I think you’re all just dicks.
(Excluding Bubba.)
…
I hope she gets to live.
…
…
Personally it just comes down to heart and soul ideology for me. I go to bed with my conscience and my conscience only in my head. I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve and truly believe no good can come from killing (or assisting someone to death), and no bill or law will change that for me, be it 2 or 200 years old. What does this Schiavo fellow get out of letting her go anyhow? A free pass to fuck the world? Lets face it. Lets not lie to ourselves. Despite his smooth-talking “I love her more than anything” bullshit testimony, he is concealing his own urges. Just let her parents deal with it all as they have requested. If my wife went through the same thing I would never leave her side even if it took away the rest of my life. The problem is that we in the world have to stop fighting against everything and start fighting for something. Namely love, unity, and understanding as cliche as it sounds. This just does nothing for that in my book if they let her die. All I can do is my part, and hope others “get it” somewhat. But thats life in general. I shall type no more on the subject…going to bed. Love you all, CB
| Quote (John @ Mar. 20 2005,14:13) |
| Wow. This thread has degenerated from a discussion about the viability of a woman's life to people throwing mud at Christians and Republicans. TomS has even stepped up to the plate and apologized to the rest of the world for what he perceives to be the evils of conservatism. (golf clap) Nice work. Why is this stuff even an issue? Have ya'll run out of truly relevant points to contribute to this debate? Sheesh. |
Nope, didn't throw mud at Christians, I argued, and will argue, that "Christian" politics of the Bush variety are driving things in what DeLay has been calling the "Palm Sunday compromise", not a concern for life or morality, and that this fact is merely part of a bigger problem with their so-called Christianity. This is not an attack on Christianity, rather it is an attack on hypocrisy and self-service in the name of an immoral distortion of Christianity. The repubs are the ones doing it, so, yes, I did throw mud on them, or, in less emotive terms, I criticised them. Good old American tradition.
It's an issue for the obvious reasons,
And I do feel the need to apologize for what the US has been doing. This is just another brick in the wall, and we need to look at that wall.
For those that are trying to create a diversion by accusing me of going off-topic, I suggest you have a look at the title of this thread:
“Topic: The time has come to let Terri Schiavo die, Tough, tough issue…”
In fact, I’ve been trying to keep a certain someone on topic as this person has a tendency to attack his opponent instead of defending his argument.
…And… For those of you calling me a “revisionist”… did we just learn a new word today? Do you have any clue what that means? Just how the fuck does that apply to me? The truly cute thing is when Mike throws the “revisionist” thing out there, and Bill jumps on his coat-tails. Reminds me of the little punk that hides behind the bully in the playground. Why am I wasting my time trying to have a serious debate with a bunch of idiots that possess the argumentative capabilities of a 13-year-old? “Waaaahhhh, nobody understands me!” “Waaaahhhh, you guys are all mucking up my words!” No… we understand what you’re trying to say. We just don’t agree with you.
(end of my ad hominem rant)
And now back on topic…
If you guys want so badly to see Terri die, why do you insist on torturing her by starving her to death? Why not just go ahead and give her a lethal injection and get it over with? Or how about we save the cost of the chemicals… bullets are cheap. Here’s a gun–could you pull the trigger? Or even better yet, my misguided friends… Pillows are free. Cover her face until she stops breathing. Go for it. I dare you to tell me the difference between killing her by slowly starving her to death and putting a pillow over her face. At least one is closer to humane. Do you know which one?
Anyone?
(chirp… chirp…)
Thought so.
| Quote (John @ Mar. 21 2005,08:57) |
| And now back on topic... If you guys want so badly to see Terri die, why do you insist on torturing her by *starving* her to death? Why not just go ahead and give her a lethal injection and get it over with? Or how about we save the cost of the chemicals.... bullets are cheap. Here's a gun--could you pull the trigger? Or even better yet, my misguided friends... Pillows are free. Cover her face until she stops breathing. Go for it. I dare you to tell me the difference between killing her by slowly starving her to death and putting a pillow over her face. At least one is closer to humane. Do you know which one? Anyone? (chirp...... chirp......) Thought so. |
Actually, many (perhaps most?) ethicists would agree with you, that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, if the intent is the same. Note that your argument cuts two ways. The AMA allows "passive" euthanasia of infants that are anencephalic, e.g., when it seems to many that it would be much mor ehuman in that case to pursue "active" euthanaisa. To others the lack of a distinction means that both should be prohibited.
Who ever wants to see anyone die? the idea is that sometimes death might be preferrable to life under certain conditions, but this is not the same as saying that you want the person to die.
John,
The first line of the topic is the title of the article. The second line of the topic is non-specific commentary from Mike. In the post, Mike provides background about the article and a quote. And he provides a specific commentary to the effect that he disagrees with Congress’ actions in this case.
You, and others, then attempted to pull the topic into areas in which you feel more comfortable (and you, specifically, made an as yet unsupported claim that she is not in a permanent vegetative state). Mike made several attempts to pull the discussion back onto the topic of the article but to no avail.
And now you claim that you have stayed on topic all along. That is revisionism, John. And it is so whether I learned the word yesterday or if the word figures prominently in the title of my Master’s Thesis.
