have faith in God, then take her off of all the medical resources and see how wonderful and compassionate God will be.
It is inhumane to call her circumstance “livingâ€. She is unconsciously-consciously-dead. Your pedestal example of Kate Adamson has nothing to do with a woman who is, by all account, incapable of living. Kate Adamson was paralyzed; but her mind was aware. Shiavo’s mind is dead. Her conscious faculties are moot. Terry Shiavo is not going through any horror. She isn’t even conscious enough… her sub-conscious isn’t even “really†conscious. She is “living†in a state of death, and people are trying to force her to continue “living†that way until things magically get better.
I believe Jesus’ statement is universally applicable. Forgive those that wish ill on this woman, want her to remain in living death, for they know not what they are doing. And besides, if she dies, doesn’t she go to God; why are you trying to stop her?
Just try to drop your political agendas and religious concepts for a moment and just be honest.
What do you know about Terri? We only can know what we hear and read. What does the Christian-right or her parents love have to do with it? It is simply a matter of how to kill someone.
Kate was not different. She was the same and has said so. They pulled the feeding tube on her and finally her husband’s battle finally had it reinserted. She was thought to be brain dead just like Terri. Unfortunately she felt the tube removed and put back which was terrible.
There is enough doubt as to this diagnosis to leave open the fact that this woman is aware just like Kate was. You say she is unconsciously-consciously dead and they said the same thing about Kate. How else could the plug be pulled?
What is so hard about admitting doubt? It appears your politics allow you to accept this human sacrifice in support of it. I just cannot do it.
Being that there is such doubt this form of termination of life is callous and brutal. It saddens me to know that politics and agenda’s do not allow people to just admit that they do not know and not execute in this fashion
This is another example of political dishonesty. The feeding tube has been removed, and so she has to die slowly, and for all we know, in great pain. At any point, she could have been injected with some massive overdose of drugs to kill her instantly and painlessly, but for that, someone would go to jail. All this current method does is allow society to kill people, without anyone actually experience the guilt and blame of committing a murder.
In this particular case, we’ve reached an impasse. Nothing more can be done legally, without screwing with the Constitution, or making a mockery of the court system. Nevertheless, the law forced the wrong decision to made in this case, and we all have to eat it up. It is some small consoluation that this long, publicized, angonizing (for the family, at the very least) death will force the public’s attention towards an issue. The drama is such that it cannot be ignored.
All of that said, I am sure all the judges who decided in this case did so with the full understanding and respect for the law, and made the only choice they were able to with those considerations.
I can’t even see why this “story” made the news at all. It’s always been this way, and there’s really no aspect of the case that’s novel. The husband or wife in nearly all cases has been held to have the authority to decide matters like this. Longstanding precedent would hold that he’s well within his rights to have the tube disconnected- the absurd partisan & religiously motivated efforts of Congress to attempt an end-run around the constitution and common law is a disgrace, IMO.
As for “Kate,” well- I guess that one acedote means we can never tell in any case when someone is in a vegatative state. And since, in the dim past, people were occasionally buried while still alive, henceforth we should bury no body until it’s thoroughly decomposed! Yes! Bubonic Plague just might make a comeback!
For those having recently learned about the delights of dying by dehydration, here is Kate’s description. This is sure to evoke some “Oh how wonderfuls”. Oh yes, she was diagnosed with PVS. Here is an excerpt describing these joys
Have you ever read anything more loving? And just think of the security you have to put your faith in “experts”. They, after all, do know what’s best for you.
I do not wish to take sides, but I do agree with Nick_A.
Starvation is a pretty horrible way to die. Withdrawing food from someone and then claim to have let nature takes its course is a copout.
If we are going to let or help someone die, then let’s be consistent: make it painless. If it means injecting some substance to relieve the pain and speed up the process, then do it.
If I was with someone who was going to die, on a desert island, say, I could not assuage my conscience and elt him/her die by starvation. It seems to me more honest to kill the person. OK, active killing. But more pleasant for the person than starving to death.
To suggest that my original post contained a bit of hyperbole, well…
Still, it is the logical conclusion of man’s intervention gone wild.
