Skip to comments.Terri Schiavo Would Not Be Starved in Israel
Posted on 03/25/2005 12:58:40 AM PST by Nachum
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Terri Schiavo probably would not be disconnected from her feeding tube if she lived in Israel, experts here said.
A bill allowing "passive euthanasia" -- the removal of life support -- is currently under debate in the Israeli Knesset. In the first of three readings, the bill passed overwhelmingly.
But experts here noted that the bill would not affect Schiavo's case.
The pending "Terminal Patient Bill" would allow the removal of life support if the patient is terminally ill and expected to die within six months; is experiencing "great suffering"; and has "clearly requested not to be kept alive under the above circumstances."
Schiavo is not terminally ill and she did not leave any clear request regarding the termination of treatment.
"It's a very difficult case," said Professor Michel Revel, chairman of the newly created Bio-Ethics Council of Israel.
He said Schiavo would not be classified as terminally ill but would fall into the category of "somebody who is incapable or communicating with the outside world," Revel said in a telephone interview.
Nevertheless, he said, it is possible that after 15 years in a coma a court might decide in favor of a legal representative's request to disconnect life support.
The pending Israeli law is based on the principle that there can be no "active action taken to end the life of a person," Revel said. There is a very strict protocol of tests that must be administered to determine if a person is "brain dead," he said.
The Israeli law is based on Jewish law, which forbids helping someone die; but says if death is inevitable, prolonging life is not allowed.
An editorial in the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday also noted that Schiavo's case doesn't fall within the criteria laid down by the Israeli law and that the outcome here would likely have been very different.
"It is indeed hard to imagine an Israeli court ruling like the one in Florida in a case such as Schiavo's," the paper said.
"True, preserving life can sometimes risk prolonging suffering in a way that a patient would not choose. But our judicial system is right to be wary of an even greater danger, that of granting license for the elimination of incapacitated people, especially on the say-so of people who can hardly be trusted to have the patients' best interests at heart...
Avraham Ravitz, who belongs to a religious Knesset faction, supports a "passive euthanasia" law.
"It is very necessary [to have a law]. Without a law every doctor could make a decision [and] a judge is making decisions not based on [anything but] his personal feelings," Ravitz said in a telephone interview.
There have been several cases in Israel where terminally ill patients brought their cases before civil courts demanding the right to die.
But Ravitz said that the Israeli law would protect doctors.
Family members that wanted to dispose of relatives they thought were too bothersome would not be allowed to do so, nor would doctors be allowed to make a final choice for death if family members wanted to keep a relative alive.
The Israelis are so wise about so many things.
We aren't in Israel. This is silly.
Raid at Entebbe remake shot in Pinellas--breaking.
What! You're kidding!
Nevertheless, he said, it is possible that after 15 years in a coma a court might decide in favor of a legal representative's request to disconnect life support."
He is obviously misinformed about the facts. Terri has never been in a "....coma....". The entire article is corrupted - without a credible foundation - for this reason.
They didn't. The delay in their action tells me last weekend's actions were political posturing. Theatre to fire up the base ahead of the 2006 election and to position ahead of SCOTUS' vacancies. It fits with Bush's script on "liberal activist judges" from the 2004 campaign.
It seems like they have it exactly right on the morals test over there. You cannot take actions that will cause a person to die. Thus, the obligation is to help her stay alive. If a person is dying, it would be wrong to prolongue their suffering and there is no obligation to keep them alive.
Terri should not have had the feeding tube removed no matter what her husband says. She is not being "kept alive" she is just being helped to stay alive. Big difference that the judges cannot seem to comprehend.
6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.
7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame*, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
*I just noticed that the word for lame is same as for Passover.
Judge Greer has issued a clearly illegal order that no water or food can be given to Terri even by mouth. This is not just the removal of a feeding tube but this judge has denied a request by her parents to give her water and food naturally! No judge or court has this power not even for a terminally ill person which Terri is not and it does not take an attorney to figure this out. I defy anyone to find legal authorization, even in Florida law, for this order by Greer.
