Skip to comments.California Law Provides for Killing of Non-Terminally Ill (Terri Schindler)
Posted on 03/30/2005 9:30:39 AM PST by TheDon
click here to read article
Does your state allow this type of killing?
Do you think we should allow such killing?
Since the Karen Ann Quinlin (sp?) case of 10-15 years ago, some states began making laws regarding this issue. Many institutions were keeping patients alive by artificial means in order to receive the medicaid payments, nothing more. These laws have merit, the Shiavo case notwithstanding.
Do you suppose artificial nutrition and hydration means a feeding tube? Or does it include natural nutrition and hydration supplied by another person (such as spoon feeding or inserting water into the mouth)?
As the point of the law is to kill people who cannot feed themselves, I think it would include both.
I think the monetary issue is well understood, but I'm questioning the moral issue in these cases.
Karen was removed from the respiratory. Unexpectedly, she continued to live in a vegetative state for another ten years.
Greer's latest order to kill said that MS was to cause removal of nutrition and hydration - nothing about whether it's artificial or not. Nothing about removal of a feeding tube. I guess that was just in case Terri could actually swallow.
I think that if we don't like it, we should petition the legislature, and stop pretending that Judge Greer invented the law.
Your response is jumping the gun, as I'm asking should we allow it. In other words, should we change the law to disallow the killing of the non-terminally ill?
Here's my question to the MS supporters:
For all the people who say, "Terri is/was a vegetable" and "Terri wouldn't have wanted to live this way."
Imagine Terri was your mother. Would you do to her what Michael Schiavo has done to Terri?
This is the video that should be shown on the news everynight - it is even more powerful than the balloon video.
You need Real Player to watch this, available free on the internet.
This is not reflex action - she heard the doctor, she opened her eyes as wide as she could to impress him.
Even Fox news has ignored this clip.
While a teenager, I went with my mother to the home of a young boy who was probably in a PVS. He had been hit by a car while riding his bike. We were at his home to help his mother with his daily stretching exercises. She was absolutely dedicated to caring for her son. He never did recover and after several years he passed away.
So what is your take? Do you support the killing of the non-terminally ill? If Terri had left a written will stating that she wanted to be killed under the circumstances she is currently in, do you think she should be killed? I don't.
WOW.....do you know how many people they could kill with this law? DO many old people....and almost all the people who are mentally retarded. Who the hell passed this law? Is everybody insane?
Absolutely not, I agree with you. I don't even support the killing of the terminally ill. We shouldn't starve people to death even if they request it. We may not be able to stop the conscience from killing themselves or force conscience people to take take certain life-saving treatment, but no one has the right to force the rest of us to help them die.
This was the whole reason for this post, I don't think many people realize our legislatures' have already legalized euthanasia.
I never realized that a non-terminal person could be murdered (aka.. starved to death).....that is shocking.
Those people have: 1. Done just that
2. Are wanting to do that and may not
be honest enough to say so because when
it comes to it, THEY want to be thought
of as good and kind.
They are not sick. Those people are just plain evil.
Someone told me that every state but Illinois now has this type of law. We have a lot of work to do.
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.