Please consider: 50 years ago Terri Schiavo would have died within the first thirty days. And yes, so would have Kate. There are thousands upon thousands of people who in an unconscious or coma or ‘vegetative state’, have succumbed to the ‘will of God’ while the medicos and family looked on.
We may not agree as to the definition of life, but we have also forgotten the definition of death. It is as if the wisdom of mind and body should be ignored and death suspended forever. We practice, through the miracle of modern medicine, medical ‘torture’. Through heroic intervention we deny the mind and body their joint decision to let go. We affirm life and in the most monstrous way, deny death. Are we so arrogantly proud of our medical abilities, that we stand befor creation and deny death?
To those who would call this sad situation murder, you are missing something essential. If the body and mind has ceased to work together to sustain themselves, THERE IS A REASON. That we are capable of intervening and suspending death does not make it morally or ethically right. What is occurring in the ‘life’ or Terri Schaivo is the result of our playing God. Our hubris has denied this woman quiet dignity. We all should be ashamed.
This topic was been beaten to death already and I think it is pretty apparent that the vast majority of US citizens think Congress should not have gotten involved. Just as a vast majority of experts believe Terri is in a PVS. What this issue really comes down to is do you respect medical experts and the court, or do you put your trust in religious fundies and anti-abortion zealots?
Oh and by the way, Kate was never diagnosed as in a PVS. She was diagnosed as in a vegetative state, but not a persistant one. Once again, your gullibility has made you accept propaganda because it backs up your position.
As for the original post, I enjoyed the satire tentative. Good stuff.
This case is very revealing as to human nature. The ones that want Terri to dehydrate to death want it for legal reasons and because Republicans are so wretched. I guess a ritual sacrifice is necessary to counter the diabolical effects of Republican existence
Politics and agendas dominate any normal tendency towards mercy that would necessitate being sure in such matters before killing in this manner.
But some cream is rising to the top. I heard Rev. Jesse Jackson interviewed on the radio and he put color aside and said that this is plain wrong and is siding with and now actively fighting for Terri. He was extremely sensible in saying that mercy is above the law. That’s the message of Jesus speaking to the Pharisees when he healed on Sunday.
How anyone can vote for a slow agonizing death by dehydration in the presence of so much doubt purely for political reasons is beyond me. But when I witness the inhumanity that occurs in the world I shouldn’t be surprised that some people actually kill in this way rather than just talk of doing it.
FN
You say that Kate was diagnosed as a vegetative state as opposed to a persistent vegetative state. Everything I’ve read has said PVS. What is your source? Also food and water was taken from Kate for eight days. Are you saying that she was denied for less of a reason than Terri?
It takes a special kind of mentality to pursue agendas, politics, and self interest at the expense of people’s sufferings. Yes, I know, what is surprising about that? It happens all the time.
Tentative
The will of God has nothing to do with this. All of this is just how we’ve adapted to nature’s way.
As usual, it is exactly the opposite. We honor death at the expense of life.
Man does not play God when attempting to heal. It is the human thing to do.
Where is the quiet dignity in being dehydrated to death? Try it for a week and tell me how dignified you feel. Actually there is greater dignity in the fight of her family to allow her to live so as to determine the truth at the center of this controversy especially when there is so much killing within families.
This isn’t what I expected to say today but what the heck: A toast to Rev. Jesse Jackson for saying:
You have so missed the point that there really isn’t any reply that would satisfy you. Your mind is made up. For all of your understanding of eastern thought, how could you miss this?
Oh blow it our your ass Nick. I do not WANT Terri to die, know matter how many times you and peices of shit like Joe Scarbrough want to say it. According to the numerous court decisions, it would have been TERRI’s wish to move on. Noone actually wants her to die. As I’ve stated before this is a private family matter and should be left that way. The two parties went to court to let the courts decide and the court has made their decision. It has also been reviewed 20+ times. I think it is time that their ruling be respected.
Furthermore, this has nothing to do with my hatred of the Republican party, I am pissed that the Democrats are not standing up for the courts. This is beyond party politics. This is about those who think the Consitution should be respected and those that think it doesn’t matter.
As for Kate’s Story…I’ve seen them say that she was diagnosed in a vegetative state on a few shows that she was on. She personally stated vegetative state, not persistant vegetative state several times. If you need some more evidence just goto Kate’s website, it mentions nothing about her being diagnosed as in a PVS.