As is stated in another thread on an article by a doctor (William Anderson) in the Weekly Standard titled "Terri's Last Chance" there is no medical, legal or moral reason to not attempt a trial of natural drinking. He argues all the outcomes of such a trial, even if it results in a quicker death, are better than refusing to allow her to attempt to take food and water on her own. Only Greer's order stops this and such an order is not within the power of a court to make.
Jeb and George Bush should blast Judge Greer out of the water on this illegal order and immediately give her water by mouth. This could allow time to dismiss Greer for violating her human rights by his order and overturn the guardian decision. I fear everyone is so focused on the feeding tube issue that they have ignored the best opportunity of helping Terri and getting Greer off this case -- let her try to take water on her own by mouth.
My goodness man, you are right. That has to be illegal. The least they should do is see if she can eat and drink normally and if so, there is no reason at all why she should be left to die. This whole episode has got me sick to my stomach, tears my heart and hurts my head. I have no idea how or why they could rule the way they have and your post, the first I've heard of it, only confounds me further. These people are mad.
It's worth noting the rather excellent chance that she would just choke to death.
This article is indeed silly. There are a lot of people in the world that would not kill Terri Schiavo or wish to see her dead, but some how the wishes of her adultereous husband have held sway. It is beyond belief how a man who lives with another woman, and wish his wife dead, and he has paid out enough money to get his wishes to come true.
But, let this be a warning to all people. Medicare and Medicaid are facing financial hard times, and the push for euthanasia is going to be great. Any one of us may get caught up in this.
Melamed-Cohen points out that the ramifications of euthanasia advocacy go far beyond the realm of the "terminally ill." The euthanasia movement threatens to redefine the very meaning, and sanctity, of human life.
"Life today is becoming cheaper and cheaper," he observes
Living wills are going to be pushed upon people, hoping that they will say that they do not want extra ordinary care, when that may mean just food and water.
So be on the alert, for we are all a target and not just Terri. She is being starved to death at this moment, and my heart cries.
The title made me think, "What? Israel is more respectful of life than we should be?", but the article's the opposite. Another pro-death country.
How humiliating to belong to America right now. The America that claims to be such a great country, but won't give it's own healthy citizens.
Day 7 of starvation and dehydration today for Terri today.
We are so far from God that we don't know how to love a helpless, healthy person. We torture and murder her instead. We are guilty before God. We must repent.
....unless, of course, the coma patient happened to be an Arab.
Jesus would heal someone on the Sabbath and "Oh no! It's not legal!"
King David would feed his men on the Sabbath, but "Oh no it's illegal!"
The Messiah comes to offer salvation by pure GRACE. A gift. But we say, "Oh no. I'd rather insult God by trying to earn my own merit. I'd rather try to be legal."
Problem is, none of us can be perfect, which is our holy God's requirement. We can never obey enough. The Law was never intended to give life.
It was Jesus' Whose sinlessness was crucified on this Good Friday 2000 years ago, that we may have life. But because He willingly gave His life, God accepted His merit as our substitution. He was raised from the dead three days later, and was seen by over 500 eyewitnesses, whose stories could be checked. We have the eyewitness accounts preserved for us in the Bible!
It's sad to see our heritage in Israel just as sinful as we are, just as careless with life. We can start today, turning to our Savior seeking His forgiveness and grace!
The Israelis always helped the Arabs. There has never been any return of the good will, however.
They also at one time, and may still have, one of the highest abortion rates in the world
Governor Jeb Bush, firstname.lastname@example.org
Friday, March 25, 2005
The court, in 1997 when Michael announced he was'engaged' should have immediately conducted a guardianship hearing and transfered Terri to State guardianship. Because of this failure, we are in the present situation.
Questions you might consider:
(1) Why did Michael choose to 'ignore' her wishes for nearly 7 years until 1997 when he announced he was'engaged' to Jodi Centonze and 'suddenly' remembered the conversation about life support with Terri from years before?
Michael Schiavo answer would probably rationalize that it took that long before he realized there was 'no hope for recovery...'
