Profound questions from the Schiavo case

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | 6/16/05 | Katherine Kersten

[Jibaholic]

Then make sure your wife has a living will directing just that.

"conservatives" want to undermine marriage. A spouse is supposed to be able to make those kinds of decisions. They shouldn't have to make a separate covenant together just for end of life issues.

[Barb4Bush]

People should be permitted to make living wills. However, husbands should not be permitted to murder their wives with the help of Judges. Terri Schiavo had no living will. There was nothing in writing about her wishes.

[ravingnutter]

Suppose someone makes the wish that they not be kept on a feeding tube in a PVS.

The lesson learned in this saga...they better put it in writing or at least tell someone else (e.g., her doctor, her parents) other than the cheating husband.

Is that a choice you will allow people to make for themselves?

I am probably closer to this situation than you realize. My dad made this decision and discussed it with the whole family. Based on the diagnosis from the doctor, and quality of life issues, we respected his wishes. Terri's declaration of her wishes was only hearsay by a cheating husband, (made 7 years after she supposedly said it), who had something to gain from her death.

I also must add that it is not the peaceful death they described it as being, I have never recovered from spending 24/7 by his bedside until he died.

[cinives]

The settlement money had already been spent. This charge was made and rejected in 1998.

Gain comes in forms other than cash. How about he gets to have control over another human life and play God, then marry his long-term paramour after his wife is starved and dehydrated to death.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

What is it about adultery don't you understand ? Does adultery include the concept of "cleaving to his wife", or did he break his vows ? Wait, maybe that's called polygamy - you marry one and have a common law one... nice double standard there.

Terri told her husband that she didn't want to be kept alive. Genesis 2:23:

Right after she was declared PVS, he said he'd care for her for the rest of her life - no declaration of her wish to die under such circumstances surfaced until years later. After 7 years and several children with another woman later, he suddenly declares she wouldn't want to be kept alive. Why would you suddenly believe him after 7 years of saying the exact opposite ? He suddenly had a flashback that so conveniently released him from his obligations towards her ?

You didn't answer my question - if you became vegetative, you had no written directive and had not expressed an opinion to anyone other than your wife, and your wife was living with and had children with another man - you would want your wife to be able to starve and dehydrate you ? You think her judgement, under those circumstances, would be all about your best interest ?

[OESY]

...What we have left are the issues that started the debate in the first place. Unlike today's New York Times editorial's assertion on the subject, this was not a "right to die" case. Terri had never requested to die, not with any transparency or formality. All we had for witnesses on her state of mind was a husband who waited until after he had won a substantial lawsuit to recall a conversation in which Terri made an offhand comment about not wanting to live on a respirator, and two of his relatives who corroborated him. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, having started a new relationship with another woman and fathering two children. On the other side, Terri's parents and siblings were willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

Amd most of all, as the coroner affirmed yesterday, Terri was not dying.

Despite all of this, Florida decided that it would deliberately kill Terri on the basis of her husband's wishes, without any living will or formal indication of her state of mind. As Rick Santorum said yesterday, such a ruling should have been allowed to receive a de novo hearing in federal court for a review, just as any death-penalty case would get. Without that, essentially Terri's fate rested on two men, Michael Schiavo and Judge George Greer, who refused to release the case to another court at any point in order to get a new hearing on the merits in front of another judge. And when the state decides to kill someone who isn't dying on their own -- as opposed to stopping artificial breathing/cardiac support for those who lack any ability to survive without it -- it should have more substantial oversight before doing so, and it should have more to rely on than an estranged husband's belated recollection of a superficial, general conversation as its basis.

-- Captain Ed, captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

[Jibaholic]

Terri Schiavo had no living will. There was nothing in writing about her wishes.

Again, the covenant of marriage is not sufficient for you. Two covenants are required. You don't think that undermines marriage?

My wife and I have talked about what we want if we were ever in Terri's position, but even if we hadn't marraige means enough to me that she should have the authority to make the decision of whether or not to pull the tube.

[Jibaholic]

You didn't answer my question - if you became vegetative, you had no written directive and had not expressed an opinion to anyone other than your wife, and your wife was living with and had children with another man - you would want your wife to be able to starve and dehydrate you ?

If she settled down with him years after trying and failing to have my tube pulled, then yes.

[cinives]

See my post # 64.

My grandmother died of cancer, very painfully, some years ago. We honored her decision to voluntarily stop eating (she wasn't able to keep much down in any case) but she did keep drinking fluids. Would I have ever denied her fluids by court order, as this cabal did ? Never.

I suggest that any who have strong wishes on this subject, or who care what their end might entail, draft a living will. Then there is far less ambiguity than existed in the Schiavo case.

The scenario I posed was that you were in a PVS and could not make any wishes known or legal decisions. If you would be willing to divorce in the presence of adultery (as would I), would you want the adulterer making life and death decisions for you ? Probably not.

[Barb4Bush]

No a marriage vow is not a right to murder your spouse. I find your up is down, black is white, wrong is right twisting of the tenets of morality very disturbing.

[ravingnutter]

But what if I wasn't allowed to honor my wife's wish and have the feeding tube removed? Suppose her family objected and was able to keep her alive?

That is why I stress the importance of either having it in writing, telling other family members or her doctor. I mean, how hard is it to just tell someone else so you have a witness just in case?

Let me repeat, MS broke his vows by committing adultery while Terri was still alive, which renders your argument based on those vows void of any rational logic.

[Jibaholic]

That is why I stress the importance of either having it in writing, telling other family members or her doctor.

And that is why I stress the sanctity of the marriage covenant. It shouldn't require additional legal arragements.

[Abby4116]

I think stating your own wishes on a legal form is not undermining marriage.

[Jibaholic]

You agree that people should be allowed to make living wills, but you disagree that spouses should be given medical proxy powers over their spouse unless they specifically fill out such a form.

I guess we differ on what marriage means. To me it means medical proxy powers and a whole lot more. I think my wife and I are one flesh. Her flesh is my flesh, her bone is my bone and vice versa. I trust her and she trusts me.

[Jibaholic]

I think stating your own wishes on a legal form is not undermining marriage.

You want to require this form because without it people will not have medical proxy power for their spouse. Even when married. That undermines marriage. Marriage means one flesh.

[Barb4Bush]

I can assure you that we differ on what marriage means if you think it means you have an unqestioable right to murder your spouse.

[k2blader]

It examines the idea of "lebensunwertes Leben" -- lives not worthy of life --which the Nazis used to justify their elimination of thousands deemed unfit to live: the retarded, the defective and the seriously ill.

This is exactly the rationale behind the murder of Terri Shiavo. And, yes, some FReepers agree with it.

[k2blader]

So you would dehydrate and starve your wife over a period of several days, killing her in a way sane people would never even consider putting down their dogs?

[Jibaholic]

I can assure you that we differ on what marriage means if you think it means you have an unqestioable right to murder your spouse.

You have agreed that living wills are ok. I don't have a living will, but I trust my wife to make the right decision. You don't think that my wife should have that power unless I give it to her with a specific legal contract. To me marriage is that contract.

[Jibaholic]

So you would dehydrate and starve your wife over a period of several days, killing her in a way sane people would never even consider putting down their dogs?

I don't know what I would do in that situation. I trust her to make that decision for me, and she trusts me to make it for her. It is not the government's decision to make. What God joins together, let no man separate.

[k2blader]

I'm not talking about public opinion, I'm talking about morals.

When you're supporting state-sanctioned murder, you aren't supporting morality.