All these court decisions just say the same thing over and over. It boils down to the testimony of a suspicious husband coming out seven years later and saying something. I’m sorry, that is not just enough to warrant such a horrible death.
Courts have been wrong before and will be wrong again for several reasons including lack of new evidence. There appears to be a lot of new evidence.
The constitution is not being denied if all that is being asked for is a review under quite reasonable circumstances.
As much as you want to deny it, it is politics over mercy; the end justifies the means. It may be your way but not mine.
Find me one, one unbiased source that states Kate was in a PVS. Don’t you think that if Kate was indeed in a PVS she would mention this on her site especially since she is fighting FOR Terri?
Furthermore, the evidence is NOT based solely on the husband’s testimony. It is based on his, his brother’s, and a few friends of Terri herself. First of all, why is the husband suspicious? and second, tell me what motivation Terri’s friends would have in lying to the courts?
As for the Constitution, the seperation of powers was violated. Congress does not have the power to order a new case, and I can almost guarantee you that this law will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Step back and look at the totality of this. Terri Schiavo ‘died’ the day she slipped into her state of brain damage. Without massive medical intervention her body would have soon followed her damaged mind. She is still here because we refused to let her go. Do you really think the last 15 years have been filled with dignity for her? At what point would you suggest enough is enough?
Your ‘political’ comments need no discussion.
You speak as if you ‘know’ that Terri’s dehydration is painful and that she is suffering. The fact is, you don’t know. That Kate expressed suffering is one case among hundreds. That Kate suffered hasn’t anything to do with Terri’s state of being.
Finally, just what is your authority that allow’s you to proclaim that God’s will is being thwarted? You’ve allowed emotion to distort your view. Is this emotional? Absolutely. Painful to watch? Yes. But ask yourself, changing places with this poor woman, how many more years would you like to be held in this medical limbo? Have we no mercy?
I just did a google search of “vegetative state”, and Persistent vegetative state is all that comes up. I don’t think there is a condition called vegetative state. Someone may call another in a vegetative state but the condition itself I believe is called persistent vegetative state.
Look, when a 24 year old woman sees a person with tubes coming out of every orifice, it is natural to say I wouldn’t want to live like that and would rather be dead.
However, serious consideration is another thing. All Terri has is a feeding tube and it has been asserted by doctors that her eleven years without rehab could be reversed. Also while thinking seriously on such a decision a person would have to consider suicide in the context of their religion. I’m sorry, watching a movie or a documentary and making an off hand statement is not making a considered decision of such magnitude.
There have been others including a former girl friend that says he is lying. It is natural for his brother to support him. the point is that making the decision to kill another in such a horrendous fashion on such flimsy evidence is callous and cruel.
There are a lot of possible motives. One thing is clear. Terri’s presence has become “inconvenient”. It is often assumed best to get rid of inconvenient people when the opportunity arises.
I don’t know enough about Constitutional law to comment.
Tentative
You seem to be suggesting that those that suffer some brain damage and cannot fend for themselves should be terminated. Maybe so.
I’m a musician. I do parties on weekend nights and have a private business working with nursing homes and senior centers. Some of these people in the homes have had strokes, cancer, or something similar. I make a buck for making them happy for an hour. Maybe I should suggest that they are lacking in dignity and should be destroyed. They cannot survive on their own. Yet they still smile and enjoy life even without this dignity. Many have come to prefer being human as opposed to dignified. Its a question though: should I strive to kill them or give them some happiness? Pondering this question is worth a double scotch.
When is enough enough? It depends first on whether “enough” is humane or torture.
The only reason Kate’s situation became known was from the efforts of her husband to save her in spite of doctors. Terri doesn’t have this help. You say that Kate’s case is so unusual. It appears so because she was fortunate to get the help to recover. How many others could survive like Kate is unknown since how many have a spouse like Kate.
In case you forgot, you are the one speaking of God’s will:
I said that God’s will has nothing to do with it:
You’ve conveniently forgotten that the issue is just as much inflicting such a horrendous death on someone as the question if one would want to live.
Would I want to slowly suffer the agonies described by Kate and dehydrate to death rather then live in a disabled state? I’ll have to think on that