Posted on 03/19/2005 11:30:38 AM PST by Ravi
No, please don't lump me in with the people here. I believe her husband, that she would not want to live like that. I know I wouldn't. I believe he is/was acting in her best interest. I do not believe he is the devil incarnate. I believe he's a man who was put in a terrible situation made worse by 10 years of legal fighting. So, I don't agree with most people here.
I only believe that because there was no written consent you must go on the side of life. Although I personally do not believe that is a life. I hope this is a wake up call for everyone to have their living wills in order.
I also don't believe her parents will be able to take care of her. She will eventually end up on the State's dime. Lying there all alone, with strangers taking care of her. But I know all of you who love Terri so much would never let that happen now, would you?
the judge is certain to make sure that the subject of his inquiry won'y be allowed to die
That's the bottom line issue here. As Hugh Hewitt said ysterday, all the stuff about the husband and his motives is speculation, diversion and irrelevant to the core issue.
Gee, Hildy, you are amazing. You have boundless faith in both MRS and "living wills."
Now you are against living wills?
I am pro-death. For convicted murderers.
If this goes back to Lazzara's courtroom (the federal judge who told the Schindlers' attorneys basically to "get lost" last time around), Terri is still in trouble.
If this goes back to Greer's courtroom to be retried, well, the day that happens is the day I grow wings and fly myself to the moon.
I hope and pray the Senators know who they're up against.
Greer and company are in it for all the marbles.
I am not against living wills, but I do not have much confidence in them as a whole. The wording can be easily manipulated by the disingenious.
You must be really fun at parties.
Don't worry..if she can't be at home with her parents for long, there are people that care. There is a whole culture of people that live their lives every day for people just like Terri.
Hildy - why do you think this? I think her family has demonstrated a remarkable dedication to her.... she has a brother (unsure of other sibling?) as well as her parents.
I am speaking from experience as our family cared for my bedridden brother for 18 years - had my parents died first - I would never have dreamed of putting him in the care of strangers..... all because of the example of my parents... There is little glamor in caring for a relative in such a state - but many joys and peace from doing the right thing.....
That is not what is going on here. These activists and others have twisted this beyond what it is.
What this is, can only be described as a death that was interrupted while there was hope for a modest recovery, but what has occurred was degradation and there is no hope any longer.
that is how the husband sees it, and he does not want to keep her in a protracted state of absolute misery with no awareness and constant muscular distress as indicated by the more sensible of assessments and the majority assessment as well.
He wants to allow her to move on to the next existence, as her time here is misery, any way you look at it.
But he did not, and is not making that decision, because he can't.
He petitioned the courts to do it, and they have. He would have lived with it either way. But now he will help her achieve the finality of death, rather than existence in between.
This is a act of compassion, not anger or greed. It has been made and approved by the courts.
That is the way I see it. and believe me when I say I have seen the so called evidence in this attempt to besmirch him.
The damage will be done by Federal interference in this matter. There are no guidelines that can be written by man to address this. These decisions are made case by case and are supposed to stay private for a very good reason.
This situation could bring laws that do not discern between those who want to pass on and those who do not. Between conditions that can be lived with and those that can't. That is what happens when protocols take the place of family held values and decisions.
Legislators, at the behest of a ill informed public, are making a huge mistake. One that we may not be able to fix.
Thanks to her husband's use of her care money on lawyers rather than treatment and his unwillingness to turn her care over to her parents who have offered to pay, she is CURRENTLY on the "state's dime" as you call it.
She'll be on the State's dime forever.
Thank you. Your rational common sense is a welcomed pleasure. Be ready for the hateful messages about to come your way.
Here's an opposing point of view, from another doctor:
http://doctorisin.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_doctorisin_archive.html
"Euthanasia is the quick fix to man's ageless struggle with suffering and disease. The Hippocratic Oath - taken in widely varying forms by most physicians at graduation - was originally administered to a minority of physicians in ancient Greece, who swore to prescribe neither euthanasia nor abortion - both common recommendations by healers of the age.
The rapid and widespread acceptance of euthanasia in pre-Nazi Germany occurred because it was eminently reasonable and rational. Beaten down by war, economic hardship, and limited resources, logic dictated that those who could not contribute to the betterment of society cease being a drain on its lifeblood.
Long before its application to ethnic groups and enemies of the State, it was administered to those who made us most uncomfortable: the mentally ill, the deformed, the retarded, the social misfit.
While invariably promoted as a merciful means of terminating suffering, the suffering relieved is far more that of the enabling society than of its victims. "Death with dignity" is the gleaming white shroud on the rotting corpse of societal fear, self-interest and ruthless self-preservation.