The woman’s husband made a decision. And all indicators are that he has remained steadfast and true to the spirit and intent of that decision. His decision is now being actively challenged by the same people who like to portray themselves as the champions of the sanctity of marriage. Do you not feel that there is some element of hypocrisy in such a state of affairs or, at least, some inconsistency?
…
| Quote (BillClarke @ Mar. 21 2005,09:54) |
| His decision is now being actively challenged by the same people who like to portray themselves as the champions of the sanctity of marriage. Do you not feel that there is some element of hypocrisy in such a state of affairs or, at least, some inconsistency? |
And who claim to be defenders of states rights, yet in this case seek to overturn the FLA Supreme Court.
I watched the House vote last night. Welcome to the new Federalism - where the Congress & the Pres. can challenge the states & the courts if they don’t agree with the decisions they make. This bill passed with bi-partisan support I’m sorry to say. But as the leading Democratic decenter said:
"[If we pass this law] We will become a nation of men & politicians, instead of a nation of laws…"
I’m appalled at this vote but not surprised. I’m appalled at Sen. Frist for making the medical comments he made. I’m appalled at Tom Delay but he was doing what I expected him to do. His whole argument was one of morals. Every argument he used, I could use on say Death Row inmates for example, they are living & they are amongst us too.
Michael Schiavo was on the Today show this morning with his lawyer. He is pissed & he’s got a right to. He & his lawyer warned us all. Ultimately, this whole thing will get fought in the Federal courts all over again and will probably end in the same way, Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes will get pulled again.
It’s a sad day for our constitution IMO.
I'm appalled at Sen. Frist for making the medical comments he made.
FYI: Sen. Frist is a medical doctor....Dr. Frist. Should not ne make medical statements?
FYI: Sen. Frist is a medical doctor....Dr. Frist. Should not ne make medical statements?
Thank you, Ali.
I read your response as an honest, forthright statement of your feelings and it is very well put.
I believe there are some - perhaps many - issues about which people have an emotional reaction and then tend to seek only those “facts” that support their opinion. Abortion and capital punishment come to mind.
In this case, I agree with you that allowing the woman to starve to death seems barbaric and cruel. However, when your only tool is a hammer you tend to see every problem as a nail. Because of the state of the law regarding euthanasia, the only avenue open to her husband to carry out what he believes is her wish is to disconnect the feeding tube.
So much for a kinder, gentler nation.
The point is, however, that it is and should remain his decision. In a more perfect world he would have other, more humane, options of how to actualize it.
TomS - you’re right, of course. But considering that the Florida Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional a law drafted by the State Governor, the ‘will’ of the State of Florida is not so clear. It is almost as if it is more a legislative vs judicial issue rather than a clear-cut States’ Rights issue.
Do you think a heart specialist is qualified to draw these conclusions? Usually a neurologist does this - correct?
Surely you can see that the little video clip of Terri so often seen on TV could be explained be saying her brain stem is reacting to stimuli. Surely, you would agree that her reactions are not conclusive proof of any higher brain function?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Some medical professionals questioned the appropriateness of Frist challenging court-approved doctors who have treated Schiavo. Laurie Zoloth, director of bioethics for the Center for Genetic Medicine at Northwestern University, said she was surprised to hear Frist weigh in, given that he has not examined Schiavo. “It is extremely unusual – and by a non-neurologist, I might add,” Zoloth said in an interview. Were Frist rendering an official medical judgment, she said, relying on an “amateur video” could raise liability issues. After 15 years, “there should be no confusion about the medical data, and that’s what was so surprising to me about Dr. Frist disagreeing about her medical status,” Zoloth said. |
More:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| His comments raised eyebrows in medical and political circles alike. It is not every day that a high-profile physician relies on family videotapes to challenge the diagnosis of doctors who examined a severely brain-damaged patient in person… “I suspect that Senator Frist has his eye more on the Iowa caucus than the Hippocratic Oath,” said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council and former GOP Senate staffer. “This is clearly the politics of the Republican base.” |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I don’t know about the US, but if you did that to your dog in the UK, you’d be considered a criminal, and rightly so. |
BS - not even a valid comparision because people have their pets pet down all the time. If your dog was in a permanent vegetative state, you wouldn’t have to put it down - it would just die and no-one would be the wiser.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| And I still won’t, can’t, express a rationally based opinion of the Terri Shiavo case. |
So why do you keep posting on this thread?
RE: States rights vs Federal Rights
I believe this was settled in a little war that we had back the mid 1800’s. The state cannot pass a law that supercedes federal law.
The real question here is whether or not mercy-killings are legal. Is it murder to starve someone to death?
RE: Terri
I’ll see your 12 doctors and raise you 50 that think she needs to be re-examined. Did you know that her husband has steadfastly refused to allow an MRI to be performed on her?
And apparently, the her main “doctor” believes that Alzheimer’s patients should be mercy-murdered as well:
Read his own words here.
.
John,
Evidently you missed my post addressed to you on the prior page. I won’t repeat the entire post but the last paragraph reads:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The woman’s husband made a decision. And all indicators are that he has remained steadfast and true to the spirit and intent of that decision. His decision is now being actively challenged by the same people who like to portray themselves as the champions of the sanctity of marriage. Do you not feel that there is some element of hypocrisy in such a state of affairs or, at least, some inconsistency? |
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that question.
*** I’m pulling the plug on this part of the discussion ***