Posted on 11/01/2003 11:04:56 AM PST by Future Useless Eater
Leo Sandon is Distinguished Teaching Professor
Seems to me that a Distinguished Teaching Professor could learn to use better English.
BTW, have you noticed the keywords. There are a couple there that are mocking the Terri supporters. Such class, choosing to fight the fight behind a curtain!!
There are certain circumstances where written instructions would not be practical, but where the will of a person not to be sustained is made clear beyond any reasonable doubt. There should be some legal procedure to deal with such cases. If judges could be relied upon to exercise reasonable judgement, this issue wouldn't be a problem; as it is, I think legislators need to be a little bit more explicit about what things may be acceptable and what things are not.
Among other things, if someone has left written instructions that they do not wish to be fed by G-tube, but they are verbally requesting otherwise, should the written instructions take precedence? Or should there be some means of accepting oral statements in such a case?
Indeed. My point is that Terri's case doesn't so much show a problem in the law, so much as it shows a problem with a lawless judiciary. Even if the law had required "right-to-die" wishes to be "written", all that would have meant would be that Michael would have had to crudely forge something. Given a suitably cooperative judge like Greer, even a note which was obviously written in Michael's handwriting could have sufficed; if Greer declared it authentic and ignored any evidence to the contrary, the situation would be even worse for Terri than it is now.
No, it is contrary to American justice to kill the disabled, even with their consent prior to becoming disabled. Otherwise, we would have to concede one of the following two things:
or
Regarding point number two, if all persons hold equal rights, and we grant the disabled the right to be terminated at their wish, all persons must be allowed that right. Society would have to accept a universal right to suicide.
The point I made earlier was that such a right to suicide cannot exist so long as the right to life is considered unalienable. Unalienable rights cannot be surrendered or transferred. This means, paradoxically, that unalienable rights restrain our freedom, in that they prohibit the surrender of our rights. Following this logic, there can be no right to suicide under the American creed.
So yes, you could go out in the marketplace and hire somebody to kill you, Dr. Kevorkian-style, but realize that such a choice cannot be accepted in American society for everyone else's protection.
You are exaggerating. This is about killing people, it's about refusing med services. The fact is I've done that more than once. I'm obviously not dead as I was told I would be and I'm also not crippled as I was assured I would be. I've also refused it on occasion in my daughter's case. She is fine and never was in danger as the docs claimed. In fact in all docs really had to offer is lifelong crippling injury, by allowing their intervention.
You see in the end all the docs have to offer in these cases considered here is a suspention of life in some unnatural stage of death. Some people don't want to be suspended in the middle of dying. That is the essence of the topic and it does not include killing disabled folks.
Read Father Murphy's testimony." It will give you the proper perspective and the relevant scenario.
Denying any person food and water both orally and by gastrototomy (note that Michael has explicitly blocked any efforts at oral feeding/hydration for Terri) will kill them. Not 50% of the time, not 95% of the time, but 100% of the time.
Should we release from prison all those who have been accused of fatally starving their children, on the basis that they didn't kill them--they merely "let them die"?
Some people quit eating when they're dying. The only way to get them to eat is to force it and that's wrong. Folks honoring a dying man's wishes that everyone else just leave him alone is good. It's the right thing to do.
" and by gastrototomy"
Gastrotomy is a recent life support invention. I happen to live 20 east of the old fort Crawford where gastrotomy was discovered during the war of 1812, I think. I forgot the exact account, but it's at the Ft. Crawford medical museum.
"(note that Michael ..."
The topic was general, I was not addressing any specific case. If the person doesn't want med services, or any "help", then everyone else is obliged to honor the request.
I think the rehabilitation issue is a red herring. What I mean is that Terri has a right to life whether or not she can be "rehabilitated".
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, my post #31 is no exaggeration. This is a right-to-die, euthanasia case. It is not about medical choices, it is about killing a person.
Terri is a handicapped individual whose only dependency is food (like the rest of us). There is no proof that she wants to die, other than her husband's word, which is compromised by his severe conflict of interest.
You say this is about medical choice. Since Terri has no ability to make medical decisions, I can only assume you feel the husband has absolute power over his wife's care, even to the point of forcibly ending her life. The only medical choice here is Michael Schiavo's choice to have his wife killed. He could just as easily keep her alive, to the joy of her parents, and marry the woman he's been living with. Instead, he is seeking to end Terri's life.
Terri is not terminally ill. Remember, her only dependency is food. Her husband wants to withhold that necessity of life in order to cause her death.
My assertion is that no person can lawfully make that decision for another person.
My other assertion is that no person can lawfully make that decision for himself.
As I stated previously, even if Terri had specified in writing or recording a desire to be killed rather than live mentally handicapped, society should not honor that wish. To allow that right would mean that handicapped people have less protection under law. Either that, or it would mean that all persons have the right to suicide, even if they are healthy. Such a thing cannot be permitted under the American concept of justice and rights.
This is an entirely different issue than simply refusing medical care. In fact, I support you in making your own medical decisions, provided this does not mean supporting a right to intentionally commit suicide. I think we should put our lives in God's hands, and let the Lord take us as He sees fit.
I wish you well.