It is sobering and puzzling to ponder how the profession of medicine - whose core article of faith is healing and comfort of the sick - could be so effortlessly transformed into a calculating instrument of judgment and death.
It is chilling to read the cold scientific language of Nazi medical experiments or Dutch studies on optimal techniques to minimize complications in euthanasia. Yet this devolution of medicine, with some contemplation, is not hard to discern. It is the natural gravity of man detached from higher principles, operating out of the best his reason alone has to offer, with its inevitable disastrous consequences.
Contributing to this march toward depravity: The power of detachment and intellectualization.
Physicians by training and disposition are intellectualizers. Non-medical people observing surgery are invariably squeamish, personalizing the experience and often repulsed by the apparent trauma to the patient. Physicians overcome this natural response by detaching themselves from the personal, and transforming the experience into a study in technique, stepwise logical processes, and fascination with disease and anatomy. Indeed, it takes some effort to overcome this training to develop empathy and compassion. It is therefore a relatively small step with such training to turn even killing into another process to be mastered.
The dilution of personal responsibility: In Germany, the euthanasia of children was performed with an injection of Luminal, a barbituate also used for seizures and sedation of the agitated. As a result, it was difficult to determine who was personally responsible for the deed: was it the nurse, who gave too much?
The doctor, who ordered too large a dose? Was the patient overly sensitive to the drug? Was the child merely sedated, or in a terminal coma? Of course, all the participants knew what was going on, but responsibility was diluted, giving rationalization and justification full reign. The societal endorsement and widespread practice of euthanasia provided additional cover. When all are culpable, no one is culpable.
Humans have the remarkable ability to utterly separate disparate parts of their lives, to accommodate cognitive dissonance. Indeed, there is probably no other way to maintain sanity in the face of enormous personal evil.
The banality of evil: Great evil springs in countless small steps from lesser evil. Jesus Christ was doubtless not the first innocent man Pilate condemned to death; soft porn came before child porn, snuff films, and rape videos; in the childhood of the serial killer lies cruelty to animals.
Small evils harden the heart, making greater evil easier, more routine, less chilling. We marvel at the hideousness of the final act, but the descent to depravity is a gentle slope downwards.
The false optimism of expediency: Solve the problem today, deny any future consequences. We are nearsighted creatures in the extreme, seeing only the benefits of our current actions while dismissing the potential for unknown, disastrous ramifications.
When Baby Knauer, an infant with blindness, mental retardation and physical deformities, became the first child euthanized in Germany, who could foresee the horrors of Auschwitz and Dachau?
We are blind to the horrendous consequences of our wrong decisions, but see infinite visions of hope for their benefits. As a child I watched television shows touting peaceful nuclear energy as the solution to all the world's problems, little imagining the fears of the Cuban missile crisis, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the minutes before midnight of the Cold War, and the current ogre of nuclear terrorism.
Reason of itself is morally neutral; it can kill children or discover cures for their suffering and disease. Reason tempered by humility, faith, and guidance by higher moral principles has enormous potential for good - and without such restraints, enormous potential for evil.
The desire to end human suffering is morally good. Despite popular misconception, the Judeo-Christian tradition does not view suffering as something good, but rather something evil which exists, but which may be transformed and redeemed by God and grace, to ultimately produce a greater good. This is a difficult sell to a materialistic, secular world, which does not accept the transformational power of God or the existence of spiritual consequences, or principles higher than human reason.
Yet the benefits of suffering, subtle though they may be, can be discerned in many instances even by the unskilled eye.
What are the chances that Dutch doctors will find a cure for the late stage cancer or early childhood disease, when they now so quickly and "compassionately" dispense of their sufferers with a lethal injection?
Who will teach us patience, compassion, unselfish love, endurance, tenderness, and tolerance, if not those who provide us with the opportunity through their suffering, or mental or physical disability?
These are character traits not easily learned, though enormously beneficial to society as well as individuals. How will we learn them if we liquidate our teachers?
Higher moral principles position roadblocks to our behavior, warning us that grave danger lies beyond. When in our hubris and unenlightened reason we crash through them, we do so at great peril, for we do not know what evil lies beyond.
The Netherlands will not be another Nazi Germany, as frightening as the parallels may be. It will be different, but it will be evil in some unpredictable way, impossible to foresee when rationalism took the first step across that boundary to kill a patient in mercy."
Please don't. I've been taking care of my bedridden mother in my home for six years.
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.