Posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:57 AM PST by Pendragon_6
As this is written, the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo has been removed by order of Judge George Greer and, unless a federal court intervenes, she will die a painful death by starvation in a period ranging from four to 20 days. In all the discussion of this case it seems to me that its essential morality has been overlooked. The argument seems to rage about who has the final authority in sentencing her to death. Which legislature or court, state or federal? The husband or the family? This misses the central point: Should any political entity or any individual have the right to sentence a person in a "persistent vegetative state" to death?
We need to be clear. Removing the feeding tube from Terri is not "allowing nature to take its course" or "allowing her to die." If a man locks his daughter in a closet for two weeks and gives her no food or drink, he is causing her death. Nobody would speak of letting nature take it course but about homicide. We have here a court-ordered homicide. No governmental agency or private individual should have authority to impose a sentence of this sort on an innocent human being.
Continued
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Otherwise healthy"? That you should say such a thing proves my point.
$80,000 a month sounds about right. My father's terminal care cost $70,000 for six months. He was in a nursing home, instead of a hospital, and able to feed himself until the last week when he was in a coma.
You clearly have not read the trial court ruling.
Republicans and right-to-lifers are exploiting private pain for political gain here. They are god-damned ghouls.
"What does that make Michael Schiavo, trying to kill his wife for his money?"
"Supporters of congressional intervention in the case argue that Schiavo's husband, Michael, isn't the ideal person to decide her fate. Fair enough. I wish he'd authorize an MRI of her brain, and I'm not thrilled that he's nominally married to her while living with another woman. But it's hard to ask a guy who could still have a family to forgo that for a spouse who's been checked out for 15 years. Why doesn't he divorce her so her parents can keep her on the feeding tube? He says it's because she told him she'd never want to be kept alive in such a state. His critics haven't come up with a better explanation for his persistence. Nor can they explain why, if he's such a scumbag, he refuses their offer to relieve him of financial responsibility for Terri and to let him keep her trust fund."
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2115123/
Big difference...Terry does not have cancer.
Which opens another can of worms... just HOW did she end up in this state anyway? Perhaps if she wakes up she'll have something to say (eg., "my husband strangled me", etc)?
If she dies, we'll never know.
Because....?
My questions really aren't so complicated are they, for one such as you who sees the light on this issue?
Pro-Life BUMP!
Terri's Slow-Motion Torture Death
By Msgr. James C. Brunner
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
As this is written, the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo has been removed by order of Judge George Greer and, unless a federal court intervenes, she will die a painful death by starvation in a period ranging from four to 20 days. In all the discussion of this case it seems to me that its essential morality has been overlooked. The argument seems to rage about who has the final authority in sentencing her to death. Which legislature or court, state or federal? The husband or the family? This misses the central point: Should any political entity or any individual have the right to sentence a person in a "persistent vegetative state" to death? We need to be clear. Removing the feeding tube from Terri is not "allowing nature to take its course" or "allowing her to die." If a man locks his daughter in a closet for two weeks and gives her no food or drink, he is causing her death. Nobody would speak of letting nature take it course but about homicide. We have here a court-ordered homicide. No governmental agency or private individual should have authority to impose a sentence of this sort on an innocent human being. ANH, or assisted nutrition and hydration, means only the giving of food and water to persons who get hungry and thirsty. Pope John Paul II teaches that even when provided by artificial means, it remains a natural method of preserving life and not a medical act. No one thinks that spooning food into an infant's mouth when he is incapable of feeding himself is an unnatural or medical act. Even convicted criminals and terrorists who have tried to kill us are entitled to three meals a day. On what grounds do we deny food to Terri? Judge George Greer must have graduated from the Dr. Kevorkian school of law. If he wanted to impose a death sentence why did he not just have the tube capped instead of imposing on her the additional pain of having the tube removed? Terri is supposed to be in a "persistent vegetative state." That description has an unfortunate, dehumanizing aspect. A vegetable is something that we eat. Ironically, it derives from the Latin vegetare, which means to enliven, activate, animate or quicken. Terri is not brain-dead or comatose. She is a human who cannot function at full capacity. Humanity is something that we are, not something that we do. We are human beings, not human "doings." Dehumanizing the handicapped not only lessens them but us. Michael Schiavo, Terri's estranged husband, reported (five years after she became handicapped) that Terri once remarked that she did not want to live on life support. If the report is accurate, does it also mean that she wished to undergo an agonizing death by starvation? Does the so-called right to die include the right to be tortured? There seems to be little difference between starving her and giving her strychnine except that the latter would be faster and perhaps less painful. Either set of circumstances would be a homicide. How did we come to a point that we are arguing about denying food to a human being, about a culture of death rather than a culture of life? A review of developments in Nazi Germany might be enlightening. The Nazi atrocities were based on a philosophy that made the "quality of life" more important than the "sanctity of life." The Nazis slipped into the holocaust by seven recognizable steps. 