No it is not. The insertion of a feeding tube is medical care.
" In fact, I support you in making your own medical decisions, provided this does not mean supporting a right to intentionally commit suicide."
I have an absolute right to refuse medical care period. That goes for anyone. My right doesn't depend on your blessing, or your exaggerated and misguided view of what suicide is. Evidently you didn't resd Father Murphy's testimony.
" I think we should put our lives in God's hands, and let the Lord take us as He sees fit."
No you really don't. You're determined to dictate what God want's and force it. If you were really interested in God's thoughts on the matter, you'd be concerned about His gift and the concept of Free will and consider your attempt to usurp that will.
" Unfortunately, my post #31 is no exaggeration. This is a right-to-die, euthanasia case. It is not about medical choices, it is about killing a person."
My first post to you was in general, not about this specific case. You are wrong about RTD and euthanasia. This is about killing the person though. The central points in this case are that there is no clear indication of what Terri's will is and the docs lied to cover up the fact that she can indicate what her will really is. She's not in PVS as the said, she's aware , conscious, responsive and appears to be generally happy. This is a simple conspiracy to violate her rights. A conspiacy fed by money.
"Terri is not terminally ill.
She was unnaturally suspended at some point during her death. A death that normally comes within minutes, for a case such as hers. It is entirely reasonable that some folks don't want to be suspended in such a state.
I've been privy to about 30 cases like this. Most folks have a spouse that really considers their wishes. In the abscence of a spouse, they chose someone they trusted to act as proxy. That means they chose someone that would fight all attempts by others to violate their will. In these cases though, those that wished to violate their will were told to leave by the one refusing treatment, bith before and after they regained consciousness. The appearances of "conflicts of interest" appeared in those cases too. They were not real considerations though, because the patient's rights and will were always the guiding rule.
spunkets: "No it is not. The insertion of a feeding tube is medical care."
Yes, a feeding tube is medical care, but there is no proof Terri ever refused that medical care. There is no evidence Terri wants to die!
In the absence of that evidence, you cannot claim this is a case about medical choice. Terri has made no choice, and her estranged husband has too great a conflict of interest to make life-and-death decisions in her behalf.
Even without that conflict of interest, Michael Schiavo still would have no right to kill his wife. Further, even if Terri could request it, she would have no right to kill herself. There is no right to suicide. She is not near death, and is not terminally ill. All she needs is food. At this time, she requires special help to eat, but that does not diminish her right to live.
Suicide is the willful killing of self when, without that action, you would otherwise live. Murder and homicide are the same, only done by others to you. Both imply an interference with the will of God. God alone has the right to choose who lives and who dies. Even death by intentional starvation would qualify as suicide/murder/homicide, since it goes against the laws of nature that God has set in place for our survival.
You speak as though there was something wrong with Terri being snatched from the jaws of death. No doubt she was, as you said, "unnaturally suspended at some point during death." Yes, without medical intervention, she would have died on the floor of her house. The medics undoubtedly saved her life. Since then, she has been supplied with a feeding tube. You are absolutely right that the feeding tube is keeping her alive. Without food, anyone would die.
To follow the logic of your thesis (that death should not be unnaturally suspended), human intervention should not save someone who is dying. No effort should be made to resuscitate heart attack victims. Drowning victims should be left to drown. The Heimlich maneuver should never be employed. Paraplegics should die. Burn victims should not be saved. The course of all events leading to death should continue without human intervention.
But under the laws of the land, this would be negligent homicide. Under the laws, each person is assumed to hold the responsibility to preserve the life of others. Why is this? Because of our Judeo-Christian ethic of respect for life; because that person dying has the same unalienable right to life as yourself, and God will hold us accountable if we choose not to preserve that life.
To quote Dr. Daniel Eisenberg, a teacher of medical ethics, “It is not within our moral jurisdiction to decide what quality of life is ‘not worth living’ and therefore unworthy of treatment.” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1013422/posts)
Again, that decision belongs to God alone. When He wants to take Terri, no amount of human intervention can ultimately prevent His will.
spunkets: “I have an absolute right to refuse medical care period.”
Now, you see, that is a different matter than debating the life of Terri Schiavo. You are in a position to choose. She is not.
Incidentally, your link to Father Murphy’s testimony does not work, so I had to find it cached on google. Father Murphy stated that “a Catholic is not required to have a medical treatment if it is burdensome or useless.” He then cited an example of a elderly woman who was dying of pneumonia who had "useless" medical intervention that only kept her alive for a few more weeks. To say that applies to Terri is apples and oranges. Terri is not terminally ill. There is no evidence of her wishes. The court unlawfully ordered Terri’s death. She would have died an artificial death by having the necessities of life intentionally withheld.
Notice also that Father Murphy used the term “not required to have medical treatment.” On the flip-side, that would mean he believes a Catholic is required against his will to have certain treatment when it is deemed “useful” by an expert. I would assume he would be against the right of the Jensen family to refuse chemotherapy. I believe in medical choice. Unlike Father Murphy, I would defend the Jensen family’s right to refuse chemotherapy. Under most circumstances, no one is "required" to have any specific medical treatment when they are seeking an alternative.
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.