(2) However, the 1992 malpractice suit for $20 million was based on the premise/conclusion that Terri would NOT recover and she would require constant medical care for the remainder of her life estimated by Michael Shiavo and his laywers to be 51 years(which is the normal life expectancey)...Where were her WISHES at that time?
(3) The court, in 1997 when Michael announced he was'engaged' should have immediately conducted a guardianship hearing and transfered Terri to State guardianship, at a minimum because of the obvious conflict of interest on the part of Michael Shiavo.
The court system failed to act at that point, and that is a major factor on why we are at the point we are today.
Guardianship, by law and practice, is determined to be given to that person who is most heavily 'biased' in favor of the disabled person. Under most conditions this would be the spouse. However, most prudent courts, if during the guardianship period, the appointed guardian by circumstances or accident tilts the 'bias' away from the interest of the person so guarded, would conduct and immediate review, and at a minimum, transfer guardianship to the appropriate State agency.
hope this is useful
Van & Katherine Jenerette
North Myrtle Beach, SC
Professor, Political Science, SCC
Associate, Sociology, Coastal Carolina University, South Carolina
"The Israelis are so wise about so many things."
So the Supreme Court was right to look to other countries in their Capital Punishment ruling?
"Raid at Entebbe remake shot in Pinellas--breaking."
Entebe or Waco?
He is obviously misinformed about the facts. Terri has never been in a "....coma....".
Page 10 of the GAL, Wolfson, report.
"Despite heroic attempts to resusitate, Theresa remained unconscious and slipped into a coma..."
No, that is not what I am saying.
I didn't know that.
It's not a difficult case. It is a simple case made endlessly complex by those wanting Terri dead.
Oh, yeah, I would have loved to see the Mossad save Terri.
Any country that holds human life in high esteem gets top marks from me.
I daresay what happened to the Jews immediately before the creation of their nation must hold a lot of sway in their view on these matters.
I googled "Israel;abortion" and skimmed thru some of the resulting websites. It looks like the law in Israel is that you can have a legal abortion, provided that you obtain the permission of a designated "abortion commission" and you fill one of four criteria:
1. Under 18 or over 40. (about $370)
2. Fetus has serious mental or physical defect. (free)
3. Pregnancy is result of incest, rape or extra-marital relations. (free if incest or rape; not free if extra-marital)
4. Pregnancy will cause physical or mental damage to mother. (free)
This appears to be current law, but not sure---could have been amended since websites posted. The abortion committee consists of two doctors and one social worker; no approval other than the committee's is required. Looks like most requests for abortion are approved---90 to 95% in 1992 thru 1999 per these sources. It looks like they also have a fair number of illegal abortions---16,000 in 1999, compared to 18,785 legal ones in that same year.
From these sources, of each 100 known pregnancies in Israel, between 12 and 13 end in abortion (years 1992 thru 1996).
Also from scanning various sites, it looks like abortion was legalized in Israel in the early 1970s and it also looks like their are religious groups (Jewish) that strongly object to abortion. So not unlike the US in these respects.
One additional thing---I looked for abortion statistics in the US, and it looks like there are 20 abortions per 100 known pregnancies here. Does that correlate with what you have heard?
Yes. Check C-Section rates. That's really scary
Yes. Check C-Section rates. That's really scary
"Medicare and Medicaid are facing financial hard times, and the push for euthanasia is going to be great ... The euthanasia movement threatens to redefine the very meaning, and sanctity, of human life."
I agree. Dollars and cents will be a big factor in how these people define life and in how aggressive they are in pushing earlier death. All to save Medicare/Medicaid money. It's sick.
"Living wills are going to be pushed upon people, hoping that they will say that they do not want extraordinary care, when that may mean just food and water.'
Again, I agree. In my opinion, deprivation of food and water should not even be offered as an option on a living will. It is inhumane. In my state, the standard statutory form offers you the choice to accept or reject a feeding tube and then offers you the choice to accept or reject "other life support", as if food and water are life support.
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.