Posted on 03/20/2005 1:34:36 PM PST by FoxPro
It's the same line of 'reasoning' to believe that murdering unwanted children is OK that says it's also just fine to murder a less than perfect adult.
It's probably the reason that the judge ruled for the feeding tube to be removed. This case cuts too close to abortion. And for libs, we can't have that stopped.
Did you hear Schiavo's lib attorney the other day? It was beyond nauseating. And yet, somehow, people defend his position.
Did you see the article in Newsmax abut Jeb Bush being the unsung hero in all of this?
Check out the newsmax story on Jeb Bush and this case. You might learn something.
Carolyn
No, it's not. This is an adult whose life was taken from her by a tragic heart attack that deprived her of oxygen and caused her brain to die. She had told several people (husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law) that (like most of us) she didn't want to be maintained artificially.
It would've been simpler to for Michael Schiavo to walk away.
And let her parents keep pumping 'food' into her stomach and into her diapers for another 15 years. For what? So they can delude themselves that the hollow shell in the nursing home is somehow related to their daughter?
Terri's wishes are pure conjecture
No, they're not. I'm telling you my wishes right now here about my desire not to be force fed and diapered. Are my wishes 'conjecture' because you don't agree with my right to go home to Jesus in such a situation? Typical liberal response: your views count and hers are 'conjecture.'
It's the same as abortion. The mother says yes, but the baby says no. And yet is has no voice.
No, it's not. I oppose abortion on demand for the reasons you outline. But here Terri wanted to be protected from precisely the circumstances to which she has been subjected for the last 15 years. She had a voice, but the moment it was stilled by a heart attack, the politics of 'physical-life-at-any-cost' was imposed by those (to use Paul's great phrase) 'who have no hope.' 15 years of force feeding and diapering is long enough. Do you still think she needs more 'softening up' to meet your political agenda?
I've explained on the earlier thread why I feel so strongly about respecting Terri's wishes, but let me do so again.
18 months and 12 days ago, my dear wife of 39 years passed away after a 3 1/2 month battle with primary peritoneal cancer. About 10 days prior to her passing, I had to make the decision to stop chemotherapy and continue only hospice care. It was the most difficult decision of a lifetime spent making decisions for myself and for others professionally.
Yet in another sense, it was easy because my wife and I had discussed it many times over the years. She wanted me to protect her -- as I had for 39 years. Now, she didn't discuss her wishes with supermarket clerks or even, to my knowledge, with her relatives. That is not surprising to me because of the nature of the discussion; it is just not the sort of thing you discuss casually.
I'm fairly sure it came up in some of her Bible studies, but I would have been hard put to locate the people who were there and who remembered what she had said.
Moreover, while we both had durable powers of attorney expressing our desire not to be maintained by extraordinary maintenance, our durable powers did not mention the words 'chemotherapy' or 'hospice.' Fortunately, all of her physicians concurred and there was no fine, upstanding member of the plaintiff's bar standing by to drag me before a federal judge to prove that God could not perform a miracle cure.
So, I made the decision (because my wife could no longer do so) and 10 days later, my wife went Home.
Now, do I feel strongly that my superintending that decision was as important as any other protection I provided to my dear wife over 39 years? You bet. Would I have been frantic if some collection of well-intentioned but misguided folks had decided to override her wishes so clearly expressed to me? Beyond words. My obligation to her trumped social convention and civil law (although I am a lawyer) because I promised before God and man 39 years ago to 'honor and protect' her.
So that is why my blood boils to see Terri so misused. The reason for my insistence is that I was so recently there.
This has become an exercise in futility. Terri has yet to receive proper medical care. She's never had a cat scan, she's in a hospice, etc...It's a complete and total difference.
But since we're comparing. Same thing happened with my father-n-law a year and a half ago. His decision was a conscious decision made between he and his wife. He received the best in medical care and in the end it wouldn't have mattered.
And that is the difference. But like I said, "An exercise in futility."
Yes, and that's the point here. Several here think it is somehow important that Terri hasn't had a CAT scan or an MRI. Why? She probably hasn't had a test for diabetes or AIDS either, but diagnostic tests will not restore her brain. In the end, it won't matter.
The good news is that Terri has no cognizance of her force feeding and her diapers. It is demeaning and abusive to her and her memory, but she doesn't know it. So, one can argue, why not continue to put her through it and maybe someday medicine will perfect brain transplants or cloning or some other futurist remedy.
But it doesn't just demean Terri and her memory to force nutritional slurry through her bowels and into her diapers, it demeans us as a people. When we act as though only breathing counts, we witness to the world that we collectively 'have no hope' beyond the grave. How foolish.
As you put it so eloquently, "an exercise in futility."
It appears we're going to argue each other into the grave. So, we'll agree to disagree on this issue. Otherwise, we'd be beating our head against brick walls. This would be most detrimental to our future health.
So, we'll just agree to disagree. Be moderates so to speak. Now, I am sure your decision was the right one, having every intricate knowledge of your wife's health. I certainly understand your argument, but we'll just let sleeping dogs lie.
When my wife was so ill, one of the things that drove me crazy was physicians ordering up dozens of diagnostic tests which were extremely discomforting to my wife. So, I began by insisting that the ordering physician articulate for me what difference the results of the tests could make in the course of treatment. At least half the time, they could not do so.
I remember one time at M.D. Anderson, a doctor ordered a chemically-induced stress test on her heart (to be performed, remember, on a cancer patient). [The insertion of a chemical to cause the heart to race and simulate physical stress.] I found out when they were wheeling her toward cardiology. I demanded to speak to the head of cardiology who rapidly admitted it would make no difference to the course of her cancer treatment. The test was not performed.
Another 'exercise in futility.'
I agree. I get a little testy with the closed-minded morons around here who accuse those who support the judicial orders to withdraw the feeding tube of being the equivalent of Nazi prison guards. If I treated you harshly, I'm sorry.
I just heard some clips on Rush of the leftists in Congress last night, and they argued just like YOU.
Must make you proud to stand alongside the culture of death leftists, eh?
"You second statement has been false for 13 years. There was (and is) no 'evidence' that, with 'therapy', she could be in better shape. That was the unsupported contention of her doctors at the trial,"
Please provide a link, otherwise I have no reason to believe that you have any knowledge on this.
"First, Michael obtained a total of $1 million, $700,000 went to Terri's conservatorship and $300,000 to Michael on his loss of consortium claim.
Second, the malpractice case was settled, not tried, so there was no "court" in which to "bring out the point"."
Please provide a link.
"Fourth, what would be the significance of Terri's wishes on being maintained artificially in a malpractice action relating to her treatment at the time of the heart attack? Lawsuits are focused endeavors to resolve specific issues, one does not simply throw everything at the wall to see what sticks."
The significance is that the majority of the money would not have been paid since there would be no reason to pay for Terri's rehabilitation since she "didn't want to live like this".
"Terri's attorney (and Guardian ad Litem) was Richard L. Pearse, Jr. He was appointed by the court on June 11, 1998 (30 days after the petition was filed). I understand that Mr. Pearse was present throughout the trial."
Please provide a link.
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.