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 ...
I agree as well. Terri will feel no pain because she doesn't live there anymore. The circuit has been disconnected.
Of course, Terri's starvation is "nature taking its course" as much as witholding food and water from an infant is.
Bill O'Reilly claimed last night that it costs $80,000 per month to take care of her and that this is taxpayer money. Does anyone know if that is true? It's the first I heard of it.
Exactly what political gain is there to be made here??
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821 which is as good today as it was in 1821:
You know, a simple pinch test would disprove that theory.
Bill O'Reilly -- that paragon of virtue and morality -- also believes that all murderers should live, seemingly having no problem with the state paying for their upkeep.
Aren't there nurses and Doctors on this forum who can tell everyone that this is not that unusual. When my Father was ill, he was placed in hospice. He stopped eating and they gave him lasix. I remember asking why they gave him so much...it was too speed up death by dehydration. So technically, my Father died of dehydration. It was very peaceful.
2) Just to make sure, they're going to pump her full of morphine.
Ah. Great. I feel better now knowing that the murder will be painless for the victim.
But if painlessness is the goal, why don't they give her a lethal injection for having committed the crime of living?
I made the same point in my post #28. It is not unusual to die like this. The myths and inaccuracies in this story are beyond belief, especially in this day and age.
"You know, a simple pinch test would disprove that theory."
And you don't think that has been done already!???
Problem is, not all of us are that stupid or fools. This is still murder. This is murder by judicial decree. This is judicial homocide. Murder One committed by men in black stained robes.
I seriously doubt that claim. Her parents legal bills might be that high, but medical care for a person not on respirators, heart-lung machines, high amounts of expensive medications, etc couldn't possibly be $3000 per day. She's at a hospice, not in intensive care in an ER.
Anyway, would it matter what the cost is? The real question in my mind is whether the state should order the euthanization of a person when their interest in such is dubious at best, and whether starvation should be an acceptable method for realizing that result.
I'm sorry for the loss of your mother. But it appears from your statement that she made the choice for herself, clearly and consciously, prior to anyone making it for her. There is a vast difference between that scenario and Terri Schiavo's. She has no terminal disease. Her body is healthy. She is being deprived of basic sustenance on the grounds that her husband (in name only) thinks she should be dead.
"Thank G-d my endorphins finally kicked in, and I'm now in a blissful state of euphoria!"
... or... you know... not.
That might be the amount being rediverted back to the HOSPICE from their billing. But it is not being funneled directly to Terri.
I try not to assume. Can you show where that has been done, and what the result was? One of the background issues here is the motivation of Judge Greer and Terri's husband. If those motivations are unjust, then the results of a pinch test surely wouldn't get in the way of the decree.
Whether anyone is giving her drugs in order to ease the pain of her murder is not the point. She is not ill. Her body is not diseased nor elderly. This is not "nature taking it's course". She is being murdered by starvation.
You missed the program on MSNBC last night where a woman in the same situation emerged from it 20 years later. She said she could see, hear and feel everything going on around her, but was unable to communicate her thoughts to others. Inside she was screaming, "I'm alive."
I can only imagine what Terri is going through right now.
True. Many people are dying like dogs. The question is, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
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.