1) There was an acceptance of mercy killing to put people out of their misery. 2) When Germany suffered a severe economic crunch efforts were made to remove "useless" expenses from the budget. That led to the killing of the chronically ill with no hope of recovery (Terri Schiavo?). 3) Next came killing of the elderly who were without relatives and resources but were a burden to the state. 4) This was followed by the elimination of bums, beggars, gypsies and hopelessly poor people. 5) Then came the economy of eliminating people who were drawing welfare. 6) It was then the turn of the ideologically unwanted, political enemies of the state, "religious extremists," "disloyal" individuals who were holding the government back from providing every citizen a better quality of life. 7) Finally there came those who in the ideology of the Nazis were evolutionally unfit such as Jew and those who were not pure Aryans. Once the first step, acceptance of euthanasia was taken, all other steps followed logically. Could a holocaust happen here? Yes. A philosophy like that of Peter Singer that would permit the killing of infants under certain circumstances could serve as its intellectual underpinning. Indeed, one may say it has already begun with the killing of 40 million unborn infants by "legal" abortion. Abortion, euthanasia, cloning and embryonic stem-cell research represent a belief that certain humans should control the making and taking of human life. This is not unlike the Third Reich. Things that were once condemned as a crime against humanity at Nuremberg are now regarded as acts of compassion. Terri's death sentence has many implications. Women's and civil-rights groups are notably absent from defending Terri. Also missing are leftists who seem to believe in government by the judiciary since their positions do not gain approval in legislatures. They would like Judge Greer to be upheld because, as Cardinal Renato Martino remarked on Vatican radio: "If Mr. Schiavo succeeds legally in causing the death of his wife, this not only would be tragic in itself, but would be a great step toward the legal approval of euthanasia in the United States." Liberals rightfully are opposed to torture – except for Terri. They give the "right to die" priority over the right to live. Some liberals complain that intervention by Congress is a violation of states' rights, but they had no such concern for authority of states in court decisions overturning sodomy laws and gay marriage bans. Do we want the government to allow people to be starved to death? We are not speaking here of extraordinary means of life support, but human feeding. Are we now going to kill Alzheimer's patients who have lost all capacity for memory and are unable to function without guidance? What about Parkinson's patients? If sentencing the handicapped to death continues, people are going to die under the guise of compassion and understanding when the decision will not really be about them at all but about the convenience of others. We will be making life-and-death decisions based on how much trouble it will be for us to let them live. There are millions in nursing homes who cannot wash and feed themselves. In that sense they are very much like Terri. Her lot may soon be theirs. Roe v. Wade allowed killing human beings in the womb. Now, beginning with Terri, human beings outside the womb can be destroyed. Now judges decide who gets food and water. Dr. Kevorkian was jailed for helping to dispatch people who wanted to die. How is Terri's case any different?
(Msgr. James C. Brunner is pastor of St. Mary's Church in Victoria, Texas.)
|
"Too many people have no idea of what Congress is even doing in this matter." you said.
Congress should be doing NOTHING in this matter. Their job is to run our country, not oversee private medical decisions. I am sick and tired of congress politicizing emotional issues and pandering to special interest groups for exposure in re-election posturing.
Too many avenues of choice are counterproductive. This has been up and down for 14 years and nothing has changed with the numerous avenues already taken. One more will make no difference.
Whether you like it or not...congress represents the people of this country in all sorts of matters; people have a right to petition the government. Whether its child-abductions and things like Megan's Law or any number of benign actions that you think unsubstantial.
While I have no doubt that "some" politicians from both sides may be pandering and playing to their base, this is irrelevant since there are also deeply held beliefs on both sides who think they are doing the right thing. I know I already swithced my position once I knew more of the details in this case.
It just so happens that Terri's case is unique in that you have, again, state law, that may be in conflict with Federal law...and Constitutional protections. I'm not thrilled with these proceedings, either...but unless these issues are further vetted, we could have more serious problems down the road...especially for those who can't speak for themselves.
Keep in mind......When lawyers are allowed to write the laws, the laws will be written with loopholes to allow for further litigation, and further profit by lawyers.
In other words, most lawyers do not want to see anything settled before they get their cut.
And since congress is mostly a bunch of country club lawyers, can we trust them to improve on law?
Too many laws are knee jerk reactions that do little to improve the quality of protections. Usually, they only confuse things. So keep congress out of it.
I wish the tv camera guy would have flashed that picture on the screen while Barbara and the other fool were discussing how painless starvation is. I hope they will try it themselves since they look so excited about the prospects of dying by starvation.
How did we get to the point in this culture where the humiliation of terrorist prisoners is torture but the death of an innocent person by starvation and dehydration is not?
Democrat rally cry FOR 2008(WE KILLED TERRI SHIVO IN THE NAME OF MANS LAW)
I believe that Jesus was also killed in the name of mans law.
Excellent observation and well said.
Excellent observation and well said.
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.