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.
For which I salute you, but one thing I've learned reading FreeRepublic the past two weeks is don't bother trying to argue from a position of morality with people who are only interested in monetary issues.
Perhaps true! But if I don't prick their conscience, who will? I have found some are also pro-abortion, and euthanasia is more of a "I want to be in control of my body and my life" issue, i.e. I have a living will and it is none of your business.
How many people do you think knew about this before Terri's case? I'm guessing most people still don't.
I'm not begrudging you your effort. It's commendable. I'm only reflecting on the truth that, as a pro-lifer, and one who believes the courts are dangerously out of control, when it came down the crunch, I found more allies among the likes of Jesse Jackson, Alan Derschowitz, and Ralph Nader than I did among some of my FR "brethren."
LOL! As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.
Very few. I think most still think it is just a matter of bad law in Florida. I do have to give California's top court credit for stopping a similar case here a few years back, but we need to raise public awareness and change the law.
All states do except for Illinois.
I can understand not keeping people alive with machines such as heart and lung and dialisis machines, when there is no hope for treatment or recovery. Keeping them artificially alive serves little purpose if they are not contributing to the society or the family life, and a moral case can be made that is is wrong to prolong suffering by artificial means just to preserve an artificial life that has no hope of survival without artificial means.
But that is a far cry from simply removing a feeding tube, when all other bodily functions work without mechanical means. In Terri's case, I believe it was a horribly misguided and immoral decision. If a person can swallow food and water, or even if they need the tube for convenience sake (i.e. because nobody has the time or inclination to help them bring food and water to their mouth) it is, in my judgement, immoral to deny them food and water.
What happened to Terri - the demand that no food or water be fed to her by the mouth - amounts to murder in my opinion. This was a horribly wrong decision and I am wholly dismayed at the judicial system for not recognizing the immorality - and indeed the illegality - of their decision to deprive her of food and water by mouth.
That Michael Shiavo claims that Terri once said in passing "I would not want to live like that" - not even describing what "that" she was talking about (i.e. a heart & lung machine, or a feeding tube?) is considered clear and convincing evidence of a desire to die if stricken with her specific condition was an atrocious and frightful decision.
A feeding tube amounts to very little in raw costs and any claim of the financial burden of a feeding tube really only reveals the absurd and out of proportion health care costs. It is the system we have that demands a "professional level of care" instead of sending her home with her family to care for and provide the feeding tube is the problem. We have artificially increased the costs of caring for her and those like her by demanding that she be placed in a high-cost environment, when a low cost environmnet coupled with a few hours of training (i.e. how to clean the feeding insert and how to change the feeding bag) would suffice to extend her life for years to come. We have abdicated our familial and social responsibilities to the government, and then cry when the government refuses to take on that burden in the manner we expect. To a degree, only a small degree, what has happened here is the fault of Americans at large. Not only regarding health care - we have abdicated our social, welfare, security and educational responsibilities to government as well, and we are getting our just desserts for so doing.
Theresa Marie Schindler, Martyr for the Gospel of Life, pray for us.
I think we are generally of a like mind on this issue. I believe these euthanasia laws regarding the removal of nutrition and hydration are clearly immoral, regardless of the desires of the person, written or otherwise.
I did. Years and years ago.
This decision also paves the way for infanticide, since infants can't feed themselves.
What the hell is 'artificial nutrition'???
Is it nutrasweet? Is it a plastic bag? Is it wallpaper paste?
WHAT THE HELL IS ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION??
I'm off Burger King to get my artificial nutrition.
Do you know of any suggested language for changing the laws or groups that are already working to change them?
Thank for your help.
I wish I could recall what his reply to me was but it was not hopeful.
I did call some senators here and they said it was pretty much hopeless. Maybe in your state it would have a chance.
Scary stuff, we are there all ready.
Thank you. I think it's a new day now. I think a lot of people are horrified by the thought that someday they could be the one lying there starving and dehydrating to death and at the total mercy (or lack thereof) of one guardian who may have conflicts of interest.
It would be nice if California could lead the way on this.
For consideration for your ping lists.
=== Does your state allow this type of killing?
To my knowledge, all states do.
Now let's get that Living Will signed, pronto, 'cause the rest of the pieces already are in place.
=== Or does it include natural nutrition and hydration supplied by another person (such as spoon feeding or inserting water into the mouth)?
That's a good question and it's one the British courts were struggling over several years ago.
The consensus at present appears to be that, if any assistance is needed to help the patient swallow, if any "intentional" action is taken by another ... it's ANH ("Artificial Nutrition and Hydration").
This is only saying that they are giving permission, not ordering it to be done, nor ordering others (like family members) to not give food to the patient. There's a difference between the passive giving of permission and the active ordering of others to withhold food and water.
==== I guess that was just in case Terri could actually swallow.
Which she could, of course.
What's interesting about that ruling is that it's in direct conflict with Florida's statutes on care of the disabled (if not also the legislation Jeb Bush signed on Futile Care).
It's amazing to me that -- given this cruel, unusual and clearly illegal punishment inflicted on Terri -- that a state which regularly takes children from the home and even took Elian at gunpoint to deliver him to his father refused to intervene as the disabled Terri was being denied water as she was legally starved to death.
LOL! I'm sure it's lost on the victim.
LOL! Or not.
We grieve for Terri and her loving family, and also for our country. We are reaping the fruits of Roe v. Wade, which have inured us to killing: just like the Nazis did before them, the forces of evil start with the weakest, smallest and most defenseless, and work their way up until they achieve a reign of terror. How much longer before judicial tyranny becomes judicial terror? The polls suggest that we are on an irreversible path, as a solid majority seem to think it's a merciful thing to remove all hydration and nutrition from a disabled person. (We hold out hope that the pollsters prostituted themselves by the construction of the questions.)
As a parent of a mildly mentally-disabled child, I abhor and reject the future that Felos and Greer envision for our disabled friends and relatives. Terri's parents and siblings have provided a model of love for all Americans to emulate, so let us CHOOSE LIFE as our suffering Holy Father has said so often.
As much as I admire our leaders, I cannot help but be disappointed that they could not muster the courage to act with the greatness that was (and still is) called for by a higher law. Their failure to act heroically has raised the supremacy of the judicial branch yet higher. Abraham Lincoln understood the true meaning of separation of the co-equal powers, but that seems lost on our leaders of today.
If this is post-modern enlightenment, I want no part of it.
"That Michael Shiavo claims that Terri once said in passing "I would not want to live like that" - not even describing what "that" she was talking about (i.e. a heart & lung machine, or a feeding tube?) is considered clear and convincing evidence of a desire to die if stricken with her specific condition was an atrocious and frightful decision."
Yes, imagine the coaching Felos gave to MS. "Think hard, Michael. Was there EVER any time when Terri talked about wanting to die?"
"Oh, yeah, now I remember. We were watching TV one time..."