Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fate of Ms. Schiavo
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 82 (195564)
03-30-2005 9:18 PM


Were missing the big picture...
A more important point in this debate is whether ANYBODY'S end of life wishes need to be upheld...
Teri's husband says that his wife did not want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state, and did not want to live on life support. Because this claim cannot be refuted (at least well enough to sway a court...) social conservatives are now arguing that she is NOT in a PVS, and that a feeding/hydration tube does NOT constitute life support. This means that even if she had stated in a living will what her husband says were her wishes, we could still be having this debate...
The people fighting to keep Terri alive are arguing that if even one Dr. says she is not in a PVS, then the overwhelming medical opinion of the other doctors should be thrown out. This could greatly complicate ANYBODY'S end of life experience, if even one family member wants to dispute the medical findings...
For the sake of everyone's right to die when and how they see fit, we had all better hope that the hard right doesn't win this one...
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 82 (195882)
03-31-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by IANAT
03-30-2005 10:29 PM


"...So, in America, the great protector of individual freedom, a judge can prevent a father and mother from giving food or water to their starving daughter..."
In order to protect her individual freedom, yes. In this case, they are protecting her from THEM.
The real question is why the great protector of individuals couldn't grant the same humane end of life options to Terri that it regularly offers to dogs.
The heart attack and brain damage killed Teri, but her body didn't need to be starved to death. Even if she had left a living will, in FL euthanasia was never an option. Ironically, the same right to lifers that decried her starvation made it happen.
Citizzzen

The message is ended, go in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by IANAT, posted 03-30-2005 10:29 PM IANAT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2005 8:42 PM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 82 (197106)
04-05-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by NosyNed
03-31-2005 8:42 PM


Where do you draw the line?
...And to all the people that have suggested that Teri should have been kept alive because she wouldn't "know" the difference anyway... I am wondering where you would draw the line... If a Jewish person is in a coma, can we baptize them against their wishes? They won't know... What could we do to comatose person hat you would find over the line?
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2005 8:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 9:54 AM Citizzzen has replied

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 82 (199607)
04-15-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
04-14-2005 9:54 AM


Re: Where do you draw the line?
I just heard an update about this on NPR. Apparently, like polygamy, the official church now disapproves of this, even if individual members still do it.
Me, I can't get past the holy underwear...
Citizzzen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 04-14-2005 9:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 6:26 PM Citizzzen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024